As a general rule, I don't dismiss out of hand the opinions of people with whom I disagree. One of the few exceptions I have for my own rule is when those opinions broach the subject of war. Mostly the exception comes into play, because the holder of such an opinion has never experienced the conflict over which they are opining. Other than possibly "book learning" they have nothing on which to base their opinion.
As regards the current conflict in Iraq, I not only have my own experience in Vietnam, with which to draw upon, I have the first hand experience of many troops that have served and continue to serve over in that sand box.
Here's the funny part. Each and every man I've talked to, have told me of the good that we do there. They have told me how the people in general appreciate our presence. They have told me that for the most part, the "insurgents" target their own people, because they fear the retaliation they get from targeting the military. That the "insurgents" are in fact, terrorists. Many of which are not Iraqi themselves.
That last little bit is rather tell-tale, don't you think? Especially as it is not what is reported by the MSM. Whom then do I believe?
There are 2 definitions from Webster's on insurgents:
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
Now contrast that definition with terrorism:
1 : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
2 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
When the target is more often than not, the people themselves; when the agent is more often than not, not an Iraqi national, then the label "terrorist" is more appropriate than "insurgent."
As regards the current conflict in Iraq, I not only have my own experience in Vietnam, with which to draw upon, I have the first hand experience of many troops that have served and continue to serve over in that sand box.
Here's the funny part. Each and every man I've talked to, have told me of the good that we do there. They have told me how the people in general appreciate our presence. They have told me that for the most part, the "insurgents" target their own people, because they fear the retaliation they get from targeting the military. That the "insurgents" are in fact, terrorists. Many of which are not Iraqi themselves.
That last little bit is rather tell-tale, don't you think? Especially as it is not what is reported by the MSM. Whom then do I believe?
There are 2 definitions from Webster's on insurgents:
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
Now contrast that definition with terrorism:
1 : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
2 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
When the target is more often than not, the people themselves; when the agent is more often than not, not an Iraqi national, then the label "terrorist" is more appropriate than "insurgent."
