Dennis Kucinich: Why Do Civilians Killed By US Bombers Count Less?...

[Dschrute3]

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Yet for TWO DECADES --- you evidently snoozed thru a complete embargo and isolation and a war and occupation in Iraq that resulted in AT LEAST 600,000 dead civilians. "We avoid civilian deaths"?? Apparently not if there's a coalition or UN resolution blessing our military activities.

So your claim is the US Military killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq? Really? Post the proof. More likely, your idiotic response will be worded in a certain way that proves dumb ass liberals believe they are clever.

Can't compensate for the fact that Markle found 8 of my posts funny when we're talking about civilian deaths from American military actions. Makes any attempt for rational discussion futile.

Furthermore I posted 4 or 5 estimates of deaths due to the 10 year embargo and bombings already. Which means you didn't read any of them. The UN chief of Humanitarian Operations in Iraq RESIGNED over that carnage and Mad Albright said that 500,000 deaths over 10 years was an "acceptable level".

I also posted estimates of deaths from the period of invasion and occupation which put the total WAY over 700,000 at least. You're despicable for treating this as a partisan issue.

Go back and read.. Or continue to look stupid and callous. That's what separates Leftists from true Liberals like me..

So the US military did not kill 600,000, as you claimed. Got it. Thanks pussy hat.

US military ENFORCED the lock-down of Iraq for 11 years. Part of the US POLICY that killed all those people. No enforcement --- no deaths. Are you that stupid? What about the daily bombing for 10 years? Destroying sanitarian, electric, water systems?

Here's you ---- WhyTF you want to avoid past history? No wonder your guys are still intent on making democracy BLOOM in the mid-east. Isn't an ounce of sense on foreign policy between BOTH of your failed parties...

Most Americans will never acknowledge the horrific slaughter committed by their Government in Iraq. They see their Government as only being the 'Good Guy.' They can't fathom the notion their Government has committed numerous atrocities around the world.

Just keep in mind, most Americans are completely ignorant of world affairs. They're subjected to round-the-clock Government/Corporate Media propaganda. And now, they're chomping at the bit to slaughter some North Koreans. America is a very sick country. It's very sad, but it is what it is.

 

[Dschrute3]

Dennis Kucinich: Why Do Civilians Killed By US Bombers Count Less?...

Next contestant, please...

No, that doesn't justify the US slaughtering Thousands of Civilians around the world. The reality is, the US has killed far more Civilians in recent decades, than the 3,000 US Civilians killed on 9/11. It's not even close.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yet for TWO DECADES --- you evidently snoozed thru a complete embargo and isolation and a war and occupation in Iraq that resulted in AT LEAST 600,000 dead civilians. "We avoid civilian deaths"?? Apparently not if there's a coalition or UN resolution blessing our military activities.

So your claim is the US Military killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq? Really? Post the proof. More likely, your idiotic response will be worded in a certain way that proves dumb ass liberals believe they are clever.

Can't compensate for the fact that Markle found 8 of my posts funny when we're talking about civilian deaths from American military actions. Makes any attempt for rational discussion futile.

Furthermore I posted 4 or 5 estimates of deaths due to the 10 year embargo and bombings already. Which means you didn't read any of them. The UN chief of Humanitarian Operations in Iraq RESIGNED over that carnage and Mad Albright said that 500,000 deaths over 10 years was an "acceptable level".

I also posted estimates of deaths from the period of invasion and occupation which put the total WAY over 700,000 at least. You're despicable for treating this as a partisan issue.

Go back and read.. Or continue to look stupid and callous. That's what separates Leftists from true Liberals like me..

So the US military did not kill 600,000, as you claimed. Got it. Thanks pussy hat.

Because you're a short bus student and don't WANT to read threads -- here's a start to your education on the carnage we caused in Iraq. Both PRIOR to invasion -- and POST invasion..

Dennis Kucinich: Why Do Civilians Killed By US Bombers Count Less?...

Iraqis have been slaughtering each other for a long time. Lots of civilians die in a civil war. I asked you about the US military. Stop being a dupe.

What civil war was going on from 1990 to 2002 in Iraq? One that caused over 300,000 deaths from lack of food, water, sanitation?

 

[flacaltenn]

Dennis Kucinich: Why Do Civilians Killed By US Bombers Count Less?...

Next contestant, please...

Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Syria --- what part did they play in that attack? Seems we haven't "democratized" Saudi or Quatar yet -- want to give it a go??

 

[eagle1462010]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.


The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.

Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).

Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?

Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Yet for TWO DECADES --- you evidently snoozed thru a complete embargo and isolation and a war and occupation in Iraq that resulted in AT LEAST 600,000 dead civilians. "We avoid civilian deaths"?? Apparently not if there's a coalition or UN resolution blessing our military activities.

So your claim is the US Military killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq? Really? Post the proof. More likely, your idiotic response will be worded in a certain way that proves dumb ass liberals believe they are clever.

Most of the deaths were from the power struggle and Civil War fought between the Shiites and Sunni's not U.S. Military kills.

 

[eagle1462010]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.


The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.

Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).

Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?

Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Yet for TWO DECADES --- you evidently snoozed thru a complete embargo and isolation and a war and occupation in Iraq that resulted in AT LEAST 600,000 dead civilians. "We avoid civilian deaths"?? Apparently not if there's a coalition or UN resolution blessing our military activities.

So your claim is the US Military killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq? Really? Post the proof. More likely, your idiotic response will be worded in a certain way that proves dumb ass liberals believe they are clever.

Can't compensate for the fact that Markle found 8 of my posts funny when we're talking about civilian deaths from American military actions. Makes any attempt for rational discussion futile.

