As far as history has shown, socialism (and if Democrats are in charge, that's the way we are going) has never been good for economy
Socialism hasn't failed, it's just been continually overthrown by the CIA.
and if Democrats are in charge, that's the way we are going
LOL. Today's Democrats are well to the right of Richard Nixon. If the Republican party keeps moving in the direction it's on, all you guys are going to be socialists too in another 20 years.
On the other hand, if the economy benefits from the socialist policies passed by Democrats, then, well, it will be a shock to most economists and we will have learned something new.
To the Rand fanboys, maybe. But it wont come as a shock at all to the other 95% of economists who live in the reality based community. The financial sector has had deregulation and tax reduction up the wazoo - how's that been working out for us again? Should have the biggest profits in the history of the universe, right?
to own up to their mistakes rather than passing the blame off as they have with CRA
There is no blame with the CRA. None. Zero. Nadda. Zip. Just conservative slight of hand to shift responsibility from failed conservative policies onto minorities. Funny how often that happens.
Suppose I agree (I don't) that New Deal was what got America out of Great Depression (it wasn't
It was. The New Deal put millions of Americans back to work, reducing unemployment dramatically while increasing GDP. But as Ciggy points out, why is that massive government spending on the military does work to stimulate an economy, but massive government spending on infrastructure will not?
From those (preposterous) suppositions, does it follow that because a little socialism was good, a whole lot of it would be better? No. U.S.S.R. proved the contrary nearly 2 decades ago.
You could of course say the same thing about Libertarian goals and Hooverism, only in this case the analogy would actually be applicable. Socialism != Communism.
So that people don't die of horrible diseases easily treatable only if they had a little bit of money. These things don't help the economy or promote general welfare (as defined by amount of "wealth" in the society)
Of course they do. Who does more for the economy: a worker at home in bed from a treatable condition, or that worker going to his job? Hmmm.
generous to those minorities too lazy to lift themselves up.
Filled in the rest of that for you.
But, just because these things make the society look nicer doesn't mean we should argue for even more socialism.
Find me a socialist who wants more government control for the sake of more government control, which is as foolish as wanting more deregulation for the sake of more deregulation.
The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution. See: the Constitution.
General Welfare is written as an explanation of purpose
And that purpose is of course served by providing better services for less money than private businesses are capable or willing to do.
not as an excuse to be used for whatever you want
Straw man. But it's a free country, and you're entitled to your opinion if not your own set of facts. So when are you going to start protesting the USAF, NORAD, the CIA, the Border Patrol, the NSA, and of course our system of spy satellites? None are a part of the Army or the Navy, so they're obvious violations of the 10th Amendment and must be stopped immediately.
No, the Republican Party is losing because it's had it's way, and it's way has been a clusterfuck of Biblical proportions.
Fixed that for you. The GOP is a disaster not because it failed to stick to it's principles, but because those principles were fully realized.
It keeps moving to the middle, and trying to be more like the Democrats.
Name one way it's trying to do either. Just one.
Unless the Republican party returns to smaller government, less government in people's lives.
The GOP has never been for either. See: spending more money on defense than the rest of the world combined. See: gay marriage bans and the War on Drugs.
When was the last time you got good service from the government? Government is inept, the reason is clear.
Since government is always inept and private enterprise is always more efficient, Time Warner will just come in and crush this municipal ISP with the magic of private enterprise, puppies and rainbows.
Or, maybe this idea that government is always more inefficient than private enterprise is just as stupid as thinking that government is always better than private enterprise. As evidenced by the fact that the reason this ISP got started in the first place is because the telecos weren't interested in providing competitive service.
There are many places in the U.S. that have private fire departments.
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
We're not a Democracy, we're a Republic. It is in the Constitution.
We're a Democratic Republic. Spare us from the pedants who think democracy == pure democracy.
If you start incorporating more and more functions into the local government, the revenue generated from taxes on the private businesses who used to do te job will fall. It is a balancing act.
Wait, so we're supposed to tax businesses now? Wouldn't you be hopping up and down over that in any other context?
The lying left is using logic like yours to push everyone to electric cars. The current administration already admitted no one is going to buy them at the prices they actually cost. They pointed out the Chevy Volt is basically DOA because of sticker price. So they're going to subsidize it and get them electric cars for "cheap".
