If I Was A Firefighter In Falluja I Would Not Support The Troops

It seems to me "the troops" and firefighters ought to be arch-enemies. As soon as the fireguys put out a fire, "the troops" go and start another fire. For the folks at home, when you drop a shit-load of explosives on a wedding party that shit tends to catch fire. Perhaps in an indirect way, but there's a 99.999% that whatever the bombs hit WILL catch fire.

So what's a knee-jerk jerk of a columnist from the New York Post supposed to do? Which side should he take? Oh shit, firefighters put out fires so I gotta salute them, but "the troops" cause fires so they're the arch nemesis of firefighters so I can't support that. But I can't not support that 'cause it's "the troops."

Man, I would hate to be a firefighter in Falluja. Of course, I'd hate to be a firefighter anywhere. And of course I'd hate to be anything in Falluja. But I would love to be a "troop" in Falluja. "The Troops" love a good killing, and man, nothing says killing like a place called Falluja. In english it translates roughly into, "place where there is no Britney Spears but lots of suffering."

Am I dealing with dated cliches here? My bad. Are there new old cliches that are purcolating at this point that I'm missing? What, now that the election is over people are stopping the bullshit? No more terror alerts? No more TERRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that Iraq has no political currency do we get to REALLY hear about what's happening over there? Doth the bullshit-detector detect no more bullshit?