Furthermore I posted 4 or 5 estimates of deaths due to the 10 year embargo and bombings already. Which means you didn't read any of them. The UN chief of Humanitarian Operations in Iraq RESIGNED over that carnage and Mad Albright said that 500,000 deaths over 10 years was an "acceptable level".

I also posted estimates of deaths from the period of invasion and occupation which put the total WAY over 700,000 at least. You're despicable for treating this as a partisan issue.

Go back and read.. Or continue to look stupid and callous. That's what separates Leftists from true Liberals like me..

RIddle me this..................who squandered the oil for food UN program in Iraq during those years. Your happy to blame our sanctions for the deaths when the international community set up a system to prevent this.

Why are you so engaged to blame it all on us instead of the leader of Iraq during that time..................

Are you willing to also state the starving in N. Korea is our fault as well...........That gov't spends most of it's money on weapons and proxies not the people. The same people they throw into prison or kill should they say anything against the gov't.

We are NOT RESPONSIBLE for the actions of a leader who is more concerned for his own power than that of his people.
Saddam and Iraq's Hungry Children

Oil-for-Food Programme - Wikipedia

 

[flacaltenn]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.


The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.

Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).

Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?

Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Yet for TWO DECADES --- you evidently snoozed thru a complete embargo and isolation and a war and occupation in Iraq that resulted in AT LEAST 600,000 dead civilians. "We avoid civilian deaths"?? Apparently not if there's a coalition or UN resolution blessing our military activities.

So your claim is the US Military killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq? Really? Post the proof. More likely, your idiotic response will be worded in a certain way that proves dumb ass liberals believe they are clever.

Most of the deaths were from the power struggle and Civil War fought between the Shiites and Sunni's not U.S. Military kills.

That's possible POST invasion. But there was already ample reason not to greet us as conquering heroes after putting them thru hell locked in with a mad man for 11 years.

And the invasion/occupation CREATED the sectarian violence and radicalization. So it was our doing.. That's why you don't topple dictators in the Mid East. Because the chaos and carnage is on YOU -- if you do..

 

[eagle1462010]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.


The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.

Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).

Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?

Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Yet for TWO DECADES --- you evidently snoozed thru a complete embargo and isolation and a war and occupation in Iraq that resulted in AT LEAST 600,000 dead civilians. "We avoid civilian deaths"?? Apparently not if there's a coalition or UN resolution blessing our military activities.

So your claim is the US Military killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq? Really? Post the proof. More likely, your idiotic response will be worded in a certain way that proves dumb ass liberals believe they are clever.

Most of the deaths were from the power struggle and Civil War fought between the Shiites and Sunni's not U.S. Military kills.

That's possible POST invasion. But there was already ample reason not to greet us as conquering heroes after putting them thru hell locked in with a mad man for 11 years.

And the invasion/occupation CREATED the sectarian violence and radicalization. So it was our doing.. That's why you don't topple dictators in the Mid East. Because the chaos and carnage is on YOU -- if you do..

They were tortured and suppressed before we ever fired a shot. Saddam was a ruthless leader and the majority of the people there were Shiites........not Sunni..............Saddam wanted power and attacked Iran......it failed.......Saddam attacked Kuwait and then threatened Saudi Arabia for power...........it failed........

He lusted for power and killed our tortured anyone who got in his way. He slaughtered Shiites during his entire reign........That can't be claimed on us as you state.

The rift was there ALWAYS.

 

[eagle1462010]

I served during the first Gulf War...........I served in Tanker Escort Missions during the Iran Iraq War.........I served in Somalia.............

In regards to Iraq..........they were given every option to withdraw from Kuwait and avoid a War...........They choose not to.........and thus were driven out......

In regards to Somalia.......we were there to save starving people and food shipments being stolen by the Warlords who kept it all for themselves and let others starve. When we secured it and no longer allowed them to steal the food and threaten it ended in a fight.

We weren't the bad guys there. The bad guys were the ones stealing food from starving people including women and children.

You like to blame us for the chaos there..............but show no blame to those responsible for their own actions.............Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait there would have been no War. Had he withdrawn from Kuwait......there would have been no War........Had Saddam used the oil for food program the people wouldn't have starved...........He choose that path during the time frame you quoted...........Not us.

 

[flacaltenn]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.


The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.

Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).

Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?

Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Yet for TWO DECADES --- you evidently snoozed thru a complete embargo and isolation and a war and occupation in Iraq that resulted in AT LEAST 600,000 dead civilians. "We avoid civilian deaths"?? Apparently not if there's a coalition or UN resolution blessing our military activities.

So your claim is the US Military killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq? Really? Post the proof. More likely, your idiotic response will be worded in a certain way that proves dumb ass liberals believe they are clever.

Can't compensate for the fact that Markle found 8 of my posts funny when we're talking about civilian deaths from American military actions. Makes any attempt for rational discussion futile.

Furthermore I posted 4 or 5 estimates of deaths due to the 10 year embargo and bombings already. Which means you didn't read any of them. The UN chief of Humanitarian Operations in Iraq RESIGNED over that carnage and Mad Albright said that 500,000 deaths over 10 years was an "acceptable level".

I also posted estimates of deaths from the period of invasion and occupation which put the total WAY over 700,000 at least. You're despicable for treating this as a partisan issue.

Go back and read.. Or continue to look stupid and callous. That's what separates Leftists from true Liberals like me..

RIddle me this..................who squandered the oil for food UN program in Iraq during those years. Your happy to blame our sanctions for the deaths when the international community set up a system to prevent this.

Why are you so engaged to blame it all on us instead of the leader of Iraq during that time..................

Are you willing to also state the starving in N. Korea is our fault as well...........That gov't spends most of it's money on weapons and proxies not the people. The same people they throw into prison or kill should they say anything against the gov't.