My brain hurts after reading something this stupid. Slashtards said the same thing about the iPhone upon it's release, it's too expensive, waaaaaa - and it sold out anyway. So the Volt is projected to cost $40,000 or more - LOTS of cars are sold at that price. And when - not if - gas rises to $4 a gallon again, being able to save $150 per month in fuel costs will take a big bite out of those monthly car payments.
Guess what happens to road maintenance when everyone starts driving electric cars? Since the gasoline tax is what pays for all that, they're going to run out of money.
If everyone starts driving more fuel efficient vehicles, it will reduce maintenance costs because they weigh less than your F-150's and Suburbans. As as for the Highway Trust Fund, either raise the fuel tax some more or find another way to pay for it.
First of all, Medicare shifts a lot of the admin cost to the provider
To make sure people are eligible. And of COURSE private insurance is going to have higher administration costs, since they employ thousands of people to try and find ways to deny you the coverage you are paying for.
There's a reason why a lot of doctors are refusing to accept Medicare customers these days.
that would be a mistake, I live in Canada, it's no joke. Our cancer patients have to wait for over 70 days now to start getting critical treatment, our emergency rooms are filled with people who are waiting for 8-16 hours to get service and half of our people do not have a physician, forget about getting an appointment with a specialist in less than 3-4 months (sometimes 6-9 months).
Then I'd say it's too bad Canada has so many goddamn liars, as your claims are complete BS from stem to stern. But the other flaw with this defense of the status quo is that the United States has horrible waiting periods. Defenders point out how easy it is to get an appointment with a general practitioner and pretend that applies to the whole medical system, when that is not the case. Try to see a specialist for a non-emergency condition and you are virtually guaranteed to schedule an appointment some time in the future, or go on a list of some kind, where you can wait for an opening.
I've no particular problem with socialism in general, nor the government providing more and more services. However, the Tenth Amendment specifically states that any powers not granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are reserved for the States or the People. That means that if the Constitution doesn't have a section on Federally-owned businesses, then the government can't own one.
Yes, the 10th Amendment is in the Constitution, but so is General Welfare. Twice. And it's funny how you never see 10th Amendment fans apply that argument consistently, and rail about the unconstitutionality of the Air Force and the CIA. Because if you go with a strict interpretation of the Constitution, it only gives Congress the power to fund an army and a navy, and the USAF and CIA are neither.
Socialism means the individual has no rights, but a group (or its leaders), can force you to serve the group.
Which is of course baseless nonsense, but that's never kept a good conservative argument down. The only "right" you have with free market capitalism is the "right" to look for another job.
Ah, but this is exactly where government can help: by passing laws requiring monopoly utilities to provide such services to even the most remote users.
But why fiddle fart around with "private-public partnerships" when the government can do a better job for less money:
March 6, 2009 | Barack Obama's bold, ambitious budget plan proves that he is the true heir of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. Consider Obama's Rooseveltian energy plan. In 1939, President Roosevelt decided to mobilize Americans to create a new source of energy: atomic power. Although he was urged to focus on government-funded R&D, FDR chose a different route. He wisely encouraged private capital to invest in atomic energy research by a variety of tax incentives. To make atomic power investment more palatable to private capital, FDR boldly chose to make all other forms of energy in the U.S. uneconomical, by slapping high taxes on kerosene and coal. With the money from the new federal Kerosene Cap and Trade system, President Roosevelt and Congress funded a small-scale federal research program, in the hope of attracting much greater private investment...
Wait. What's that you say? FDR didn't do that? He poured federal money into the all-public Manhattan Project and created the first atomic bomb in a couple of years? He didn't tax kerosene to make it uneconomical and to encourage private investment in atomic power?
Oh. OK. Never mind.
But what about Social Security? In 1935, FDR signed the historic Social Security Act. It created a complex "retirement mandate" system, forcing all elderly Americans to buy expensive annuities from private insurance companies, without, however, imposing price controls on the insurance companies...
What? FDR didn't force the elderly to subsidize private annuity brokers? He imposed a single, simple, efficient tax to pay for a single, simple, efficient public system of retirement benefits?
