We need soldiers disguised as journalist, who spot militants and kill them. How many times have I seen video or photographs of militants, militants who kill U.S. soldiers, right there in front of the camera? A ripe time for death if you ask me.

You don't think that might make journalists etc valid targets in the eyes of these militants?

A large convoy is just asking to be attacked. Remember, a lot of these militant fighters show little regard for their own life - if you've got a huge convoy of troops going around, and then some guy with a pretty powerful bomb strapped to his back comes along and blows himself up, you're going to kill/maim a lot more of the soldiers.

 

Hm, I tend to think a larger convoy would be less of a target for militants. What's more attractive for an attack, a small patrol with a few Humvees, or a large mobilization with air support and a large amount of troops? Certainly 10 or 20 militants are not going to capture soldiers out of a convoy of 200 troops. Some of the soldiers may die in attacks but that can't be prevented in this situation.

 

What happens when the public find out about this, and sees pictures of firstly a load of Iraqis getting slaughtered by these militants, and then the US army mowing them down? There'll be an outcry. Remember, this is a politically biased war, more than anything else, and public opinion plays a majorly large role in what's going on out there.

 

I don't think the militants would slaughter the citizens, and if they did, it SHOULD bring the public against them. I meant more along the lines of food, power and work.

 

You don't think that might make journalists etc valid targets in the eyes of these militants?

 

Of course I thought of that. Maybe field reporters should be banned. Not totally, but they shouldn't be in active areas. So who's going to report the news you ask? Were there field reporters during WW2? No, and the news got around as was necessary.

I don't think the militants would slaughter the citizens, and if they did, it SHOULD bring the public against them. I meant more along the lines of food, power and work.

Remember what the guy that used to be in power did?

hang tough until the hand over, and get out of there, until then, NEVER negotiate with terrorist, hostages or not!

Very true. But if they don't like being treated that way, what's stopping them from cooperating?

Answers in hindsight:-

 

 

question or two

 

Assuming we go to war (big assumption eh)' date=' if Iraq uses chemical/biological weapons against our troops, will you say that we were right? I could be wrong, but it seems like a lot of people against war believe that saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction. If we go to war, and he uses them, will this change your mind about the war? [/quote']

 

There never were any WMD. Apparently both Bush and Blair knew this, and the real reason to go to Iraq was because, um ...*cough* ...*bad*..... *mutter* .....*freedom* ....*democracy* which is obviously what was inferred by the pre war reports.

 

What if Al Quaeda is found to be directly connected to iraq somehow, will this change your mind?

 

Still no link. Actually, whatever happened to Al Quaeda and the 'War on Terror'?

 

The reason Bush is pushing for our involvement with Iraq is national security. If either of the two aforementioned scenarios are found to be true, were we right in invading Iraq?

 

You would have been right, but apparently national security was never an issue. We misheard Bush, he was talking about metaphorical weapons.

 

High ranking defectors from Iraq have already stated that Saddam will use biological/chemical weapons against our soldiers, so I wouldn't be too suprised if they do have some stashed away..

 

Apparently, the high ranking defectors never existed. Plus, nobody ever mentioned them.

 

 

 

Sorry. I just felt a before/after view would be funny

Still no link. Actually, whatever happened to Al Quaeda and the 'War on Terror'?

 

They're in Afghanistan, and they're winning.

 

[edit]

 

The Taliban, that is.

Answers in hindsight:-

 

There never were any WMD. Apparently both Bush and Blair knew this' date=' and the real reason to go to Iraq was because, um ...*cough* ...*bad*..... *mutter* .....*freedom* ....*democracy* which is obviously what was [i']inferred[/i] by the pre war reports.

Honestly now, I'd like some evidence to support that assumption.

 

I'll respond to the rest of the post later.

Review of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction:-

 

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/

They're in Afghanistan' date=' and they're winning.

 

[edit']

 

The Taliban, that is.

 

The US should have never left Afganistan (for the most part there still remained a few)

The US never HAD Afghanistan, outside of the major cities. Now they only really 'have' Kabul.

Are they really "winning" in Afganistan? How so?

 

 

 

 

atinymonkey- I 100% agree with you. There we no WMD. I never supported the attack on Iraq and it really disgusts me now.

I don't think the strategy was ever to conquer Afghanistan. I think the priority was just to set up operations and try to gather intelligence on the Taliban and Al Qaeda. That could be the reason why there isn't a huge number of troops in that country.

That's right.

 

How many times do I have to post the link where we found shells containing sarin in Iraq?

That's right.

 

How many times do I have to post the link where we found shells containing sarin in Iraq?

 

 

Untill you actually read the report, you can shut up about them. 3 dud shells do not a holocaust bring.

Besides, there is no proof that the shells were there before the war started. The WMDs used to kill kurds were given by the US!

3?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5568967

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1551580,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html

 

More than that.

Besides, there is no proof that the shells were there before[/i'] the war started.

 

The shells, which date from before Iraq's 1991 invasion of Kuwait

 

Ahem.

Are they really "winning" in Afganistan? How so?

 

I'd say that controlling most of the country counts as 'winning'.

 

[edit]

 

That's the taliban and the warlords; they're not the same group, but I used the word 'taliban' as shorthand, as it didn't really matter.

FOX news, according to my sources, misguided 95+% of viewers on the war in Iraq. Moreover, FOX news would put anything -correct or false- on their media stations to make their point.

Are you refuting my claims?

 

There were two other sources there.

FOX news, according to my sources, misguided 95+% of viewers on the war in Iraq[/b']. Moreover, FOX news would put anything -correct or false- on their media stations to make their point.

What about the other 5%?

How did they misguide them?

What are your sources?

Are you refuting my claims?

 

Are you strawmanning ATM?

I'm sorry, I don't know what strawmanning means.

I'm sorry, I don't know what strawmanning means.

 

That's irrelevent. What is relevent is you have completely ignored his comments.