We are NOT RESPONSIBLE for the actions of a leader who is more concerned for his own power than that of his people.
Saddam and Iraq's Hungry Children

Oil-for-Food Programme - Wikipedia

That oil for food program came at the very end of things -- and WAY too late to prevent the destruction of the country and the death toll. And it was a candy ass to TRUST the UN to carry it out. That's where the corruption and the grafts and the freaking KICK-BACKS from Saddam himself came in. It came at a point where the EU wanted to drop sanctions. And Germany and France were already holding trade fairs with the Iraqis. And that last round of UN actions on inspections was falling to bits. Were only a handful of American politicians with the guts to turn Iraq loose. And Kucinich was one of them. And in the end, we had destroyed enough of Iraq and its military and infrastructure where it was no threat to anyone. And dropping containment was the right thing to do.

When your leftist buds complain about Bush invading Iraq -- they tacitly are giving APPROVAL to continuing the failed containment for another decade. Because most ALL of the Lefties would never have the guts to END that horrible policy.

And when you conservatives list all the PHONEY reasons to invade Iraq and topple Saddam -- the one LEGIT excuse you NEVER used -- was to end the embargo and the awful damage it was doing to the people of Iraq.

As a 3rd party outsider -- I'd have to give the hand to Bush for doing SOMETHING to end that -- even if the phoney excuses about atomic, biological and chemical weapons were used instead of ADMITTING that the US fucked up by IGNORING a bad policy for TOO damn long.

 

[flacaltenn]

I served during the first Gulf War...........I served in Tanker Escort Missions during the Iran Iraq War.........I served in Somalia.............

In regards to Iraq..........they were given every option to withdraw from Kuwait and avoid a War...........They choose not to.........and thus were driven out......

In regards to Somalia.......we were there to save starving people and food shipments being stolen by the Warlords who kept it all for themselves and let others starve. When we secured it and no longer allowed them to steal the food and threaten it ended in a fight.

We weren't the bad guys there. The bad guys were the ones stealing food from starving people including women and children.

You like to blame us for the chaos there..............but show no blame to those responsible for their own actions.............Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait there would have been no War. Had he withdrawn from Kuwait......there would have been no War........Had Saddam used the oil for food program the people wouldn't have starved...........He choose that path during the time frame you quoted...........Not us.

Oh hell. Not blaming the military. I'm blaming the juvenile expectations that were written in POLICY about how to fix "theiving warlords" or "despotic dictators". Took us 3 or 4 failed attempts to make those countries "democracies like us". And we still didn't learn --- when trying to topple Assad the lesson. For the 3rd time ----

In that neck of the woods -- you NEED despotic mean ruthless SOBs to run those countries to keep the tribes from killing each other and prevent radicalized insurgencies.

You would think that by the time BOTH DEMs and REPs REPEATEDLY made those same mistakes, that we'd not spend 3 years and several 100 $MILL trying to recruit and train "freedom fighters" that never MADE IT to the Syrian frontlines to topple Assad. But ALAS --- we're THAT STUPID. And possibly, our leadership doesn't DESERVE to have the finest military on the planet when those mistakes are repeated OVER and OVER and OVER again. .

 

[flacaltenn]

I served during the first Gulf War...........I served in Tanker Escort Missions during the Iran Iraq War.........I served in Somalia.............

In regards to Iraq..........they were given every option to withdraw from Kuwait and avoid a War...........They choose not to.........and thus were driven out......

In regards to Somalia.......we were there to save starving people and food shipments being stolen by the Warlords who kept it all for themselves and let others starve. When we secured it and no longer allowed them to steal the food and threaten it ended in a fight.

We weren't the bad guys there. The bad guys were the ones stealing food from starving people including women and children.

You like to blame us for the chaos there..............but show no blame to those responsible for their own actions.............Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait there would have been no War. Had he withdrawn from Kuwait......there would have been no War........Had Saddam used the oil for food program the people wouldn't have starved...........He choose that path during the time frame you quoted...........Not us.

We were ASKED for support from the moderate Arab country of Kuwait for assistance. I have NO issues with being ASKED for help by KNOWN trusted entities. I have a MAJOR problem with trying to identify the "friendlies" out of the 43 groups now fighting the clusterfuck in Syria. Or seeing rainbows and unicorns by backing "democratic" rebel groups that we have NO EXPECTATION could unify the country after such an epic destructive war.

 

[eagle1462010]

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Yet for TWO DECADES --- you evidently snoozed thru a complete embargo and isolation and a war and occupation in Iraq that resulted in AT LEAST 600,000 dead civilians. "We avoid civilian deaths"?? Apparently not if there's a coalition or UN resolution blessing our military activities.

So your claim is the US Military killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq? Really? Post the proof. More likely, your idiotic response will be worded in a certain way that proves dumb ass liberals believe they are clever.

Can't compensate for the fact that Markle found 8 of my posts funny when we're talking about civilian deaths from American military actions. Makes any attempt for rational discussion futile.

Furthermore I posted 4 or 5 estimates of deaths due to the 10 year embargo and bombings already. Which means you didn't read any of them. The UN chief of Humanitarian Operations in Iraq RESIGNED over that carnage and Mad Albright said that 500,000 deaths over 10 years was an "acceptable level".

I also posted estimates of deaths from the period of invasion and occupation which put the total WAY over 700,000 at least. You're despicable for treating this as a partisan issue.

Go back and read.. Or continue to look stupid and callous. That's what separates Leftists from true Liberals like me..

RIddle me this..................who squandered the oil for food UN program in Iraq during those years. Your happy to blame our sanctions for the deaths when the international community set up a system to prevent this.

Why are you so engaged to blame it all on us instead of the leader of Iraq during that time..................

Are you willing to also state the starving in N. Korea is our fault as well...........That gov't spends most of it's money on weapons and proxies not the people. The same people they throw into prison or kill should they say anything against the gov't.

