What if we changed a few names???

[HuskiesHowls]

What if, instead of "Insurgents" we were to call them "The Continental Army"?
And then, what if we change the name used for the enemy from "US Army/Marines" to "Redcoats"?
We would then have to change the years from 2002-2005 to 1776-1783.
We'd also have to change the location from an oil-rich desert country in the Arabian Peninsula to a country that was rich in all resources on the North American continent.
The weapons would change from AK-47's, RPG's, roadside bombs, smart bombs, M-16's and whatever else is being used to muskets and cannons.

It seems funny, but the one thing we do NOT have to change, is the name of the leader of the protagonists: George!!!

Making these few simple changes, it all of a sudden starts to look like a totally different war. It leads one to wonder: What did the English people think of the American Revolution, and King George's response to it? Were they also upset about the loss of life, and the cost to the treasury?

Also, how long is it going to take, for the war to end? And, what will the final cost be?

One thing I DO want to make clear: I support the troops that are there, even though I do not support the reason for them being there. To me, they are 2 totally different things. I just feel that given a different perspective of what is happenning currently in Iraq may lead to some interesting discussion.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. What if shrub's name was Bill? Well, you already know the

answer to that one....

[moddemny]

2. very, very, very, very, poor......

parallel example...... not worth the time to write an in depth reply.

[Kraklen]

3. Seems a pretty valid metaphor to me.

World's leading superpower fighting an overseas war and winning the battles but losing the war to a poorly equipped but very determined native guerilla force.

Vietnam would also be an apt analogy.

I think the problem comes from thinking that the Americans are the good guys.