Asymmetrical Information

The strategy in Fallujah is to make a show of fighting (for Iraqi and world opinion) yet to melt away and fight another day all the while dragging the "war" out . It is a time tested tactic that the USA has encountered previously . Hopefully we have learned some lessons .

They are losing sanctuary in other places. Falluja is one of the few remaining places where they can live openly without being ratted out by the locals.

Terror cells work best in "onsey" and "twosey" sized groups. When you get 8,000 people in one place, you have a hell of a problem with the simple logistics of feeding, clothing and sheltering these guys.

If you are in small groups, you can steal or scrounge enough to keep going. The fact that they are grouped up like this in falluja tells me that their sanctuaries elsewhere are not secure.

You don't understand, they want to die. The glory is in dying, it is not too important to die in a miltarily effective way.

Hopeless? See the last invasion of fallujah.

The terrorists always have to hope that we lose the will to fight; it's the only thing they have going for them.

I figure they tought the odds of us backing down again for political reasons was high enough that they were willing to put some force behind it. Not to mention that Brave Sir Akmed is no the image they want for political/recruitment purposes.

Urban warfare raises civilian casualties, and civilian casualties raise the ire of the world against the US.

Because they're dumbasses?

There was a time when an American or British citizen's life was considered more precious than the millions of dollars spent to save their lives. Sadly two jokers either side of the Atlantic (Read that as Bush and Blair) have decided that oil is more precious than the lives of their own citizens.
It is one thing dying to defend your homeland, totally another when you die to liberate your homeland. Unfortunately the soldiers have to follow orders, so they have no choice. On the 2nd Nov 2004 the American people had a choice to stop the body bags coming home. Guess the voters that day thought that their choice absolved them for responsibility. In the months to come when you share in the grief of people you have been affected think again. As far us Brits are concerned it is Thank you and Goodbye Tony Blair.

Kiran: Foreigners fighting in Iraq aren't "liberating" their "homeland".

Nor, to be perfectly blunt, are Iraqi national Ba'athist holdouts - they might be fighting to run Iraq, but "liberty" is not on the agenda.

Whining about oil suggests 1) that you imagine that somehow oil is not vital to the survival of the US and 2) that you seriously believe Iraq is of no importance to the US apart from oil; that it has no strategic importance at all.

Both of those ideas are false. (For that matter, since the US is paying for oil that Iraq sells, like everyone else, not taking it for free, if oil was the motivator alone, why wouldn't the US just cut a cushy deal with Hussein like France did, rather than invade and then buy the same oil at higher prices, due to market angst about the invasion? Hmmm? No, really, tell me why, if it's about oooiiiiiiiiiilllll.

I'd love to hear the explanation of how the evil lust for black gold has made the world's most powerful nation invade Iraq and then buy its oil at market price.)

Fallujah under jihadi control serves two purposes:

1. A blinking neon "you're not winning!" sign aimed at the US and Allawi. If they can keep Fallujah eventually people will lose faith in the chances of the US beating the jihadis.

2. A safe place to assemble car bombs, store explosives, film beheading videos, take R&R w/o worrying about informers, etc. That makes terror operations much more practical and effective.

So they've got a real motive to keep it if they think they've got a chance of winning. Best approach--have a bunch of gunmen distributed through the city. Most stay low while US comes through, then pop out of hiding to shoot at Iraqi occupation cops, forcing US to come through with tanks again. Eventually political pressure will force the US to withdraw again, leave an Iraqi force that can be suborned. It's what worked last time.

Kiran,

Iraq is of enormous strategic value to the USA. It is the centerfold of our war on terror. We would be going after it even if it had no oil. To the degree that Iraqi oil can influence the world wide oil markets, we are interested in it. We have zero interest in running the oil busuness there, and are perfectly willing to buy it on the open market.

Saddam invited us to invade his country when he laughed at UNSCR #1441. Bush told the world at that time, either the UN resolutions meant something or they didn't He was not going to be a party to twelve more years of pussyfooting around. Saddam believed his French buddies when they assured him that Bush wouldn't dare to attack. Bad advice, bad judgement. It really is that simple. Saddam could have chosen to come clean, and Bush would have had to bring the troops home.

Sigivald –

By your own admission you agree that lives can be sacrificed for the vitality of your economy, why then did the Clinton administration not do it? Your economy by Clinton standards has gone to dogs.