We are NOT RESPONSIBLE for the actions of a leader who is more concerned for his own power than that of his people.
Saddam and Iraq's Hungry Children

Oil-for-Food Programme - Wikipedia

That oil for food program came at the very end of things -- and WAY too late to prevent the destruction of the country and the death toll. And it was a candy ass to TRUST the UN to carry it out. That's where the corruption and the grafts and the freaking KICK-BACKS from Saddam himself came in. It came at a point where the EU wanted to drop sanctions. And Germany and France were already holding trade fairs with the Iraqis. And that last round of UN actions on inspections was falling to bits. Were only a handful of American politicians with the guts to turn Iraq loose. And Kucinich was one of them. And in the end, we had destroyed enough of Iraq and its military and infrastructure where it was no threat to anyone. And dropping containment was the right thing to do.

When your leftist buds complain about Bush invading Iraq -- they tacitly are giving APPROVAL to continuing the failed containment for another decade. Because most ALL of the Lefties would never have the guts to END that horrible policy.

And when you conservatives list all the PHONEY reasons to invade Iraq and topple Saddam -- the one LEGIT excuse you NEVER used -- was to end the embargo and the awful damage it was doing to the people of Iraq.

As a 3rd party outsider -- I'd have to give the hand to Bush for doing SOMETHING to end that -- even if the phoney excuses about atomic, biological and chemical weapons were used instead of ADMITTING that the US fucked up by IGNORING a bad policy for TOO damn long.

Oil for food program was posted in 1995. I posted that information. He lived in palaces as the people starved. Again you ignore those facts and pick and choose the ones you agree with. He had options and chose to make his people suffer for them. Warehouses of UN food were found in the Iraq War that should have been fed to the people.......Yet he chose not to.

In regards to the invasion of Iraq...............I was never on board..........I argued if he had weapons do surgical strikes and not commit to an occupation before it ever started.......I got in an disagreement with my own brother over it as I stated that if we go in there we would get stuck.........because I understood that their culture is not like ours........it is ruled by religion.................I was right and my brother was wrong,.

When Bush decided to Invade I supported the actions in the hope that I was wrong............but that didn't pan out...........

This whole dang region is quicksand..........has been since 700.........the British and the French finally left after WWI because the violence never ended.....they tired of it..........Israel has given ground and attempted appeasement over the years and it never works..........because the fanatics or ISIS the DOOMS DAY CULT will never change..........If we haven't changed those types in over a 1000 years what the hell makes us think we can change that ideology now........we can't but we can also not ignore the spread of these radical elements..........and because of these elements their have been tyrants leading nations over there......because only the ruthless ones seem to survive..............

It is a shit hole that has caused leaders to fail on options for a 1000 years.............yet you don't blame that mindset...you only blame those trying to stop the DOOMSDAY CULTS.

 

[eagle1462010]

I served during the first Gulf War...........I served in Tanker Escort Missions during the Iran Iraq War.........I served in Somalia.............

In regards to Iraq..........they were given every option to withdraw from Kuwait and avoid a War...........They choose not to.........and thus were driven out......

In regards to Somalia.......we were there to save starving people and food shipments being stolen by the Warlords who kept it all for themselves and let others starve. When we secured it and no longer allowed them to steal the food and threaten it ended in a fight.

We weren't the bad guys there. The bad guys were the ones stealing food from starving people including women and children.

You like to blame us for the chaos there..............but show no blame to those responsible for their own actions.............Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait there would have been no War. Had he withdrawn from Kuwait......there would have been no War........Had Saddam used the oil for food program the people wouldn't have starved...........He choose that path during the time frame you quoted...........Not us.

Oh hell. Not blaming the military. I'm blaming the juvenile expectations that were written in POLICY about how to fix "theiving warlords" or "despotic dictators". Took us 3 or 4 failed attempts to make those countries "democracies like us". And we still didn't learn --- when trying to topple Assad the lesson. For the 3rd time ----

In that neck of the woods -- you NEED despotic mean ruthless SOBs to run those countries to keep the tribes from killing each other and prevent radicalized insurgencies.

You would think that by the time BOTH DEMs and REPs REPEATEDLY made those same mistakes, that we'd not spend 3 years and several 100 $MILL trying to recruit and train "freedom fighters" that never MADE IT to the Syrian frontlines to topple Assad. But ALAS --- we're THAT STUPID. And possibly, our leadership doesn't DESERVE to have the finest military on the planet when those mistakes are repeated OVER and OVER and OVER again. .

Yes ruthless despots are the only ones who keep a lid on pandora's box.................and these ruthless leaders also starve, torture, and rape their own people. The same thing you didn't add to your original complaints about how we are at fault for everything there.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yet for TWO DECADES --- you evidently snoozed thru a complete embargo and isolation and a war and occupation in Iraq that resulted in AT LEAST 600,000 dead civilians. "We avoid civilian deaths"?? Apparently not if there's a coalition or UN resolution blessing our military activities.

So your claim is the US Military killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq? Really? Post the proof. More likely, your idiotic response will be worded in a certain way that proves dumb ass liberals believe they are clever.

Can't compensate for the fact that Markle found 8 of my posts funny when we're talking about civilian deaths from American military actions. Makes any attempt for rational discussion futile.

Furthermore I posted 4 or 5 estimates of deaths due to the 10 year embargo and bombings already. Which means you didn't read any of them. The UN chief of Humanitarian Operations in Iraq RESIGNED over that carnage and Mad Albright said that 500,000 deaths over 10 years was an "acceptable level".

I also posted estimates of deaths from the period of invasion and occupation which put the total WAY over 700,000 at least. You're despicable for treating this as a partisan issue.