All right, then, forget FDR. He was a socialist, anyway. Let Dwight Eisenhower serve as a model for the Obama administration. President Eisenhower authorized the biggest infrastructure program in American history, when he signed the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956. The interstate highway act created an elaborate system of private tax incentives and public-private partnerships (PPPs) to encourage private corporations to build national highways. To begin with, all U.S. highways were leased to domestic and foreign corporations for a period of decades. Second, all U.S. highways were set up with toll booths, so that American drivers would be forced to repay the corporate owners of the national highways every few dozen miles. Finally, a system of high-speed lanes with higher tolls was created, so that the rich could whiz down the road while middle-class and poor Americans were stuck in traffic jams...
I think the point that some commenters have previously tried to make is that government is ALREADY socialistic and is PREVENTING free market forces from acting in the first place.
1) So? laissez faire isn't in the Constitution. 2) The "free market forces" weren't interested in "acting in the first place
Without the ability to evaluate whether free market forces are working, however, I don't think that we can make a good determination as to whether socialism is a viable alternative or not...
Sure we can. We've managed to progress from postal roads to multi-lane interstate highways just fine, and socialized medicine provides better care for less money.
The idea that private enterprise is always better than the public sector is as foolish as thinking the public sector is always better than private enterprise.
Give it up, guys: we know you are THE party of big government, big spending, big deficits.
Fixed that up a bit. Republicans can't claim with a straight face that they are the party of fiscal responsibility or limited government, after the way Bush and St. Ronnie blew up the national debt and increased the size of the federal government.
Arlen will be an uncertain ally at best, and negates the Democrats ability to run someone really far to the left against Toomey in PA
Only if he wins the Democratic primary next year. And there's no gurantee that will happen, since he bizarrely announced his continued opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, guaranteeing that unions will back another candidate in the primary. If Arlen had instead announced his renewed support for the EFCA (he's supported it in the past) he would have been a shoe in.
But Arlen can try and have it both ways, like the two-faced hack he's always been. He can vote for EFCA in cloture, and then vote against it's passage when it needs 50 votes and not 60.
The media loves sucking Evangelical cock. It's insatiable.
Fixed that for you. Time, Newsweek, US New & World Report, all have a dozen covers a year sucking up to Christians, TV networks regularly feature guests like Bill Bennett and Bill Donohue and major papers have sections devoted to faith.
There's a nice little pie chart demonstrating the WATB nature of the Christian persecution complex.
Take California's proposition for homosexual marriages. That wasn't defeated by the religious-right. It was defeated by the black caucus.
Um, Prop 8 wasn't about allowing gay marriage, but banning it. And yes it was a sad irony that so many blacks voted to deny others a right they themselves were denied in the past.
While minutemen weren't uniformed, and they often used guerrilla tactics (sniping, ambushing, etc) in an age where conventional warfare consisted of forming a firing line, they never attacked civilians or used civilians as cover.
You're conflating the sectarian civil war with resistance to the U.S. led occupation. The two are not one and the same.
many of which happen to be invaders themselves
Wishful Republican thinking. The vast majority of resistance fighters are native to Iraq.
I must have missed the part where the government of the United States signed on to the Geneva Conventions. Oh yeah, that was 200 years off. No reason to stop criticizing the Americans, though!
I didn't miss the part where you care about (some) parts of the Geneva conventions yet completely ignore the fact that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, as they didn't attack us, weren't about to attack us, and there was no humanitarian crisis to deal with a la the former Yugoslavia.
So, to recap: invaders waging an illegal war of choice don't get to whine like little bitches when the occupied fight back. ESPECIALLY when you start torturing some of the populace inside of one of Saddam's old prisons. And of course torture violates the Geneva conventions, but of course we know that you don't care about that, being the pathetic partisan hack that you are.
This is like the slippery slope fallacy. Not EVERYTHING leads to a slippery slope.
Who was talking about slippery slopes? Every force that has ever existed on this planet has wanted to fight battles on it's own terms and not the enemy's. Warfare 101. For the occupational forces, they'd really appreciate it if Iraqi resisters would fight on the ground in clearly identifiable uniforms.
For some odd reason, the Iraqis - who don't have gunships, bombers, fighters, tanks, artillery, advanced communications and spy satellites - don't seem to want to fight on those terms. They'd rather use IED's and shoot from cover - who knew?
But of course there's one significant distinction between the two sides, outside of military prowess - the invasion of Iraq was an illegal war of choice. And illegal invaders don't get to whine like little bitches when the occupied fight back. ESPECIALLY when the round up people and torture them in one of Saddam's old prisons.
