We're going to Russia

[DodgyAgent]

Because invaders are too cowardly and prefer to sit in their bases and instead use local Iraqies in hope that it is them who will be blown up first - in essense this is the main strategy USA follows right now - minimise casualties by making sure quickly trained Iraqies are given $100 a month + AK to man checkpoints.

Naturally insurgents go first for those who in any country would be called collaborationists.

Say if Nazies invaded Britain and your neighbour would signed up for local police becaues Nazies would pay well, then who would you deal with first? Of course with local traitor because if I won't then lots more will join.

Now blowing people up at funeral processing and churches is certainly a local thing for Iraq - something like this is unlikely to have happened in resistance in Western countries, but that's just the way things are fecked up in the East - another reason not to go there.

So basically you support these insurgents despite the fact that out of the hundreds of people that they are killing very few are allied soldiers and the majority are innocent women,kids and old people?. I dont suppose you would ever consider these insurgents as being invaders themselves?

[DodgyAgent]

"Now blowing people up at funeral processing and churches is certainly a local thing for Iraq - something like this is unlikely to have happened in resistance in Western countries, but that's just the way things are fecked up in the East - another reason not to go there."

Interesting that this blot in your argument (that many more innocent Iraqis are being killed by insurgents than allied soldiers or traitors) is clumsily brushed aside into a completely irrelevant "good reasons for not going to the Middle East" aside !!!!!

[AtW]

Interesting that this blot in your argument (that many more innocent Iraqis are being killed by insurgents than allied soldiers or traitors)

Dodgy, were they blown up 3 years ago when Saddam was in power? If anything its your point of view that's responsible for deaths of innocents.

And also let me ask how many civilians were killed by the US troops? Conviniently they have policy not to count them, but I am sure as hell they do accurate counts every time a bomb goes off, strange thing is not it?

The blood of innocents in Iraq are on the hands of those who supported this war.

[DodgyAgent]

Dodgy, were they blown up 3 years ago when Saddam was in power? If anything its your point of view that's responsible for deaths of innocents.

And also let me ask how many civilians were killed by the US troops? Conviniently they have policy not to count them, but I am sure as hell they do accurate counts every time a bomb goes off, strange thing is not it?

The blood of innocents in Iraq are on the hands of those who supported this war.

I am just asking questions AtW to try and understand your point of view. I am not really expressing an opinion. You appear to be justifying the actions of "insurgents" without explaining whether or not they have any popular support. By your own argument the 2nd world war was unjustified by virtue of the fact that thousands of civilians were killed by allied forces whilst attacking Germany.

[AtW]

You appear to be justifying the actions of "insurgents" without explaining whether or not they have any popular support.

It is matter of fact - without popular support insurgency against powerful occupier will not last long, right now it is a matter of fact that Iraqie insurgents do better than 2 years ago, thus they have support of population - not all of it, which is not uncommon in history - during occupation of USSR not all nations that made up USSR supported local resistance.

By your own argument the 2nd world war was unjustified by virtue of the fact that thousands of civilians were killed by allied forces whilst attacking Germany.

It was Germany that started the war, thus any civilian casualties that were result of allied invasion were justified as the war had to be ended - and it did end.

Iraq is different situation - while Gulf War 1 was justified as it was Iraq who attacked first, the 2nd war is clearly not justified - Iraq did not attack this time, in fact, over years it was under regular attacks by USA/UK airplanes that patrolled its own air-space!

I'd rather see USA investing $400 bln it wasted on this pointless war into cancer research that kills millions of Americans.

[DodgyAgent]

It is matter of fact - without popular support insurgency against powerful occupier will not last long, right now it is a matter of fact that Iraqie insurgents do better than 2 years ago, thus they have support of population - not all of it, which is not uncommon in history - during occupation of USSR not all nations that made up USSR supported local resistance.



It was Germany that started the war, thus any civilian casualties that were result of allied invasion were justified as the war had to be ended - and it did end.

Iraq is different situation - while Gulf War 1 was justified as it was Iraq who attacked first, the 2nd war is clearly not justified - Iraq did not attack this time, in fact, over years it was under regular attacks by USA/UK airplanes that patrolled its own air-space!

I'd rather see USA investing $400 bln it wasted on this pointless war into cancer research that kills millions of Americans.

It was the UK that declared war on Germany. germany did not declare war on the UK nor did they invade the UK

[expat]

It was the UK that declared war on Germany. germany did not declare war on the UK nor did they invade the UK

No, but they did have a different conception of European Union so, as with Boney in his day, we had to go and give them some sound political advice..... sigh, the job never ends.

[AtW]

It was the UK that declared war on Germany. germany did not declare war on the UK nor did they invade the UK

Of course UK declared war on Germany - this does not mean Germany did not start it by attacking ally with whom UK had treaty! By attacking Poland (and actually Chechoslovakia in the first place) Germany effectively attacked UK and France who had written obligations to its allies.

[DodgyAgent]

Of course UK declared war on Germany - this does not mean Germany did not start it by attacking ally with whom UK had treaty! By attacking Poland (and actually Chechoslovakia in the first place) Germany effectively attacked UK and France who had written obligations to its allies.

So the justification for killing thousands of civilians is simply nothing more than a politicians signature on a piece of paper? One could argue that signing such a treaty in the first place was an act of aggression in itself.

[AtW]

So the justification for killing thousands of civilians is simply nothing more than a politicians signature on a piece of paper? One could argue that signing such a treaty in the first place was an act of aggression in itself.

You sound like a man Hitler would have liked. Treaty was defensive - it was only activated in case of attack, much like NATO treat is now, so initiator of war was certainly not the UK. At the time nobody really knew about Hitler long term plans, ie industrial style human extermination, so if looking back its good that war was declared.