ctembreull

I thought so; I'm glad you agree.

True, with caveats: pro-war people certainly don't give a rat's arse about the damage we've done to Iraq or the innocent civilians we've killed. Most of the pro-war people, furthermore, don't really give a rat's arse about "liberating" Iraq. I think Sixate said it best: they just like watching their big powerful country beat up on little pissant uneducated countries. Such a wonderful thing, jingoism...

Stuff in Iraq destroyed? Gosh, I wonder who could have done *that*. You say this like it excuses the United States, but the fact is that all of that pre-existing destruction (and there was a lot less of it before this year) was our doing, too.

That is absolute bushwah (pun intended.) If you're trying to sell me the bill of goods that says that we didn't actually manage to blow apart any power plants or water facilities in our latest national wargasm, then it is my opinion, sir, that you may in fact be completely insane. Additionally, how do you think those "other" power plants and water facilities got destroyed? Was there anyone *besides* America and Britain invading Iraq in the last ten years, that I'm somehow not aware of?

Um, that would be "the Iraqi people that the U.S. occupational government deems politically suitable. What, you think we're gonna allow anyone who can even spell "Baath Party" anywhere near the new puppet government?

In a pig's eye. Or did you not hear about the new "bid system" that will allow approved oil companies to bid against each other for lots of Iraqi oil? Gee, can you say "collusion?" I knew you could.

By this, you mean Halliburton. Y'see, Halliburton was awarded a bunch of those rebuilding contracts without even having to bid on them.. Not coincidentally, Halliburton is Vice President Dick "Pacemaker Man" Cheney's company. Oh, yes, we're importing those wonderful American values into Iraq: political intolerance, violence, and patronage. Lovely.

Ahem. I was told repeatedly this year that they had them, we knew they had them, and that we knew where they were, not to mention that they could deploy them against the United States in as little as an hour. I was also told that they had a nuclear program. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Or were they just a convenient excuse to invade a sovereign nation?

Is your last name perhaps Fleischer? Just curious, mind. At any rate, spoken like a PR flack. I would love to see you justify calling a people whose sovereignty has just been violated "free".

Stop right there. Just fucking stop. That is a patently ridiculous statement. It is a transparent blow-off, a ridiculous attempt at justification, and speaks of an absolute lack of concern for the people whose putativeb freedom you were just moments ago bleeding over.
Between five and ten thousand Iraqis are dead at the hands of the United States and its allies.. Full stop. So much for liberation.

Difference: in World War II, the Allies were the liberators. Now, they're the invaders. How many more will die to free the Iraqis of the Allies, I wonder?

For the ones who took up arms against the Allies, no. For all the others, absolutely.

[B] So I suppose the inspectors were more of a naturally occurring phenomenon? And all those reports that there were no WMDs were just hallucinations experienced on a worldwide scale, I presume?

Pay attention, because I'm only going to say this once. No nation, not the United States, nor any other, has any right whatsoever to demand that any leader abdicate power for any reason. Sovereign nations are just that: sovereign nations. That Saddam wouldn't step down on our say so in no way justifies, validates, or excuses an armed invasion. That is international law, sir, and we are not above it.

It's a testament to the childishness of our President that such a schoolyard tactic could have succeeded. This is the United States of America, not some sixth-grader on the playground. I don't care if said your mother wears combat boots, we had no right to invade.

By locating his power plants and water treatment facilities conveniently to cities where they could actually do some good? What an absolutely silly thing of him to do. How dare he even attempt to provide those people basic services? How dare he?

Whereas it took us only about a month to kill as many as half that number. Listen: just because Saddam did it doesn't mean that we should as well. We're supposed to be better than that, instead of sinking to his level. Speaking, by the way, of cruel and oppressive dictators, when did you say we were going to liberate Congo, Zaire, Angola, Cuba, Pakistan, North Korea, and China?

So you deny that United States forces used bulldozers in combat to collapse Iraqi berm fortifications and bury their defenders alive?

In fact, that's exactly what I'm saying. And don't fret, the Russians took care of the Third Reich several days before the United States reached Berlin. Gee... maybe if we hadn't invaded, all those Nederlanders who died would have been alive, hmm? It's not as if the occupation would have continued long once Hitler ate a bullet.

Actually it does, if we're as pure as we claim to be. By invading Iraq and laying waste to its infrastructure, killing its people, outlawing political parties, and auctioning off its mineral wealth, we are ourselves no better than Saddam Hussein. This is a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. We supported him in the 80's. We armed his nation as a bulwark against Iran. We have nobody but ourselves to blame for the results of that tampering. Nobody but ourselves.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!