Slashdot Mirror
In 1994, the Republicans had pretty solid control in D.C.; they lost it in 1996.
What are you talking about. Republicans didn't loose control of Congress until 2006.
For most of his time in office, Bush had to deal with a Democrat congress
Liar.
It pissed me off that the Democrats kept using the phrase "the Bush economy" in the last election
Sorry if the truth hurts.
Five years ago, the Bush administration wanted to tighten up Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac
Liar. Republican grandstanding on FM/FM didn't start until a year AFTER the bill in question went through Congress.
The Democrats think that borrowing and printing money to the tune of trillions of dollars is the correct solution to the USA's economic woes.
Yes, because the big deficits used to fund the New Deal and WWII were such a long term disaster for this country.
Now I suppose you will decry my bad attitude also?
No, just your repeated attempts to have your own set of facts to go along with your own opinions.
It's not a matter of someone wishing America to go belly up against someone wishing America to soar like eagle.
It is for Rush.
It's a matter of what is (something Clinton had trouble defining, BTW).
Not really.
As far as history has shown, socialism (and if Democrats are in charge, that's the way we are going) has never been good for economy
Socialism hasn't failed, it's just been continually overthrown by the CIA.
and if Democrats are in charge, that's the way we are going
LOL. Today's Democrats are well to the right of Richard Nixon. If the Republican party keeps moving in the direction it's on, all you guys are going to be socialists too in another 20 years.
On the other hand, if the economy benefits from the socialist policies passed by Democrats, then, well, it will be a shock to most economists and we will have learned something new.
To the Rand fanboys, maybe. But it wont come as a shock at all to the other 95% of economists who live in the reality based community. The financial sector has had deregulation and tax reduction up the wazoo - how's that been working out for us again? Should have the biggest profits in the history of the universe, right?
to own up to their mistakes rather than passing the blame off as they have with CRA
There is no blame with the CRA. None. Zero. Nadda. Zip. Just conservative slight of hand to shift responsibility from failed conservative policies onto minorities. Funny how often that happens.
Suppose I agree (I don't) that New Deal was what got America out of Great Depression (it wasn't
It was. The New Deal put millions of Americans back to work, reducing unemployment dramatically while increasing GDP. But as Ciggy points out, why is that massive government spending on the military does work to stimulate an economy, but massive government spending on infrastructure will not?
From those (preposterous) suppositions, does it follow that because a little socialism was good, a whole lot of it would be better? No. U.S.S.R. proved the contrary nearly 2 decades ago.
You could of course say the same thing about Libertarian goals and Hooverism, only in this case the analogy would actually be applicable. Socialism != Communism.
So that people don't die of horrible diseases easily treatable only if they had a little bit of money. These things don't help the economy or promote general welfare (as defined by amount of "wealth" in the society)
Of course they do. Who does more for the economy: a worker at home in bed from a treatable condition, or that worker going to his job? Hmmm.
generous to those minorities too lazy to lift themselves up.
Filled in the rest of that for you.
But, just because these things make the society look nicer doesn't mean we should argue for even more socialism.
Find me a socialist who wants more government control for the sake of more government control, which is as foolish as wanting more deregulation for the sake of more deregulation.
See the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution. See: the Constitution.
General Welfare is written as an explanation of purpose
And that purpose is of course served by providing better services for less money than private businesses are capable or willing to do.
not as an excuse to be used for whatever you want
Straw man. But it's a free country, and you're entitled to your opinion if not your own set of facts. So when are you going to start protesting the USAF, NORAD, the CIA, the Border Patrol, the NSA, and of course our system of spy satellites? None are a part of the Army or the Navy, so they're obvious violations of the 10th Amendment and must be stopped immediately.
Communism is a system in which the government has complete ownership of all property.
Fixed that for you. You know there's private property in France, Sweden, and even (gasp!) Venezuela, right?
But in any case, thanks for providing more evidence of how conservative thought has no connection to reality.
No, the Republican Party is losing because it's had it's way, and it's way has been a clusterfuck of Biblical proportions.
Fixed that for you. The GOP is a disaster not because it failed to stick to it's principles, but because those principles were fully realized.
It keeps moving to the middle, and trying to be more like the Democrats.
Name one way it's trying to do either. Just one.
Unless the Republican party returns to smaller government, less government in people's lives.