Would you be open to comprehending this equation I put forth?

1. The Republican Party is funded by the oil and armament companies. So they make their money when there is shortage of oil and a war!
2. If Iraq were of strategic importance in the Middle East, no doubt China would be a great place to invade next – considering that North Korea could then be targeted?

I like your subscription to the theory of Liberty. The same people (read that as George Bush Snr and Donald Rumsfeld) gave Saddam Hussein his weapons of mass destruction to use against Iran. So for all these years that this mad man was a Washington controlled stooge everyone slept in peace. That includes the time he used American supplied chemical weapons against his own people. What has changed except Dubya taking on the role of the typical Texan cowboy to revenge the attempt on his Dad’s life by Saddam Hussein, post Gulf war I.

Taking your moral high ground one step further, there were a million Tutsis killed in ethnic cleansing in Rwanda. There is ethnic violence everyday taking place in Sudan. So if the most powerful nation in the world based on morality invades a country, how come you guys are not going in to these countries?

Most of the world thinks that the average American is arrogant. What they fail to realise that this arrogance comes from ignorance, ignorance of the outside world and the basic understanding that human beings elsewhere could believe in values that are not American.

I do not want to get into a slinging match with you, but spend time reading information whose origin is not from within the US. I am sure you would be one more American in disbelief.

Kiran,

"So if the most powerful nation in the world based on morality invades a country, how come you guys are not going in to these countries?"

Because in 1994 we Americans were at peace (or, at least, very much wanted to believe that we were -- Rwanda, North Korea and the first [!] bombing of the World Trade Center notwithstanding).

In 2003, we'd had our largest city have a crater blown in it by terrorist attack, with people literally jumping a hundred stories from the top of a skyscraper before it went down in flames.

Slight difference in conditions. 9/11/01 gave the U.S. strong incentive to stop ignoring Islamofascism and fight its state sponsors instead.

And, to anticipate your next oh-so-predictable Leftist question: the reason we are choosing to wage war in Iraq and not 20 other totalitarian countries simultaneously is that the United States is a finite country with finite resources. It is neither feasible nor desirable for America to fight every single country in the world in unison, even though that strategy is implicit in the much-echoed plaint, "So if Iraq was worth fighting, why aren't you also fighting in [countries X, Y, and Z] right now?"

"... spend time reading information whose origin is not from within the US. I am sure you would be one more American in disbelief."

My reading is fine, thank you. But it looks like *you* need to get over your own arrogance and pay some attention to just why 1994 =/= 2003, as far as Americans are concerned.

Back to the original question, here's a better answer:
http://adventuresofchester.blogspot.com/2004/11/what-if-they-left-mao-and-guerrilla.html

I believe their other options are as follows:

1) Stay and blend in - They would risk arrest, detention and interrogation if they are of military age.
2) Stay and surrender - Abu Grab.
3) Move en masse - really, really bad idea.
4) Move in small groups - better, but they'll leave massive amounts of arms behind as well as risking arrest.

I suspect their leaders are thinking of their soldiers as commodities, either use them or lose them. They will evacuate as many as they can to fight another day and use the expendable ones as a press release and recruitment for more.

"... spend time reading information whose origin is not from within the US. I am sure you would be one more American in disbelief."

Because sources outside the U.S. are NEVER biased in any way. cough, BBC, cough, Gaurdian, cough, Reuters, cough, cough.

Only us 'mericans have biased news coverage.

Please,

take your tired, leftist arguments and shove them somewhere. We get our news from all over the place, thanks. Some of us even get it from Iraqis who are actually THERE. Yeah, we get some biased coverage of events, but so do YOU!!!

J

Why is it so common to defend the statement's like Kiran's attack about oil by stating definitively that the war was *not* over oil. Iraq was invaded for a variety of reasons, but foremost among them would be that they had the wherewithal to be a threat to the US. If left to their own devices, they could fund their owns ideas from their own natural resources....oil.

While I don't think the US was looking for a free pipeline (since purchasing Iraq itself might have cost less), I don't think it's fair to claim the war was absolutely not about oil.

No, the war is not about oil, but oil is a significant factor. A Baathist Iraq without oil would have mouldered in malignant poverty. That would be bad, but probably not a global threat.

