posted 07-30-2003 09:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:

btw, how's ollie doing ?

---

FW doesn't even read the other posts from his/her/it's fellow RNC minions.

How sad!

posted 07-30-2003 09:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fastwalker:
Geez...this is truly psychotic. What does Ollie North have to do with anything?

---

Thinking for one's self Liberal vs a dittohead braindead conservative.

No contest!

posted 07-30-2003 09:56 PM            

Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is hard Wilsonianism. In many ways, there is nothing neo about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-op the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.

More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former TROTSKYISTS. Liberal Christopher Hitchins, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor LEO STRAUSS of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss� books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli's philosophy.

******

Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

***********

The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative.

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

1. They agree with Trotsky (Commie) on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in "PREEMPTIVE" WAR to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means�that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and
withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should
not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and DESPISE LIBERTARIANS (therefore, the same applies to all strict Constitutionalists.)
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the LIKUD PARTY.

Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its respectability.

It is no secret especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.

In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, American Enterprise Institute (AEI)LED THE NEOCON CHARGE, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. Early on, they urged war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton's personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.

The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn't too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an American IMPERIALISTIC foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.

The MONEY and views of RUPERT MURDOCK (FOX) also played a KEY ROLE in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns FOX News Network, the New York Post and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell's State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: �Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad. This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and NEUTRALITY as the proper goal of American foreign policy.

posted 07-31-2003 12:00 AM            

“1. They agree with Trotsky (Commie) on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.”

I don’t know really what Trotsky believed…I’ve heard the name before, but I don’t even really know who the guy was. How can it be said that I agree with his philosophy? And revolution against what? If we are talking about revolting against the onset of communism currently being brought forth by the Democrat party, then yes, I guess I’d be for “permanent revolution” but I don’t know what type of revolution Trotsky is referring to here. If he is referring to the communist revolution, then I’m against that, as I just got through saying, and have 180 degree opposite views. I also believe that violence is only necessary as a last resort, much along the lines of thinking of the founders of this country which was behind the addition of the second amendment.

“2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.”

Hmmm…by Middle East, are we talking about Palestine VS Israel here? Or are we talking about Iraq, Iran, Libya Saudi Arabia, etc.? As far as Palestine goes, I’m all for the idea of the US not interfering with stopping Israel from doing what it needs to do, and that’s completely take out the Palestinian government. Short of that, I’m for the new terrorist preventative fence they are building. The currently mis-named territory of Palestine is nothing but a terrorist breeding ground ruled by evil, sick people intent on brainwashing their young population to blow themselves up to kill the most innocent Jews. Women and children are the favored targets. These kinds of tactics are the very definition of war. Israel has the same war that the US is currently fighting…the war against terrorism, and NO GRIEVENCE justifies attacks such at those being waged by the government sponsored suicide bombings of the Palestinians. This is a war between two states or countries, and the US should not restrict Israel in anyway. The US should take off the handcuffs and let Israel do what it needs to do. Yes, I am for letting Israel take over the area currently known as Palestine. I’m for the elimination of all terrorist states.

“3. They believe in "PREEMPTIVE" WAR to achieve desired ends.”

I think most wars that the US has fought have been pre-emptive in nature, in that we did not wait until the foreign country attacked us on the mainland. WWII was pre-emptive in nature, by this definition. Now that we live in a nuclear world where terrorists are capable of using WMDs, I’d say the war on terrorism MUST be pre-emptive, because waiting for the end result to occur first….a mushroom cloud….is unthinkable. In fact, the current war on terrorism is really not pre-emptive, to be technically accurate. We were attacked first on 9-11. Using every means to prevent another 9-11 may be termed pre-emptive, but it is also the only responsible course for a nation under attack to take. We are using every means available to wipe out terrorism at it’s sources, and deprive it of the money that feeds it. Yes, in this sense then, I am for pre-emptive action. To act otherwise, to ignore the threat, would not only be suicidal, immoral and irresponsible, it would be exactly what Clinton did to create the conditions that allowed 911 to occur.

“4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means�that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.”