The GOP has never been for either. See: spending more money on defense than the rest of the world combined. See: gay marriage bans and the War on Drugs.
When was the last time you got good service from the government? Government is inept, the reason is clear.
Since government is always inept and private enterprise is always more efficient, Time Warner will just come in and crush this municipal ISP with the magic of private enterprise, puppies and rainbows.
Or, maybe this idea that government is always more inefficient than private enterprise is just as stupid as thinking that government is always better than private enterprise. As evidenced by the fact that the reason this ISP got started in the first place is because the telecos weren't interested in providing competitive service.
There are many places in the U.S. that have private fire departments.
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
We're not a Democracy, we're a Republic. It is in the Constitution.
We're a Democratic Republic. Spare us from the pedants who think democracy == pure democracy.
If you start incorporating more and more functions into the local government, the revenue generated from taxes on the private businesses who used to do te job will fall. It is a balancing act.
Wait, so we're supposed to tax businesses now? Wouldn't you be hopping up and down over that in any other context?
The lying left is using logic like yours to push everyone to electric cars. The current administration already admitted no one is going to buy them at the prices they actually cost. They pointed out the Chevy Volt is basically DOA because of sticker price. So they're going to subsidize it and get them electric cars for "cheap".
My brain hurts after reading something this stupid. Slashtards said the same thing about the iPhone upon it's release, it's too expensive, waaaaaa - and it sold out anyway. So the Volt is projected to cost $40,000 or more - LOTS of cars are sold at that price. And when - not if - gas rises to $4 a gallon again, being able to save $150 per month in fuel costs will take a big bite out of those monthly car payments.
Guess what happens to road maintenance when everyone starts driving electric cars? Since the gasoline tax is what pays for all that, they're going to run out of money.
If everyone starts driving more fuel efficient vehicles, it will reduce maintenance costs because they weigh less than your F-150's and Suburbans. As as for the Highway Trust Fund, either raise the fuel tax some more or find another way to pay for it.
First of all, Medicare shifts a lot of the admin cost to the provider
To make sure people are eligible. And of COURSE private insurance is going to have higher administration costs, since they employ thousands of people to try and find ways to deny you the coverage you are paying for.
There's a reason why a lot of doctors are refusing to accept Medicare customers these days.
Because they don't know if they'll be paid.
that would be a mistake, I live in Canada, it's no joke. Our cancer patients have to wait for over 70 days now to start getting critical treatment, our emergency rooms are filled with people who are waiting for 8-16 hours to get service and half of our people do not have a physician, forget about getting an appointment with a specialist in less than 3-4 months (sometimes 6-9 months).
Then I'd say it's too bad Canada has so many goddamn liars, as your claims are complete BS from stem to stern. But the other flaw with this defense of the status quo is that the United States has horrible waiting periods. Defenders point out how easy it is to get an appointment with a general practitioner and pretend that applies to the whole medical system, when that is not the case. Try to see a specialist for a non-emergency condition and you are virtually guaranteed to schedule an appointment some time in the future, or go on a list of some kind, where you can wait for an opening.
I've no particular problem with socialism in general, nor the government providing more and more services. However, the Tenth Amendment specifically states that any powers not granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are reserved for the States or the People. That means that if the Constitution doesn't have a section on Federally-owned businesses, then the government can't own one.
Yes, the 10th Amendment is in the Constitution, but so is General Welfare. Twice. And it's funny how you never see 10th Amendment fans apply that argument consistently, and rail about the unconstitutionality of the Air Force and the CIA. Because if you go with a strict interpretation of the Constitution, it only gives Congress the power to fund an army and a navy, and the USAF and CIA are neither.
Socialism means the individual has no rights, but a group (or its leaders), can force you to serve the group.
Which is of course baseless nonsense, but that's never kept a good conservative argument down. The only "right" you have with free market capitalism is the "right" to look for another job.
The letter of the Constitution ("letter of the law") prevents Federal socialism, and the spirit of the Constitution is fully against socialism.
It does nether. General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice.
Ah, but this is exactly where government can help: by passing laws requiring monopoly utilities to provide such services to even the most remote users.
But why fiddle fart around with "private-public partnerships" when the government can do a better job for less money:
I think the point that some commenters have previously tried to make is that government is ALREADY socialistic and is PREVENTING free market forces from acting in the first place.
