How any Americans could think this war was "defensive" in nature is beyond me and most sane people. New England!?- we might have to think about some other things- secession being one of them!
Ah. I thought as much. Especially since you would take the word of Iraqi insurgents over our troups.
However, your argument is further flawed. You say we took away their guns. Then where did the "civilians" get their fire arms when we began to "indiscriminately shoot civilians"? Once they took up arms against our boys, there were no longer civlilians.
Further, read part of an eyewitness report.
Sgt. 1st Class Robert Hollis knew there was trouble even before the shooting started. As he stood guard in his M1-A1 Abrams tank outside a bank in this Sunni Muslim town, the usually busy streets suddenly emptied Sunday. Men hurried down back alleys, some running. Women dragged their children away from the positions of U.S. troops.
Then, through his scope, Hollis said he saw a man lift a rocket-propelled grenade launcher to his shoulder, aiming at him and his crew of three. What followed was perhaps the bloodiest engagement since the U.S. occupation of Iraq began in April.
These people knew ahead of time. No one took over their shop against their will.
You call it a crime of agression. I call it taking it to the enemy. There is much evidence of Al Queda in Iraq. And, as once stated by a great American, "If you harbor the terrorists, you will share in their fate".
This is no more a crime of agression than it was to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. Oh. Excuse me. Our military lied about that one, too. Right?
Defensive? Where did the September 11 hijackers learn hijacking? Can you say Salman Pak?
I reject your definition and claim to sane.
And you can hope for the Holy Father to pray. I am on my own knees doing my own praying, for our boys and the success of their mission.
Becki