Nope….this is currently the Democrat/liberal/ leftist philosophy, not mine. Conservatives in general do not believe the ends justify the means. Let me give you one specific and current example. Democrats believe it is perfectly appropriate and acceptable to lie and attack their political opponents in order to drive down the opponents credibility by the weight of the false or unproven accusations alone, even if those accusations are not based in truth or reality. This is a perfect example of how the ends justify the means philosophy is currently being practiced by the majority of the mainstream press and the leftist radicals that now constitute the majority of the Democratic party.

Demonize your opponent….Say anything to destroy his credibility, even if the accusations are unproven or untrue or preposterous. Say ANYTHING to win. Say ANYTHING to gain back power. Moral correctness doesn’t matter so long as the ends are achieved. Hence, the ends justify the means….The Democratic playbook is right out of the Communist manifesto, and Karl Marx‘s philosophy. Conservative ideology differs severely from this tact in that truth must be the basis for all our reasoning and actions, at least to the best of our ability to know the truth. If we accuse a political opponent, it must not be a specious charge. There must be some truthful basis behind the accusation. Conservatives work from a moral frame work. There are moral rules for conservatives that a true conservative must abide by. The ends do not justify the means, because truth and morality and basic human decency guide the path to achieving the ends in conservative philosophy. These rules do not apply to Democrats, however. For Democrats, the ends do truly justify the means.

“5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.”

Of course…the welfare state is the first tenet of socialism. Conservatives are directly opposed to socialism. We believe the best state of man is having the ability and opportunity to provide for yourself, not have government provide it for you. Conservatives therefore seek to provide the citizen opportunities and abilities to achieve each individual’s unlimited potential. A welfare state, by contrast, severely limits each individual’s potential and locks them into a cycle of poverty. This is where Democrats recruit most of their voting base, by the way…from a population that is dependent upon government welfare. This is the essence of socialism, and the condition the Democrat party seeks to create to ensure their power and voter base. More accurately, it is the essence of communism because the Democrat elites do not live by the same conditions of poverty, they seek to inflict on those who mindlessly support them. It is a case of the dumbed-down oppressed, supporting the oppressors.

“6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.”

We believe in spreading capitalism and Democracy (for lack of a better term) and freedom, but only if other countries seek it. Freedom cannot be enforced or inflicted. We believe as the founders of the constitution believed, that freedom is the natural inherent yearning of mankind. The American system of government is the greatest form of government ever invented by mankind, so we have no objections for other nations copying it. In fact, we encourage it. American conservatives do not engage in imperialism or colonialism as the British did, however, if we are forced to intervene in a war or threat situation, such as Iraq, we must first foster a Democratic government, or the cycle of oppression and instability and world threat will continue.

“7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.”

Absolutely not. The conservative philosophy is based on truth. This is an appropriate statement for the left however. As I said, the left believes that the ends justifies the means. Lies are an acceptable means to achieve power for the left, as represented by today’s Democratic party.

“8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.”

Again…just the opposite. Conservatives believe in limited federal government and powerful local or state government. We believe that the only areas that the federal government should be powerful are those functions mandated in the US constitution. The US military, for example, needs to be the most powerful military in the world. Conservatives are actually true constitutionalists.

“9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.”

Again, this is another philosophical tenet of the left. Conservatives are quite open about how we believe society should be run, and our objective is to spread these thoughts among as many ordinary people as possible. We believe in winning the battle of ideas, through the process of logical persuasion, ideas that benefit everyone, and those ideas must be shared and discussed. Just listen to the hundreds of conservative radio talk shows out there to verify that I am stating the truth. Conservatives are very open with their ideas, and try to persuade others to see the logic in them. That means sharing these ideas and thoughts with as many people as possible. The left, on the other hand, can only enforce their ideas on others through stealthy means, because those ideas are not generally accepted by the majority. That’s why the left believes in a living constitution and legislating from the bench or judiciary. The believe in laws by fiat or decree. This is why a person identifying themselves as a liberal cannot win elections. The majority of the people are repulsed by leftist or liberal ideas. Liberal ideas must be FORCED on a population by a group of elites. This is the essence of communism. This is the essence of the current Democrat party.