However, a Bathist Iraq with enormous potential wealth would definitely be a global threat. And that's the direction things were heading, as support for the sanctions wound down in the late 1990's.

That's where ooooiiiillll fits into the picture.

my motto:

'some blood for oil!'

The terrorists won April when the US backed down in Fallujah.
It might work again if the Iraqi government tries to negotiate.

How bout this;

None of us knows how an iraqi insurgent thinks...

kiran - Try this. Perhaps if Clinton hadn't spent so much of his time acting as the Chamber of Commerce of America (for example, the gas pipeline across Afghanistan) and paid more attention to getting bin Laden we wouldn't be in the difficulties we face today, the least of which is a fairly robust economy. Or was there a problem with his administration being paralyzed, unable to deal with bin Laden, due to a "dalliance" with a certain intern that he lied about....repeatedly.

(Who let all the lefties out? I thought they were confined to asylums until at least 30 days post election.)

I like your subscription to the theory of Liberty. The same people (read that as George Bush Snr and Donald Rumsfeld) gave Saddam Hussein his weapons of mass destruction to use against Iran. So for all these years that this mad man was a Washington controlled stooge everyone slept in peace. That includes the time he used American supplied chemical weapons against his own people.

The one theory your side never seems to take seriously (although if you want to be an exception, go right ahead) is that given that there IS some truth to all of the above, who has the greatest imperative to (a) recognize that it was a dumb idea and (b) go do something about it?

Well, technically it would be China, Russia, France, and then the US, in something like that order (the US was actually one of Saddam's smaller arms suppliers), but the other three were primarily interested in maintaining the status quo -- the very one you criticize the US for helping to maintain in past times -- in exchange for continued money-making.

And if that really is the position you are taking, have your moral compass checked for the presence of rust.

Interesting reading over at BelmontClub (on Jane's link list) which suggests that the insurgency is not "terrorist" controlled, but rather part of a before the war plan of retreat and continued fighting. Sure, they're augmented by the terrorists, but it sure looks like the whole resistance was planned, organized, and implemented before we ever reached Iraqi soil.

Supposedly, the bad guy in charge gave his people a choice--either leave to fight another day or stay and become martyrs now. A lot of them chose to stay and become martyrs.

Jane's question is rather interesting. One answer I was able to come up with was that they were goaded into the fight in a manner that a pool shark will goad someone into playing for all their money. First, the city has been sealed off for some time now. Fleeing is really not an option. And what reason has the US military given them to "just melt away"? All sings up until this Tuesday pointed to a weak American military afraid of a fight. They thrust into the city, and pull back at the last moment, leaving the "insurgents" to brag about how they stood up and chased the Americans away.

With the city sealed, it became a "terrorist settling pool", where with time, continuous surveillance, and human intellegince gathering we were able to separate the good guys from the bad guys. Couple that with terrorist hubris, and you get the makings of the current situation. A rout.

Its something that basically isn't necessarily
rational under our frame of reference, (we should
know better than to expect all people to be rational
in general). Suicide bombers exist in places,
terrorists, that know they will die yet act anyway.

In some ways it actionally is rational in this
case however since they wish to keep raising controversy over the war there and especially regarding US involvement and they are achieving results:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~6439~2524396,00.html
> Sunni party leaves Iraq government, cites siege
> ..

> In the first major political backlash over the siege of Fallujah, the
> country's most prominent Sunni political party said Tuesday that it
> was withdrawing from the interim Iraqi government, while the leading
> group of Sunni clerics called for Iraqis to boycott the upcoming
> elections.

> The moves signaled that popular protest against the U.S.-led invasion,
> particularly among Sunni Arabs, is likely to grow in the coming days.

> A boycott by Sunnis, if indeed one comes to pass, would threaten the
> legitimacy of the outcome and could undermine the rationale for
> attacking Fallujah, which was to drive the insurgents out of the city
> so residents could take part in the elections. ...

> Just as ominous was the withdrawal of the Iraqi Islamic Party from the
> interim government. The party was a member of the Iraqi Governing
> Council, set up by the Americans during the occupation, and has been
> held up by U.S. and Iraqi officials as a model of Sunni participation
> in the political future of the country.

> In recent weeks, its leader, Mohsen Abdul-Hameed, had been saying he
> intended to take part in the elections.