Go back and read.. Or continue to look stupid and callous. That's what separates Leftists from true Liberals like me..

RIddle me this..................who squandered the oil for food UN program in Iraq during those years. Your happy to blame our sanctions for the deaths when the international community set up a system to prevent this.

Why are you so engaged to blame it all on us instead of the leader of Iraq during that time..................

Are you willing to also state the starving in N. Korea is our fault as well...........That gov't spends most of it's money on weapons and proxies not the people. The same people they throw into prison or kill should they say anything against the gov't.

We are NOT RESPONSIBLE for the actions of a leader who is more concerned for his own power than that of his people.
Saddam and Iraq's Hungry Children

Oil-for-Food Programme - Wikipedia

That oil for food program came at the very end of things -- and WAY too late to prevent the destruction of the country and the death toll. And it was a candy ass to TRUST the UN to carry it out. That's where the corruption and the grafts and the freaking KICK-BACKS from Saddam himself came in. It came at a point where the EU wanted to drop sanctions. And Germany and France were already holding trade fairs with the Iraqis. And that last round of UN actions on inspections was falling to bits. Were only a handful of American politicians with the guts to turn Iraq loose. And Kucinich was one of them. And in the end, we had destroyed enough of Iraq and its military and infrastructure where it was no threat to anyone. And dropping containment was the right thing to do.

When your leftist buds complain about Bush invading Iraq -- they tacitly are giving APPROVAL to continuing the failed containment for another decade. Because most ALL of the Lefties would never have the guts to END that horrible policy.

And when you conservatives list all the PHONEY reasons to invade Iraq and topple Saddam -- the one LEGIT excuse you NEVER used -- was to end the embargo and the awful damage it was doing to the people of Iraq.

As a 3rd party outsider -- I'd have to give the hand to Bush for doing SOMETHING to end that -- even if the phoney excuses about atomic, biological and chemical weapons were used instead of ADMITTING that the US fucked up by IGNORING a bad policy for TOO damn long.

Oil for food program was posted in 1995. I posted that information. He lived in palaces as the people starved. Again you ignore those facts and pick and choose the ones you agree with. He had options and chose to make his people suffer for them. Warehouses of UN food were found in the Iraq War that should have been fed to the people.......Yet he chose not to.

In regards to the invasion of Iraq...............I was never on board..........I argued if he had weapons do surgical strikes and not commit to an occupation before it ever started.......I got in an disagreement with my own brother over it as I stated that if we go in there we would get stuck.........because I understood that their culture is not like ours........it is ruled by religion.................I was right and my brother was wrong,.

When Bush decided to Invade I supported the actions in the hope that I was wrong............but that didn't pan out...........

This whole dang region is quicksand..........has been since 700.........the British and the French finally left after WWI because the violence never ended.....they tired of it..........Israel has given ground and attempted appeasement over the years and it never works..........because the fanatics or ISIS the DOOMS DAY CULT will never change..........If we haven't changed those types in over a 1000 years what the hell makes us think we can change that ideology now........we can't but we can also not ignore the spread of these radical elements..........and because of these elements their have been tyrants leading nations over there......because only the ruthless ones seem to survive..............

It is a shit hole that has caused leaders to fail on options for a 1000 years.............yet you don't blame that mindset...you only blame those trying to stop the DOOMSDAY CULTS.

The DOOMSDAY cult of the week -- ISIS -- got it's leadership from Iraqi jails that were initially under US Military control. Al Bagdhadi was in one of them. And due to the "diplomacy" angles, somehow the Iraqis were given control and released that leadership. Then that leadership scared the shit out of the Iraqi army and STOLE and the armor, artillery, and small weapons that the US BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. THAT -- is the origin of the "doomsday cult of the week". Am I "blaming" anyone for that? Probably not. And CERTAINLY not the US military.

But it was time to drop the charade of "democratizing" Iraq when the regime at that time was NOT the "secular, democratic, principled govt that WE would have preferred. So according to the Dems, THEY kicked US out by refusing to sign a continuing SOForces agreement. I'm pretty sure, Obama/Clinton didn't try very hard to convince them otherwise.

The BLAME is on the continuing fucked up POLITICAL policies and expectations.
From BOTH sides of your "name brand parties"..

 

[eagle1462010]

So your claim is the US Military killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq? Really? Post the proof. More likely, your idiotic response will be worded in a certain way that proves dumb ass liberals believe they are clever.

Can't compensate for the fact that Markle found 8 of my posts funny when we're talking about civilian deaths from American military actions. Makes any attempt for rational discussion futile.

Furthermore I posted 4 or 5 estimates of deaths due to the 10 year embargo and bombings already. Which means you didn't read any of them. The UN chief of Humanitarian Operations in Iraq RESIGNED over that carnage and Mad Albright said that 500,000 deaths over 10 years was an "acceptable level".

I also posted estimates of deaths from the period of invasion and occupation which put the total WAY over 700,000 at least. You're despicable for treating this as a partisan issue.

Go back and read.. Or continue to look stupid and callous. That's what separates Leftists from true Liberals like me..

RIddle me this..................who squandered the oil for food UN program in Iraq during those years. Your happy to blame our sanctions for the deaths when the international community set up a system to prevent this.

Why are you so engaged to blame it all on us instead of the leader of Iraq during that time..................

Are you willing to also state the starving in N. Korea is our fault as well...........That gov't spends most of it's money on weapons and proxies not the people. The same people they throw into prison or kill should they say anything against the gov't.

