Terrorist/insurgent operations have been fairly constant since the invasion ended. Why should we assume this is a ploy to cover weakness?
If you want to drag WW2 into the picture you can better compare the iraqi 'insurgents' to partisans in yugoslavia. They never stopped fighting the germans. They never stopped fighting each other. They were quite effective. The germans had to leave a few divisions there just to keep in control. Compare that to france or the benelux countries where just a few thousand administrative personal could control the country by relying on the local police force.
Voodoo Child, really, do you keep track of the tempo of operations?, do you even know what operation tempo is? do you know that the terrorist are avoiding contact with American Forces, British Forces, and concentrating there operations against civilians, and the infrastructure of Iraq, What I see is that they are hoping to start a Civil War with the hope that then we will with draw, and they can benefit from the chaos, and take over the country.
We should have withdrawn to the Kurdish occupied area until the civil war worked itself out. Then, once it is stable, we could help rebuild. The same thing happened in India, I believe, once the British pulled out.
So all those dead Iraqis wouldn't cause you any difficulties? And if not, then what's the big deal that we stay there and let the Iraqis kill each other anyway? Baron Max
Actually, attacks against US troops have recently increased. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092001716.html Do you have some statistics that indicate attacks against US troops have decreased overall? I've looked and I can't find anything.
Aren't they dying now? We are just getting in the way of two parties killing each other. I'd rather our troops don't die as well. And most of our rebuilding money is going to security.
"Yes and if they had continued to stay there and "help" us, [Pakistani secession] would never have been resolved." An extremely relevant comparison- all the more so considering sam's background.
Maybe terrorists are people too, but not Iraqis http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5415216.stm 1 year in prison for murdering an iraqi. No death penalty will be sought against any of the marines involved. What kind of message does this give? Murder of Iraqis is ok. Just don't be so stupid to get caught. And if you do don't worry too much about the consequences. Or is it ok to murder in cold blood during war time?
"Or is it ok to murder in cold blood during war time?" Only for Americans, their coalition partners, American-hired mercenaries, and for American-contracted secret police in places like Syria, Israel, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Cuba, etc. etc. Otherwise, murder is a crime. Oh, and nothing that ever took place under direction of the W Bush Administration is a crime.
RTFA guys. 1 year for the medic who was there and conspired to cover it up. A light sentence in exchange for his testimony against the actual alledged murderers (who face life).
Which is not so out of line by civilian legal standards. Say a low-income, minority-American civilian paramedic was similarly involved in a highly-publicized US civilian murder case: That (hypothetical) person could face murder and conspiracy charges with life/death sentences tabled as a real possibility, leading to a state's evidence plea-bargain. A well-insured and wealthy physician might as likely be exonerated under our imperfect system, while a more socioeconomically-challenged individual might be expedited through shoddy defense into a lifetime prison term. In any case the least we should demand as Americans is a trial, with the specifics of that trial becoming public record. In some cases (especially involving officers, and cases not involving national reputation) a military court does qualify as a "jury of one's peers". But not in all. When the reputation and character of our nation is in question before the world as it clearly is now, a thorough, speedy and public trial -like honesty- is the best policy.
Well, if honesty is actually and truly what we're seeking, then it's likely that only ONE person committed murder. The others just stood there and probably did nothing to stop it, but that's a whole lot different to committing murder! So if you want honesty and truth, then you shouldn't be looking at sentences of death or life-imprisonment for the non-murderers. Yet you said: "That (hypothetical) person could face murder and conspiracy charges with life/death sentences tabled as a real possibility, leading to a state's evidence plea-bargain." Why? Baron Max
Oh, geez, Hype .....that's true, but seldom-to-never is an accomplice subject to the death penalty or even life-without-parole. It's only and always the trigger man who is the death-penalty prospect. Baron Max
"It's only and always the trigger man" If you say so. However, in the context of terrorism, capital punishment will likely be contemplated for any mastermind under due prosecution, nonwithstanding having never personally inflicted harm.
Contemplated???? ....LOL! Yeah, sure, but....? ...LOL! Shit, Hype, we "contemplate" CP for mass murderers, but very fuckin' seldom does it ever happen! Contemplate??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