> "After the attack on Fallujah, we decided to withdraw from the
> government because our presence in the government will be judged by
> history," Hameed, a member of the interim National Assembly, said
> Tuesday.

> The move so alarmed Prime Minister Ayad Allawi that he met privately
> with Hameed hours later. But the party stuck to its position, and an
> aide said in the afternoon that it was not clear whether the group
> will take part in the elections.

but of course the US govt. can't bother considering whether they are now contributing to the problem rather
than the solution re: letting the Iraqis resolve
things themselves since there is this automatic
need to be the ones to "win".
of course continuing US prescence there also
runs the risk of giving Bush an excuse
for dragging things on over into Iran:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~6439~2520444,00.html

> Islamic extremists have been moving supplies and new recruits from
> Iran into Iraq, say Iraqi Kurdish and Western officials, although it's
> unclear whether Tehran is covertly backing them or whether militants
> are simply taking advantage of the porous border.

> Iranian involvement with the Iraqi insurgency would be potentially
> explosive, especially given the history of U.S.-Iranian
> animosity. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said recently that Iran
> was engaged in "a lot of meddling" in Iraq but gave no details.
> ...
> Iran might also support extremists from the rival Sunni branch of
> Islam to gain influence in the Sunni community, which is powerful in
> central Iraq, and to destabilize U.S. efforts to control the country,
> some analysts say.

There has been a month for foreign fighters to get out of Falluja. I would guess that most of them left, and its not like they needed to transport weapons, so they would be indistinguishable from the Iraqis when they headed for a new town. I imagine a good number of the people fighting in Falluja are local residents with no other place to go. I also think that due to the month of bombing that preceeded our entry into Falluja most of these residents are hostile to US forces. I think Falluja is more a PR move to buck up pro-war sentiment, then good military strategy. Theres millions of tons of unsecured weapons all over Iraq, theres at least six other cities attacked by insurgents today, going into Falluja only metastisized the disease, by spreading what was a problem in Falluja to many other Iraqi cities.

As the saying goes the military is always "ready to-refight the last war, not fight the next war". The jihadist thinking about Fallujah was clearly based on Grozny and Mogadishu. They decided to hedge their bets, and reportedly half of them left, including all of their seniour leadership (bad for morale, I'm sure). The goal was to make Fallujah very expensive, possibly triggering a US pull-out, and to get a propaganda victory out of it.

There is also a pervasive tendency of insurgents to cling to bases and sanctuary areas, even past the time that it makes sense.

Bore off!

We could do the same as the French and just wave a white flag.

Kiran:
"Oil and armament companies...make their money when there is shortage of oil and a war"
Not necessarily. Oil companies can make money when oil is cheap as well as dear; they have to, as very often they have to buy the oil in the first place. Money gets made with exploration, drilling and operating contracts, trading, shipping, refining, distributing.

As for armaments, a shooting war tends to increase spending on troops, guns, bullets, boots etc. and decrease the spend on the gold-plated high-tech aerospace projects where the big money gets made.

"The same people...gave Saddam Hussein his weapons of mass destruction." "...American supplied chemical weapons..."

Oh lord, how many more times?
This tired mythology again. The Iraqi forces, equipped with such well known American products as the T-72 tank, MiG and Mirage fighters, SAM missiles, etc etc.
The Americans (I'm not one BTW) did NOT supply chemical or other weapons to Iraq. The data is out there, look it up.

"Dubya...typical Texan cowboy to revenge the attempt on his Dad’s life."
Any dictator crazy enough to try assasinating a US President is worth considering extirpating, and the father/son factor is simply irrelevant to the case.

"A million Tutsis killed in ethnic cleansing in Rwanda."
Under President Clinton.
"There is ethnic violence...in Sudan."
Several replies:
- So, you'll support my 'invade Sudan now' campaign, then?
- Be grateful for the interventions you get.
- Give them time, can't do everyting at once.
- Politics, the art of the possible.
- Ultimately, this IS NOT being done for the Iraqi's. Though it is both good, and necessary to the objective, that in the long term they benefit from liberation, the basis is political/strategic interest. And none the worse for that.

"That human beings elsewhere could believe in values that are not American."
Well, no problem for me. I certainly don't share ALL American values.
The question is, which specific values and choices do you mean?
For beyond specific American values, there are more general human ones.