We are NOT RESPONSIBLE for the actions of a leader who is more concerned for his own power than that of his people.
Saddam and Iraq's Hungry Children

Oil-for-Food Programme - Wikipedia

That oil for food program came at the very end of things -- and WAY too late to prevent the destruction of the country and the death toll. And it was a candy ass to TRUST the UN to carry it out. That's where the corruption and the grafts and the freaking KICK-BACKS from Saddam himself came in. It came at a point where the EU wanted to drop sanctions. And Germany and France were already holding trade fairs with the Iraqis. And that last round of UN actions on inspections was falling to bits. Were only a handful of American politicians with the guts to turn Iraq loose. And Kucinich was one of them. And in the end, we had destroyed enough of Iraq and its military and infrastructure where it was no threat to anyone. And dropping containment was the right thing to do.

When your leftist buds complain about Bush invading Iraq -- they tacitly are giving APPROVAL to continuing the failed containment for another decade. Because most ALL of the Lefties would never have the guts to END that horrible policy.

And when you conservatives list all the PHONEY reasons to invade Iraq and topple Saddam -- the one LEGIT excuse you NEVER used -- was to end the embargo and the awful damage it was doing to the people of Iraq.

As a 3rd party outsider -- I'd have to give the hand to Bush for doing SOMETHING to end that -- even if the phoney excuses about atomic, biological and chemical weapons were used instead of ADMITTING that the US fucked up by IGNORING a bad policy for TOO damn long.

Oil for food program was posted in 1995. I posted that information. He lived in palaces as the people starved. Again you ignore those facts and pick and choose the ones you agree with. He had options and chose to make his people suffer for them. Warehouses of UN food were found in the Iraq War that should have been fed to the people.......Yet he chose not to.

In regards to the invasion of Iraq...............I was never on board..........I argued if he had weapons do surgical strikes and not commit to an occupation before it ever started.......I got in an disagreement with my own brother over it as I stated that if we go in there we would get stuck.........because I understood that their culture is not like ours........it is ruled by religion.................I was right and my brother was wrong,.

When Bush decided to Invade I supported the actions in the hope that I was wrong............but that didn't pan out...........

This whole dang region is quicksand..........has been since 700.........the British and the French finally left after WWI because the violence never ended.....they tired of it..........Israel has given ground and attempted appeasement over the years and it never works..........because the fanatics or ISIS the DOOMS DAY CULT will never change..........If we haven't changed those types in over a 1000 years what the hell makes us think we can change that ideology now........we can't but we can also not ignore the spread of these radical elements..........and because of these elements their have been tyrants leading nations over there......because only the ruthless ones seem to survive..............

It is a shit hole that has caused leaders to fail on options for a 1000 years.............yet you don't blame that mindset...you only blame those trying to stop the DOOMSDAY CULTS.

The DOOMSDAY cult of the week -- ISIS -- got it's leadership from Iraqi jails that were initially under US Military control. Al Bagdhadi was in one of them. And due to the "diplomacy" angles, somehow the Iraqis were given control and released that leadership. Then that leadership scared the shit out of the Iraqi army and STOLE and the armor, artillery, and small weapons that the US BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. THAT -- is the origin of the "doomsday cult of the week". Am I "blaming" anyone for that? Probably not. And CERTAINLY not the US military.

But it was time to drop the charade of "democratizing" Iraq when the regime at that time was NOT the "secular, democratic, principled govt that WE would have preferred. So according to the Dems, THEY kicked US out by refusing to sign a continuing SOForces agreement. I'm pretty sure, Obama/Clinton didn't try very hard to convince them otherwise.

The BLAME is on the continuing fucked up POLITICAL policies and expectations.
From BOTH sides of your "name brand parties"..

Those prisoners were released by the Iraqi Gov't AGAINST THE ADVICE OF THE U.S. military. Iraq let them go NOT US.They were warned not to let them go but chose to do so otherwise..........and that decision unleashed them into the origination of ISIS.

 

[flacaltenn]

I served during the first Gulf War...........I served in Tanker Escort Missions during the Iran Iraq War.........I served in Somalia.............

In regards to Iraq..........they were given every option to withdraw from Kuwait and avoid a War...........They choose not to.........and thus were driven out......

In regards to Somalia.......we were there to save starving people and food shipments being stolen by the Warlords who kept it all for themselves and let others starve. When we secured it and no longer allowed them to steal the food and threaten it ended in a fight.

We weren't the bad guys there. The bad guys were the ones stealing food from starving people including women and children.

You like to blame us for the chaos there..............but show no blame to those responsible for their own actions.............Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait there would have been no War. Had he withdrawn from Kuwait......there would have been no War........Had Saddam used the oil for food program the people wouldn't have starved...........He choose that path during the time frame you quoted...........Not us.

Oh hell. Not blaming the military. I'm blaming the juvenile expectations that were written in POLICY about how to fix "theiving warlords" or "despotic dictators". Took us 3 or 4 failed attempts to make those countries "democracies like us". And we still didn't learn --- when trying to topple Assad the lesson. For the 3rd time ----

In that neck of the woods -- you NEED despotic mean ruthless SOBs to run those countries to keep the tribes from killing each other and prevent radicalized insurgencies.

You would think that by the time BOTH DEMs and REPs REPEATEDLY made those same mistakes, that we'd not spend 3 years and several 100 $MILL trying to recruit and train "freedom fighters" that never MADE IT to the Syrian frontlines to topple Assad. But ALAS --- we're THAT STUPID. And possibly, our leadership doesn't DESERVE to have the finest military on the planet when those mistakes are repeated OVER and OVER and OVER again. .

Yes ruthless despots are the only ones who keep a lid on pandora's box.................and these ruthless leaders also starve, torture, and rape their own people. The same thing you didn't add to your original complaints about how we are at fault for everything there.

What else did think would happen when we create massive smoking voids in Libya, Iraq, Somalia, maybe Afghanistan and Syria? It's really pretty predictable given that "lesson" I've been pounding. You don't topple despotic regimes there. You might attempt to "domesticate them a bit" for the good of human rights and trade.