“10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.”

Absolutely. Conservatives believe that they must stand by principal and what is right, or we stand for nothing. To ignore the acts of a dictator who kills millions of his own people and remain “neutral” on that is unacceptable to a conservatives. Conservatives must stand on moral principal…..They act when US interest is threatened.

“11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.”

I don’t know who Leo Strauss is…Is he that guy who invented the popular cotton jean clothing?….

“12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.”

Not at all. We encourage other countries to become free democratic societies….But this cannot be enforced. We do believe however, that the yearning for freedom is the inherent nature of mankind.

“13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.”

It is acceptable when America is threatened….and we are being threatened by pure evil as embodied by terrorist groups and Saddam Hussein. Conservatives generally believe force is only acceptable when national interest is at stake however. Bosnia, Somalia, and Liberia…and Haiti…are examples of areas where conservatives believe force should NOT be used, and the US should not be involved because there is no definitive national interest concern. The statement that “force should not be limited to the defense of our country.” would be appropriate for leftists however, who object to the use of force for the defense of America, but are routinely perfectly happy to use force where America can‘t win or where no national interests are at stake.

‘14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.’

Nope….conservatives generally believe that 9-11 resulted from a gutting of our intelligence and military by the Clinton administration. Attacks on the US result from showing weakness and a lack of resolve. Terrorist only respect one thing…and that’s strength. Conservatives believe in peace through strength and decisive action. If someone were to attack us, we hit them back 1000 times over as a means of future deterrent. If a government attacks us, then their government can expect to be destroyed. Reagan proved that the policy of peace through strength is the only one that works as a deterrent in preventing foreign attack. I don’t believe that the 9-11 terrorists would have ever even considered attacking us, if they knew it would result in the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq, the disassembling of Al-Queda and a semi-permanent, strategically overwhelming American presence in the middle East. The left does not understand the policy of deterrence, that weakness and lack of resolve and character such as that which Bill Clinton displayed, only gives the green light for attack. Bush put a stop to that. That’s why he needs to be re-elected if this country is to survive. I think the last words of the Hussein boys was something along the lines of… “I think this is truly the end…this president is different than Clinton”….

“15. They dislike and DESPISE LIBERTARIANS (therefore, the same applies to all strict Constitutionalists.)”

Not at all…Conservatives are fairly strict constitutionalists, but we realize we live in a political reality of socialist incrementalism that the liberals have slowly been indoctrinating within society for the last forty years. Conservatives tend to be realists and we recognize that we cannot just reverse the damage liberals or leftist have done to this country over such a long period of time. We must use a careful tactic which I call reverse incrementalism. We must bring back conservatism a little bit at a time. I think Bush recognizes this reality as well…That’s why he is so willing to compromise with the left, (and too much) in my opinion. He’s trying to get conservative policies passed incrementally a little bit at a time, by compromising with some of the leftists like Teddy Kennedy, in order to prevent gridlock. I think the philosophy is “a little bit of something, is better than nothing at all”.

Strict libertarians and constitutionalists however tend to be so idealistic that their policies won’t pass in the current political reality. Remember, Bush has to deal with almost 50% Democrats in the Senate and the house who are constantly fighting him, attempting to undermine him and seek his destruction at the expense of the US if necessary (ends justify the means, remember?). It’s easy to be idealistic when you don’t have to deal with the reality. Bush can’t just wave a magic wand and make the encroachment of the left go away. He must be very tactful….That being said however, underlying the conservative realist, lies the heart of a libertarian and strict constitutionalist mixed in with rules governed by morality. Conservatives do not dislike Libertarians because we share most of the same philosophy….it’s just that conservatives recognize that libertarian idealism has little chance or surviving in reality. That’s why Ron Paul became a Republican.

“16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.”

