Quoted:
Quoted:
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what freedoms the Iraqis end up with. My only concern is that they do not end up as a haven or sponsor for terrorists, or an ally to our enemies.
View Quote
What do you think, Cincinnatus? Will having our troops conduct house-to-house searches [b]increase[/b] or [b]decrease[/b] the level of hostility felt for Americans???
If you have trouble answering that question, re-read the original article. Note the mention of riots. That's a hint.
View Quote
Again, not a rat's ass.
I don't care.
It's war. Not a popularity contest.
Guess what?
The Kurds who fought on our side get to keep theirs (RPGs, MGs, etc.)
How 'bout that.
Now, as a collorary, will a hostile country be [b]more[/b] or [b]less[/b] likely to produce people who wish to harm the United States? That means terrorists, or underground groups that would abet the terrorists.
I dare you to answer those questions and then tell me how we should just crush the Iraqis under our bootheels if that's what it takes to "bring them peace." I'm really curious about the logical contortions one would have to go through to reconsile those apparently conflicting beliefs.
View Quote
No need for any logical contortions.
It's you who have lost sight of what victory, and defeat actually means. I think you must have bought the Clinton Doctrine of war.
To keep our country safe, we shouldn't try to make our enemies happy, as it seems you would suggest.
No, we defeat them, and frighten them, and remain vigilant.
None of this bullshit about changing our policies so that "we won't anger so many people".
Some of you people act like we can do whatever the fuck we want no matter what the Iraqis have to say about it. Newsflash! If we keep antagonizing them and royally pissing them off, we're going to have a country filled to the brim with people who want to take down the United States.
View Quote
Who cares?
If they intend to cause us harm, we will crush them.
You, on the other hand would appease and pacify.
Then we'll be seen as a "paper tiger", and vulnerable to attack....
Sounds familiar?
Many here believe that WE in this nation should be able to own crew served MGs, if that is our desire. Right?
And what I see in this thread, are people projecting their domestic RKBA concerns onto the Iraq situation.
Shouldn't therefore the Iraqis be able to keep their heavy MGs?
Shouldn't they be allowed to form militias, to fight off any future invaders (or to defend against an oppressive American occupation government)?
According to the "logic" being put forth in this thread, these would be appropriate actions.
Not too smart.