You look at the way the Iraq economy was ALWAYS run. It was oil money parsed out in crony deals and patronage. And that REQUIRES a couple palaces and a shotgun toting madman to make it work. One that would keep the Shia, Kurd and Sunni from killing each other over OWNERSHIP of the major industry.

 

[eagle1462010]

I served during the first Gulf War...........I served in Tanker Escort Missions during the Iran Iraq War.........I served in Somalia.............

In regards to Iraq..........they were given every option to withdraw from Kuwait and avoid a War...........They choose not to.........and thus were driven out......

In regards to Somalia.......we were there to save starving people and food shipments being stolen by the Warlords who kept it all for themselves and let others starve. When we secured it and no longer allowed them to steal the food and threaten it ended in a fight.

We weren't the bad guys there. The bad guys were the ones stealing food from starving people including women and children.

You like to blame us for the chaos there..............but show no blame to those responsible for their own actions.............Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait there would have been no War. Had he withdrawn from Kuwait......there would have been no War........Had Saddam used the oil for food program the people wouldn't have starved...........He choose that path during the time frame you quoted...........Not us.

Oh hell. Not blaming the military. I'm blaming the juvenile expectations that were written in POLICY about how to fix "theiving warlords" or "despotic dictators". Took us 3 or 4 failed attempts to make those countries "democracies like us". And we still didn't learn --- when trying to topple Assad the lesson. For the 3rd time ----

In that neck of the woods -- you NEED despotic mean ruthless SOBs to run those countries to keep the tribes from killing each other and prevent radicalized insurgencies.

You would think that by the time BOTH DEMs and REPs REPEATEDLY made those same mistakes, that we'd not spend 3 years and several 100 $MILL trying to recruit and train "freedom fighters" that never MADE IT to the Syrian frontlines to topple Assad. But ALAS --- we're THAT STUPID. And possibly, our leadership doesn't DESERVE to have the finest military on the planet when those mistakes are repeated OVER and OVER and OVER again. .

Yes ruthless despots are the only ones who keep a lid on pandora's box.................and these ruthless leaders also starve, torture, and rape their own people. The same thing you didn't add to your original complaints about how we are at fault for everything there.

What else did think would happen when we create massive smoking voids in Libya, Iraq, Somalia, maybe Afghanistan and Syria? It's really pretty predictable given that "lesson" I've been pounding. You don't topple despotic regimes there. You might attempt to "domesticate them a bit" for the good of human rights and trade.

You look at the way the Iraq economy was ALWAYS run. It was oil money parsed out in crony deals and patronage. And that REQUIRES a couple palaces and a shotgun toting madman to make it work. One that would keep the Shia, Kurd and Sunni from killing each other over OWNERSHIP of the major industry.

Then stop with the arguments that we starved the Iraqi people. We didn't...........Saddam did.............the UN didn't.........Saddam did......In Somalia......the War Lords did it.........Not us..........

Stop putting the blame on us for their actions...........which you were doing before we got into the despots and why they were there discussion.

 

[flacaltenn]

Can't compensate for the fact that Markle found 8 of my posts funny when we're talking about civilian deaths from American military actions. Makes any attempt for rational discussion futile.

Furthermore I posted 4 or 5 estimates of deaths due to the 10 year embargo and bombings already. Which means you didn't read any of them. The UN chief of Humanitarian Operations in Iraq RESIGNED over that carnage and Mad Albright said that 500,000 deaths over 10 years was an "acceptable level".

I also posted estimates of deaths from the period of invasion and occupation which put the total WAY over 700,000 at least. You're despicable for treating this as a partisan issue.

Go back and read.. Or continue to look stupid and callous. That's what separates Leftists from true Liberals like me..

RIddle me this..................who squandered the oil for food UN program in Iraq during those years. Your happy to blame our sanctions for the deaths when the international community set up a system to prevent this.

Why are you so engaged to blame it all on us instead of the leader of Iraq during that time..................

Are you willing to also state the starving in N. Korea is our fault as well...........That gov't spends most of it's money on weapons and proxies not the people. The same people they throw into prison or kill should they say anything against the gov't.

We are NOT RESPONSIBLE for the actions of a leader who is more concerned for his own power than that of his people.
Saddam and Iraq's Hungry Children

Oil-for-Food Programme - Wikipedia

That oil for food program came at the very end of things -- and WAY too late to prevent the destruction of the country and the death toll. And it was a candy ass to TRUST the UN to carry it out. That's where the corruption and the grafts and the freaking KICK-BACKS from Saddam himself came in. It came at a point where the EU wanted to drop sanctions. And Germany and France were already holding trade fairs with the Iraqis. And that last round of UN actions on inspections was falling to bits. Were only a handful of American politicians with the guts to turn Iraq loose. And Kucinich was one of them. And in the end, we had destroyed enough of Iraq and its military and infrastructure where it was no threat to anyone. And dropping containment was the right thing to do.

When your leftist buds complain about Bush invading Iraq -- they tacitly are giving APPROVAL to continuing the failed containment for another decade. Because most ALL of the Lefties would never have the guts to END that horrible policy.

And when you conservatives list all the PHONEY reasons to invade Iraq and topple Saddam -- the one LEGIT excuse you NEVER used -- was to end the embargo and the awful damage it was doing to the people of Iraq.

As a 3rd party outsider -- I'd have to give the hand to Bush for doing SOMETHING to end that -- even if the phoney excuses about atomic, biological and chemical weapons were used instead of ADMITTING that the US fucked up by IGNORING a bad policy for TOO damn long.

Oil for food program was posted in 1995. I posted that information. He lived in palaces as the people starved. Again you ignore those facts and pick and choose the ones you agree with. He had options and chose to make his people suffer for them. Warehouses of UN food were found in the Iraq War that should have been fed to the people.......Yet he chose not to.