Not true at all. Conservatives do not endorse attacks on civil liberties. We seek to protect them….but the first step is providing national (Homeland) security. If we allow ourselves to be destroyed by a terrorist attack (oh say, while Congress is in session) or to be invaded by a foreign enemy, then all bets are off as far as civil liberties go. Just look at Iraq during Saddam’s reign and tell me how many civil liberties you saw there. Look at Red China and tell me how many civil liberties those people have. Thus, the first step in protecting civil liberties is to insure that we prevent foreign attack and invasion and the fall of our Republic. This means beefing up national security agencies….a necessary trade-off, or civil liberties are a moot point.

“17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the LIKUD PARTY.”

Not unconditionally at all. Conservatives support victims of terrorist attacks, such as what Israel is undergoing with Palestinian suicide/ homicide bombers. In fact, we have too many conditions on Israel, as it is. I think what we should do is just remove all conditions and let Israel do it’s thing and take out the terrorist territory/government currently referred to as Palestine. Palestinian policy of terrorist suicide bombing has not only voided their right to statehood in my opinion. It has voided their right to exist as a government. Israel should take em out. The US should not interfere. I’m all for not handing out foreign aid as well, by the way. I do believe foreign aid (giving foreign governments US taxpayer money) is unconstitutional and should stop. We should not give any money to Israel and we should not give any money to Palestine or any other nation on Earth for that matter. We should adopt a laisez faire attitude, and let Israel do what it needs to do to defend itself…just as we reserve the right to defend ourselves against terrorism….

posted 07-31-2003 04:08 AM            

I don't say this as an insult, but Shitoga, you are absolutely nuts. Either that, or you're typing while you're drunk or high on something...Seriously, I've never seen such irrational, incoherent or irrelevant bilge...Very disturbing...

damn that's funny...I couldn't figure it out either...

posted 07-31-2003 06:26 AM            

Vince Foster was killed by Bush? Now I've heard everything. Only a guy sniffing some serious glue could make a comment like that. I guess that explains why Hillary's people were rummaging through Vince's office and removing files before the police arrived. Maybe Hillary is in cahoots with the Bush's...Yeah, that's the ticket. Bush had Foster killed because he was having an affair with Hillary...Yeah sure, that makes sense...

posted 07-31-2003 01:04 PM            

Most if not all of what you claim to be is false.

You meet at least 13 of the criteria listed from what I can see.

You meet the very defenition of NEO-CON...merely judging by all of your posts here at CTC.

You can lie with the best of them FART-Talker.

"-- That�s why I believe what you have here is a propaganda piece, and you�ve bought into the propaganda.--"

Really? That's funny you say that because the author is RON PAUL ...a REPUBLICAN.

You do meet most of the criteria above...worming your way out of it by saying what you are not won't change that.

posted 07-31-2003 01:15 PM            

And your post is simply irrelevant non-sense if you can't cite specifics, Moron Mech. Obviously I'm not a neo-con by your own definition. Did you even read where I went through the qualifications of "neocon" one by one and gave my philosophy and opinions which differed, sometimes 180 degrees with your definitions.

How can I be a "neocon" when I don't fit your own definition of one? What specifically, are you accusing me of making false claims about? If you can't be specific, then your comments are obviously just intended to be rhetorical and have no actual substance. In other words, you have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about.

posted 07-31-2003 06:25 PM            

"Three more American soldiers were killed on Thursday in Iraq, in an early morning attack that took place in northern part of the country, according to a US military spokesman here.
These killings bring to five the number of US troops killed since Saddam Hussein´s sons, Uday and Qusay, died in a shoot-out with American forces on Tuesday."

posted 07-31-2003 08:52 PM            

There is no comparison...What was accomplished here, What IS being accomplished here is nothing short of miraculous. I predict WMDs will soon be found, as well as Saddam himself captured....Dead preferably.

What will Mech do then? Will he apologize for the thousands of false, anti-military, anti-American lying leftist propaganda posts he's made? Will he admit he was wrong...(because he is?)