It's important to remember that Islam is still stuck in the Middle Ages.

Coalition troops encountered many foreign volunteers during the invasion of Iraq. Those that were captured were almost unanimous when they explained why they would charge into our machine guns. They said that they thought Allah would descend from heaven and take a personal role in order to save the faithful from infidel bullets.

After the fall of Baghdad, reporters asked many people why they believed Saddam's information minister when he was spinning so many obvious and ridiculous lies. The answer was that they were convinced that Allah would stop the invasion forces at the city's walls. They even got rather fanciful, fantasizing about knives springing from the ground to gut the Coalition troops. (They seem to like knives, for some reason.)

You can read translated Arab news items at MEMRI or LGF. It's extremely obvious that reality and what these guys are saying are two different things. It's puzzling to people who live in the West as to why so many people would be willing to swallow such untruths, but it becomes clear when you consider that they actually believe that Allah wouldn't let fellow Muslims lie to them.

The Koran says that there will be a vast war that will bring all the world into the Dar es Salaam, or the Islamic religion. Before that happens the Muslim population of the world has to rise up and attack the infidels. Just about every terrorist is trying to find that one atrocity which will get the Muslims motivated and set the ball rolling. (Arafat promised his supporters that an attack on a minor Israeli water pumping station in 1964 was going to send the balloon up. He was wrong.)

Most of the terrorists in Fallujah are cannon fodder. They're waiting for the miracle that never materialized during the invasion of Iraq. Either that, or they're convinced that they're about to finally (finally!) set off the final war. The smart guys have already been gone for weeks.

And, like one of your other commenters stated, it could just be that they have their eye on those 72 virgins after they die as martyrs.

James

On the original topic:
I'd guess most of the leadership and skilled terrs foreign and domestic (bomb makers, spotters, money men, etc.) have moved out weeks ago.
The remnants are likely mostly local and imported shooters. Plenty more where they came from, from the leaders POV.
They need to put up enough resistance for the propaganda/political outcomes, having invested so much in their Fallujah mini-state.
The unknowable is, did the leadership anticipate this all along, or were they tempted by events into exposing themselves to a strike in Fallujah.
I suspect the latter: they came to persuade themselves that the Iraqi govt. and US were unwilling to bear the cost in blood and political ramification of taking the city, and that a secure base gave thenm major advantages in terror logistics and propaganda.

As to the motivations of the remnant fighters, all sorts: Sunni ascendancy political resentment, nationalism, religion, fear of being shot by own side (but I'll bet a lot try to get away when they can), hatred of foreigner Americans, unit cohesion, the stupidity of ill-educated adolescents, devaluation of life.

Blimey please!

John F, there is no doubt we sold wmd to Iraq. From CBS news-

The newspaper says a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague.

But former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad David Newton contended in a Post interview, "Fundamentally, the policy was justified. We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible."

According to State Department report, at his first meeting with Saddam, Rumsfeld told Hussein the U.S. wanted a full resumption of relations. While the defense secretary has since said he warned Iraq about the use of chemical weapons, notes of the meeting do not show this. Rumseld apparently did mention the chemical weapons concern in a meeting with an aide to Saddam.

Now I could add a half dozen more credible sources, but I dont want to run up the band width cost previously commented on here.

Ofcourse theres always money in oil, but its intresting that the Bush 1 took the US to war in Kuwait after having told our Ambassador to Iraq we would maintain our policy of non involvement in Arab wars. The first Bush administration is on the record saying the reason we went into Iraq was the Saudis convinced the White House that Iraq would move on the Saudis next. The problem with that is Saddam had explicitely stated many times that the only reason he went into Kuwait is he considered Kuwait still to be part of Iraq, and didnt recognize the borders the Brits drew up. Now consider that the latest Bush in the White House declared war on Iraq, because of a Saudi act of war against the US. Before you make the argument that we went into Iraq to enforce the UN treaties on WMD, or the tortured, baseless argument that democracy is a cure for terrorism, if not for 911, the war in Iraq wouldnt have happened. The fact is 911 was planned, financed, and carried out by Saudis. SA royality has been proven to have directly wired funds to 911 terrorists living in San Diego. I could go on and on about the Saudis and 911, even without the 25 pages of the 911 commissions report the White House insisted be redacted. We punished the Saudis for their involvement in 911 by vastly increasing the value of their oil. The SA madrassas is where the Islamist movement originated. Two weeks ago we learned that the SA government was financing the insurgency with huge sums of money. This week we learned that the 25 most respected SA clerics have called for international jihad against the US in Iraq. Its absolutely ridiculous to think oil is anything other then the main factor as to why we are in Iraq today.