In regards to the invasion of Iraq...............I was never on board..........I argued if he had weapons do surgical strikes and not commit to an occupation before it ever started.......I got in an disagreement with my own brother over it as I stated that if we go in there we would get stuck.........because I understood that their culture is not like ours........it is ruled by religion.................I was right and my brother was wrong,.

When Bush decided to Invade I supported the actions in the hope that I was wrong............but that didn't pan out...........

This whole dang region is quicksand..........has been since 700.........the British and the French finally left after WWI because the violence never ended.....they tired of it..........Israel has given ground and attempted appeasement over the years and it never works..........because the fanatics or ISIS the DOOMS DAY CULT will never change..........If we haven't changed those types in over a 1000 years what the hell makes us think we can change that ideology now........we can't but we can also not ignore the spread of these radical elements..........and because of these elements their have been tyrants leading nations over there......because only the ruthless ones seem to survive..............

It is a shit hole that has caused leaders to fail on options for a 1000 years.............yet you don't blame that mindset...you only blame those trying to stop the DOOMSDAY CULTS.

The DOOMSDAY cult of the week -- ISIS -- got it's leadership from Iraqi jails that were initially under US Military control. Al Bagdhadi was in one of them. And due to the "diplomacy" angles, somehow the Iraqis were given control and released that leadership. Then that leadership scared the shit out of the Iraqi army and STOLE and the armor, artillery, and small weapons that the US BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. THAT -- is the origin of the "doomsday cult of the week". Am I "blaming" anyone for that? Probably not. And CERTAINLY not the US military.

But it was time to drop the charade of "democratizing" Iraq when the regime at that time was NOT the "secular, democratic, principled govt that WE would have preferred. So according to the Dems, THEY kicked US out by refusing to sign a continuing SOForces agreement. I'm pretty sure, Obama/Clinton didn't try very hard to convince them otherwise.

The BLAME is on the continuing fucked up POLITICAL policies and expectations.
From BOTH sides of your "name brand parties"..

Those prisoners were released by the Iraqi Gov't AGAINST THE ADVICE OF THE U.S. military. Iraq let them go NOT US.They were warned not to let them go but chose to do so otherwise..........and that decision unleashed them into the origination of ISIS.

Exactly. Like I said I'm not casting blame on the specifics. It's the BIG picture policy repeated mistakes that PROVOKE all this insanity.. And the US military -- I'm SURE -- was not happy with the dippies who arranged Iraqi control of all those radical insurgents the US had captured. But that's the reality of TRYING to prop up a govt that doesn't have the stones it takes to RUN a MidEast country.

 

[flacaltenn]

I served during the first Gulf War...........I served in Tanker Escort Missions during the Iran Iraq War.........I served in Somalia.............

In regards to Iraq..........they were given every option to withdraw from Kuwait and avoid a War...........They choose not to.........and thus were driven out......

In regards to Somalia.......we were there to save starving people and food shipments being stolen by the Warlords who kept it all for themselves and let others starve. When we secured it and no longer allowed them to steal the food and threaten it ended in a fight.

We weren't the bad guys there. The bad guys were the ones stealing food from starving people including women and children.

You like to blame us for the chaos there..............but show no blame to those responsible for their own actions.............Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait there would have been no War. Had he withdrawn from Kuwait......there would have been no War........Had Saddam used the oil for food program the people wouldn't have starved...........He choose that path during the time frame you quoted...........Not us.

Oh hell. Not blaming the military. I'm blaming the juvenile expectations that were written in POLICY about how to fix "theiving warlords" or "despotic dictators". Took us 3 or 4 failed attempts to make those countries "democracies like us". And we still didn't learn --- when trying to topple Assad the lesson. For the 3rd time ----

In that neck of the woods -- you NEED despotic mean ruthless SOBs to run those countries to keep the tribes from killing each other and prevent radicalized insurgencies.

You would think that by the time BOTH DEMs and REPs REPEATEDLY made those same mistakes, that we'd not spend 3 years and several 100 $MILL trying to recruit and train "freedom fighters" that never MADE IT to the Syrian frontlines to topple Assad. But ALAS --- we're THAT STUPID. And possibly, our leadership doesn't DESERVE to have the finest military on the planet when those mistakes are repeated OVER and OVER and OVER again. .

Yes ruthless despots are the only ones who keep a lid on pandora's box.................and these ruthless leaders also starve, torture, and rape their own people. The same thing you didn't add to your original complaints about how we are at fault for everything there.

What else did think would happen when we create massive smoking voids in Libya, Iraq, Somalia, maybe Afghanistan and Syria? It's really pretty predictable given that "lesson" I've been pounding. You don't topple despotic regimes there. You might attempt to "domesticate them a bit" for the good of human rights and trade.

You look at the way the Iraq economy was ALWAYS run. It was oil money parsed out in crony deals and patronage. And that REQUIRES a couple palaces and a shotgun toting madman to make it work. One that would keep the Shia, Kurd and Sunni from killing each other over OWNERSHIP of the major industry.

Then stop with the arguments that we starved the Iraqi people. We didn't...........Saddam did.............the UN didn't.........Saddam did......In Somalia......the War Lords did it.........Not us..........

Stop putting the blame on us for their actions...........which you were doing before we got into the despots and why they were there discussion.

Once you take the keys to the economy AWAY from a sovereign government. I don't care if it's Saddam or Martin Luther King -- and start bombing them daily and destroying their infrastructive and starving them of vitals ----- Things are gonna go horribly wrong. That's the part you're missing. Yes -- we locked 40Million Iraqis up with a mad man for 11 years without the means to survive. How would that EVER ----- go right?