Doubtful, a low life, depraved, bitter little, delusional, doomsaying leftist fear mongering, maggot like Mech will ever have the balls to take personal responsibility for his lies..

posted 08-01-2003 06:31 PM            

Attacks on Americans are slowing as we persue more aggressive tactics with the snipers and show the Iraqi people that the Husseins no longer run the show. We just eliminated a regime that sponsored terrorism, threatened the world with WMDs, and killed millions of people. We stabilized the region, ensured the free flow of oil to world economies that depend on oil (which is currently all of them)..We also created a situation in which other terrorist nations are unable to form and organize, for fear of constant threat. Terrorism was potentially the greatest threat the world would know because with only a few people it had the potential of destroying entire nations and killing millions...literally destroying the United States. One nuke going off in DC while Congress is in session could do that. A handful of terrorist cells placing a biological weapon such as small pox or a dirty bomb in the major futures exchanges in Chicago or the stock exchanges on Wall street could take down the American economy.

You can't wait around for that to happen before you act....thus Iraq is only one victorious battle in the greatest war that mankind has ever fought. The war with terrorism is a war of good vs evil....freedom VS oppression. You have to be completely blind and ignorant to not see that this was necessary, to not see the incredible strategic advantage a free Iraq now gives the US. You'd have to be blind and dumb not to realize that it takes time to build back an infrastructure that Saddam sabotaged...That's what Bechtel and Halliburton are for. You’d have to be completely out of your mind to think that it is better to have Saddam in power…

Yes...this war was truly a miraculous achievement. In Vietnam we had 58,000 Americans die, and really achieved nothing. Here we have achieved perhaps the greatest victory over the greatest threat in human history with a loss of less than 200 American lives...That's miraculous....And I'm deeply relieved this is going as well as it is.

posted 08-01-2003 08:11 PM            

How do you figure? What threat could possibly be effective in intimidating one that is already suicidal and willing to die for his cause? How are we preventing them from organizing? They seem to be quite calculated as they are killing our soldiers now. You say the deaths are slowing, but MORE have died since the supposed takeover.

These people were alot more afraid of Saddam than they are us by a long shot. Anyone on the street over there will tell you that. They'll also tell us that the americans cannot be trusted because they still haven't even restored electricity for many of them. They don't even believe the sons are even dead yet. Besides, Saddam & Bin Laden are still out there calling shots.
We have so many economic problems here, and a deficit that Bush blames on the news coverage of 9/11. We are wasting money restructuring a country we shouldn't have been in, in the first place. Many of them view Bush as an evil dictator, the same way we view Saddam. Bush has shown the world that a perception as simple as that is a justifiable reason for invasion. I guess that opens the floodgates for war everywhere. As a superpower we are setting a poor example.
As far as WMD's, they were merely a deterrent, as I posted previously.....

"WASHINGTON - Representatives of The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and Government Accountability Project (GAP) today urged Congress to investigate - and repeal - an executive order signed by President George W. Bush that gives sweeping powers to U.S. oil companies operating in Iraq."

"This order reveals the true motivation for the present occupation: absolute power for U.S. corporate interests over Iraqi oil," said IPS Senior Researcher Jim."
Vallette. "This is the smoking gun that proves the Bush administration always intended to free corporate investments, not the Iraqi people."

We gave them those weapons and are now attacking them for having them. Why now?Because bush is simply returning the favors of the oil companies that supported him. I'm sure he will be charged with war crimes eventually. He will go down in history as the worst president ever. They might not even bother to mention him in the social studies books.

The terrorists will probably focus on incoming international flights. Knowing that we don't have much control over the security in other countries. Bush has only just begun to awaken the wasps from their nests. This war will not only end up wasting numerous lives of american soldiers. It will also spawn an unprecedented onslaught of terror upon our civilians in the homeland.

posted 08-01-2003 08:34 PM            

"The president said, "There's no question we have a security issue in Iraq, and we've just got to deal with it person to person."

Let me see: There are more than 5,000,000, mostly hostile Iraqis living in Baghdad alone, and we've got what, 150,000 soldiers on the ground in the entire country? That's 33 heavily armed Iraqis to 1 American in Baghdad alone, so If "we" deal with it person to person, we're going to lose this war for sure!