1) So? laissez faire isn't in the Constitution.
2) The "free market forces" weren't interested in "acting in the first place
Without the ability to evaluate whether free market forces are working, however, I don't think that we can make a good determination as to whether socialism is a viable alternative or not...
Sure we can. We've managed to progress from postal roads to multi-lane interstate highways just fine, and socialized medicine provides better care for less money.
The idea that private enterprise is always better than the public sector is as foolish as thinking the public sector is always better than private enterprise.
So I take you refuse to use public roads, municipal water, municipal sewage, hospitals, and rely on the neighborhood watch instead of calling police?
Well they don't admit to any of the mess that FDR created, or any of the crap that LBJ signed into law.
You mean two of the best presidents we've ever had on domestic policy? What about them?
tell both you and the extreme left
Who cares what the North Koreans want?
Give it up, guys: we know you are THE party of big government, big spending, big deficits.
Fixed that up a bit. Republicans can't claim with a straight face that they are the party of fiscal responsibility or limited government, after the way Bush and St. Ronnie blew up the national debt and increased the size of the federal government.
But of course that's not the case here. At all.
If there's any way to ignore facts and reality, a wingnut will find it.
Arlen will be an uncertain ally at best, and negates the Democrats ability to run someone really far to the left against Toomey in PA
Only if he wins the Democratic primary next year. And there's no gurantee that will happen, since he bizarrely announced his continued opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, guaranteeing that unions will back another candidate in the primary. If Arlen had instead announced his renewed support for the EFCA (he's supported it in the past) he would have been a shoe in.
But Arlen can try and have it both ways, like the two-faced hack he's always been. He can vote for EFCA in cloture, and then vote against it's passage when it needs 50 votes and not 60.
Lieberman spent years stabbing his party in the back
Fixed that for you.
The media loves sucking Evangelical cock. It's insatiable.
Fixed that for you. Time, Newsweek, US New & World Report, all have a dozen covers a year sucking up to Christians, TV networks regularly feature guests like Bill Bennett and Bill Donohue and major papers have sections devoted to faith.
There's a nice little pie chart demonstrating the WATB nature of the Christian persecution complex.
Take California's proposition for homosexual marriages. That wasn't defeated by the religious-right. It was defeated by the black caucus.
Um, Prop 8 wasn't about allowing gay marriage, but banning it. And yes it was a sad irony that so many blacks voted to deny others a right they themselves were denied in the past.
While minutemen weren't uniformed, and they often used guerrilla tactics (sniping, ambushing, etc) in an age where conventional warfare consisted of forming a firing line, they never attacked civilians or used civilians as cover.
You're conflating the sectarian civil war with resistance to the U.S. led occupation. The two are not one and the same.
many of which happen to be invaders themselves
Wishful Republican thinking. The vast majority of resistance fighters are native to Iraq.
I must have missed the part where the government of the United States signed on to the Geneva Conventions. Oh yeah, that was 200 years off. No reason to stop criticizing the Americans, though!
I didn't miss the part where you care about (some) parts of the Geneva conventions yet completely ignore the fact that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, as they didn't attack us, weren't about to attack us, and there was no humanitarian crisis to deal with a la the former Yugoslavia.
So, to recap: invaders waging an illegal war of choice don't get to whine like little bitches when the occupied fight back. ESPECIALLY when you start torturing some of the populace inside of one of Saddam's old prisons. And of course torture violates the Geneva conventions, but of course we know that you don't care about that, being the pathetic partisan hack that you are.
This is like the slippery slope fallacy. Not EVERYTHING leads to a slippery slope.
Who was talking about slippery slopes? Every force that has ever existed on this planet has wanted to fight battles on it's own terms and not the enemy's. Warfare 101. For the occupational forces, they'd really appreciate it if Iraqi resisters would fight on the ground in clearly identifiable uniforms.
For some odd reason, the Iraqis - who don't have gunships, bombers, fighters, tanks, artillery, advanced communications and spy satellites - don't seem to want to fight on those terms. They'd rather use IED's and shoot from cover - who knew?
But of course there's one significant distinction between the two sides, outside of military prowess - the invasion of Iraq was an illegal war of choice. And illegal invaders don't get to whine like little bitches when the occupied fight back. ESPECIALLY when the round up people and torture them in one of Saddam's old prisons.