Woah.. he said it!

Wow.. my ex-favorite right wing loon finally shows his hand. Yes, everything would be so much better if we nuked Iraqi citites.

I swear I am not making this up.

My response;

I assume that since Doug is directing this post at me, my response will not be deleted. I guess we shall see.

I guess you like the Dresden model. Firebombing works to demoralize the civilian population of a nation with which we are at war, right? You assume we are at war with the Iraqi people much the same as we were with Germans in WWII? Alrighty..

I also see that you included an image of a nuclear bomb detonation, and describe turning "sand to glass", which is a euphemism for a nuclear weapon attack. You didn't actually say "use nuclear weapons", and I'm not sure why you still are not plain speaking. I'll asume you advocate nuking Iraqi cities.

What you don't understand is that the Iraq people have no complicity what-so-ever with the attacks on 9/11, nor are they substantially involved in terrorism. Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks in any case. And you want mass slaughter of civilian Iraqi's as a demonstration that if you mess with the United States, you get nuked.

Honestly.. that's why I call you a right wing loon.

There are no parallels between WWII era axis nations and the war in Iraq. We are not "at war" with Iraq. The mission, as explained by the President over and over, was to remove the regime, secure WMD's, remove the "threat", and bring "democracy". Not only was destroying the nation as some sort of payback not part of the mission, but the mission is actually accomplished, hence why we advocate getting out.

By destroying cities, the United States would have found itself alone in a horrified world. To you, that doesn't matter, but it does matter.

It really does amaze me that your issue is with the "definition of war". You don't seem to understand the differences between state aggression with a standing army, and a tactic (terrorism). It's obvious that you cannot wage a military campaign on a tactic. Even the current military leadership in Iraq has said that there is no military solution.

Finally.. I find this amusing.

Now, with us tippy-toeing around all of this politically correct B.S., we have lost the war because we have refused to fight it.

Oh, and yes, for those of you that give me grief, I do think you are unpatriotic for calling a war a lost cause as our troops fight it.

If I tried, I couldn't make up something that priceless. Yes Doug, I think you're "unpatriotic" too.. so there!

In addition, history has shown that every colonial power must leave, and it's up to the native population to determine their future. India is a great model. The English simply could not stay there, and 60 years later, India has become an economic power.

It's just amazing to me that some people have this seemingly erotic facination with death and destruction and cannot make important distinctions.

I seriously laughed out loud when he said the war is lost, and then decried us for saying the war is lost. I mean, it just doesn't get any better than that.