An Iraqi insurgent would probably say that if the foreigners left, they could continue rebuilding their country. Sure, they would still have to defeat the other insurgent groups, but hey, nothing's perfect. :D

In any case, I don't think you can blame the insurgents alone on deaths caused by Coalition soldiers. It takes two to tango.

Fair enough. But given that Tony Blair is the person who takes the decision to send British forces into war we should at least be able to voice our concerns. </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">I've been getting irritated with politicians on both sides of the aisle over here, who seem to forget that The British, and Australians and the Pols and others are suffering casualties too....I think any member of a nation who has people fighting has valid reason to voice their concerns...even if I disagree with their particular stance.
</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">Your analogy is flawed...yes it does take two to tango...but in this case it IS THE TANGO that is getting people killed.....if the "insurgants" or Terrorists as I call them were to go back to Syria and Iran where a large number of them came from.....the problem of unnecessary deaths would go waaaaay down.
</font>

No, it isn't. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Technically, if the Coalition troops were to leave to where THEY come, most of the killings would stop as well as the attacks are aimed at foreigners.

Now, I don't support the troops just leaving, I just wanted to point out that it's not reasonable to blame the insurgents alone on the deaths. It's sounds like you're saying "Sure, we bombed some people, but THEY made us do it".

No, the Coalition is to be "blamed" for the death they cause, just as the insurgents/terrorists are to be blamed for theirs.

i almost cried when i saw the figures of death and wounded tolls for both sides. yet what really irks me are the many fellow americans who are still for the war when it has been made clear that there was an error in intelligence. no womd, no connections to osama. wrong country we've attacked.

<font color = lightgreen>I continue to lay the blame at the feet of the insurgents, because they are the ones who continue to fight when there is no reason to do so and they are the ones who prevent Iraq from being rebuilt as expeditiously as possible. They obviously don't want thier fellow countrymen to enjoy electricity or water.

Jonas, that is why I always argued that the war was to remove Hussein. He had continually defied many UN sanctions in place since 1992, perpetuated a brutal regime that prevented the Iraqi people from enjoying basic rights much of the rest of the world take for granted, and was a destabilizing force in that area of the world. Which country should we have attacked? [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font>

[ 11-02-2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">You got this partially right....There were no stockpiles of WoMD, however the final analysis of the data and the 9/11 reports show there was connections between terrorism and Saddam, no one in the Bush administration said Saddam was behind 9/11. Also the UN, Hans Blix, the French Intelligence community the British Intelligence community and the US Intelligence community all believed that he was holding out, and after lots of blustering it turns out that the leftists who said Saddam wasn't seeking yellowcake in Africa turned out to be wrong and that he was in fact doing just that....and it has also been revealed that documents found in Iraq shows that Saddam was buying off key Governmental officials and getting close to getting sanctions lifted so he COULD restart his WoMD production.....Your information is out of date and incomplete.

Unlike what John Kerry said...in the end..it was the right war and the right time in the right place AND now that that war is over, it is OUR responsibility to continue to help the people of Iraq to become a free and democratic society....and to continue the GWOT (Global War on Terrorism)
</font>

[ 11-02-2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Just because somebody is doing something wrong does that give the terrorest the right to dosomething wrong also? Where does the leave the two wrongs don't make a right crowd? The same ones that say it is wrong for the Coalition to go into Iraq?

Me, I say "Strike up the band and Let's Dance". I'm the nicest kindest well mannered Hard case SOB you'll ever meet , I'll give you the shirt off my back, but if you try to take the shirt off my back I'll rip your head off and urinate on your twitch'n corpse. A Tiger, is a Tiger, is a Tiger, you go poke'n a Tiger with a stick and he rips your face off don't come complain'n to me.

In the minds of the insurgents, there obviously is a need to continue fighting. People doens't always think completely rationally; nationalistic feelings, a dislike of the West and a fear of being marginalized plays a part as well.

I also note that there are several insurgent groups, all of whom have their own agenda. The only thing these have in common is a hate against the Coalition and most foreigners, and these would probably just fight each other if they didn't have the Coalition to worry about.