Back to Falluja. A simple question. Why would people who already have determined there only chance against the US occupation is guerilla warfare, decide to stay and fight when you give them a months notice and their security deposit back? One other simple question, if you lived your whole life in the same place in the third world and had very little money, where would you go if it came under attack? Or would you stay and fight?

Now waitiminute, wasn't the American Revolution a minority insurgency against a superior occupying force over what? Taxation without representation? Why is it so unfathomable that nationalism wouldn't rise up in Iraq? Kiran is right to think that many here are ignorant about other cultures and people around the world. That's why 40% of America is running around thinking that Saddam Hussein was directly involved with the 9/11 attack. And the real reason behind the Iraq War was concocted by the neo-cons years ago, and oil isn't their only financial agenda for Iraq.

>>> The tone of Bremer's tenure was set with his first major act on the job: he fired 500,000 state workers, most of them soldiers, but also doctors, nurses, teachers, publishers, and printers. Next, he flung open the country's borders to absolutely unrestricted imports: no tariffs, no duties, no inspections, no taxes. Iraq, Bremer declared two weeks after he arrived, was "open for business."

One month later, Bremer unveiled the centerpiece of his reforms. Before the invasion, Iraq's non-oil-related economy had been dominated by 200 state-owned companies, which produced everything from cement to paper to washing machines. In June, Bremer flew to an economic summit in Jordan and announced that these firms would be privatized immediately. "Getting inefficient state enterprises into private hands," he said, "is essential for Iraq's economic recovery." It would be the largest state liquidation sale since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But Bremer's economic engineering had only just begun. In September, to entice foreign investors to come to Iraq, he enacted a radical set of laws unprecedented in their generosity to multinational corporations. There was Order 37, which lowered Iraq's corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to a flat 15 percent. There was Order 39, which allowed foreign companies to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets outside of the natural-resource sector. Even better, investors could take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country; they would not be required to reinvest and they would not be taxed. Under Order 39, they could sign leases and contracts that would last for forty years. Order 40 welcomed foreign banks to Iraq under the same favorable terms. All that remained of Saddam Hussein's economic policies was a law restricting trade unions and collective bargaining....
...Some people were paying attention, of course. That autumn was awash in "rebuilding Iraq" trade shows, in Washington, London, Madrid, and Amman. The Economist described Iraq under Bremer as "a capitalist dream," and a flurry of new consulting firms were launched promising to help companies get access to the Iraqi market, their boards of directors stacked with well-connected Republicans. The most prominent was New Bridge Strategies, started by Joe Allbaugh, former Bush-Cheney campaign manager. "Getting the rights to distribute Procter & Gamble products can be a gold mine," one of the company's partners enthused. "One well-stocked 7-Eleven could knock out thirty Iraqi stores; a Wal-Mart could take over the country."

Soon there were rumors that a McDonald's would be opening up in downtown Baghdad, funding was almost in place for a Starwood luxury hotel, and General Motors was planning to build an auto plant. On the financial side, HSBC would have branches all over the country, Citigroup was preparing to offer substantial loans guaranteed against future sales of Iraqi oil, and the bell was going to ring on a New York-style stock exchange in Baghdad any day"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/092604E.shtml

George Washington and groups of millitia fought a violent, bloody revolt against the Brittish over taxation they thought was unfair. This Iraq Scheme is tantamount to the annexation and privatization of an entire NATION, and you have to ASK why the insurgents are fighting our troops?

--Cobra

So, Cobra - these insurgents are willing to slaughter fellow Iraqis in order to avoid the horrors of Wal-Mart and (gasp) MacDonalds? That sounds like a perfectly proportional response to the problem to me.

Does it strike anyone as Ironic that the insurgents beheading prisoners and attacking women are demanding that foreigners leave Iraq, when they themselves are foreigners?

Comments are Closed.