I can live with the accuracy of that speculation Skybird. Can you live with your willingness to keep murdering dictators in power because you fear the potential alternatives?

Long before 2003, Saddam dug their future in a pit

Yes I can, because I am realist enough to know that it goes beyoind my/our power to remove them all one by one. As I see it, the state after the removal of Saddam became and still is more chaotic and unnormal, than it was unde rhis reign. Not even mentioning our own long-lasting strtageic interests that have suffreed miserably form this war, while we have helped to make our enemies stronger, namely Iran's influence.

But can you live with giving a late excuse for a war after the war was held because your original explanations from before the war have failed, and can youz live with the many many bad guys and dark alliances that you leave in power, and even still support...? Sending your own troops into battle and see thousands killed and hundreds of thousands (yes, right that: hundreds of tousands) physically and psychologically injured over lies and private corporation interests that had been formulated and brought to paper one decade before Bush II even took office?

Beside the costs payed by the Iraqis for your "good will" and "kind intention", American losses are vanishing. Their losses numerically weigh many, many, many times heavier than yours.

For what? Is the status quo, is the realistic future perspective worth it?

My answer is a sounding No. And that was forseeable from even before it all began in 2003.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. It didn't have to go the way that it went and 300,000 is a ridiculous number.

Okay.

Just that 300,000 number thing you must discuss with Armistead, and not object to me - I did not bring it up, but linked those two sites with their different countings and reasons why they count it the way they do.

Just this, checking Youtube I see that the German dubbed version of "No end in sight" still is available there under the title "'Invasion der Amateure", in several parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8WN7rgcqu8
and more parts

"It didn't have to go the way that it went" - well, really? How could have gone it any other way - with plannings and intentions like that...?

Well geez - its all the fault of the US and UK. Its not the responsibility of the various ethnic factional leaders, or the Iranians, or the Islamic fundamentalists that suicide bomb public markets. Sure, they are the ones causing the death and destruction, but they have no moral or ethical responsibility for their own actions...

Ok - fine, the US led coalition opened up the door. Fine - I can live with that responsibility. The key is, we didn't decide who would walk thru it, the interests in the region - as well as the Iraqi's themselves - have done that. It goes back to the responsibility of the citizenry - and so far while there have been those who would see their country stand on its own, too many still choose to live in fear rather than freedom.

The guys like Al Sadr, who put their own power grabs over the needs of their nation, don't hold any responsibility when their own militia's gun down the innocent, do they Skybird? The Iranians have no responsibility when they arm and train insurgents - from all over the islamic world, and then help them get into Iraq, to kill not only coalition troops, but also Iraqi citizens. Do you see how lame that is....

We provided an opportunity. So far, it has not been embraced. Some of us knew that it might not be. At least they have had the chance for freedom. Do I regret the decision to go being made? No. Do I despise how the aftermath has been dealth with? Yes. But to try and lay the responsibility of the whole mess at the feet of the US, removes and absolves the criminality of the acts perpetrated by those who are struggling to keep Iraq from being free......

Go ahead, keep blaming the US. Not you personally Skybird, but there are people that seem to live for nothing else, regardless of the reality.

Apparently they don't, following Haplo logic they are patriots who can kill as many women and kids in any way possible and its all fully justifiable, admirable even.:smug:

There are no innocents, they live there so they are all guilty, its a "christian" thing:up:

USA and Israel are the real terrorists. By that mean the governments, not the people or land.

How much proof of this does one need?

more than what you posted

Don't you know that insane indoctrinated people cant be responsible for their actions.
Thats way Iraqis miss good old uncle Sadam.
He knew how to deal with this peaple.
World is experiencing kind of twisted Stockholm syndrome.

I'm glad you agree with Tribesman.:salute:

Says the guy with a username glorifying the most bloodthirsty nation ever created.

Well, of course you can snap when you are being criticised instead of giving you the glory you thought you would get when starting to shoot from the hip in Iraq. But don't expect other people in other nations finding that a respectable attitude. There must be a reason why the majority of people in pretty much all nations outside the US, are against you over Iraq. And even inside the US, scepticism seems to constantly grow since years.

Anyway, an accomplice in violence and/or crime is somebody who assists in the act of criminal/illegitimate violence by

- either directly participating in committing it,
- or by distributing the means and tools of carrying it out,
- or by allowing it and even provoking it when creating the opportunity for it to break out,
- or by carrying out deeds and acts and not caring for right these deeds creating opportunity for violence to unleash,
- or by not helping when he could easily help to prevent or contain it,
- or by misleading somebody who considers the use of justified self-defence that one would help him, but then betrays him and let him down, ledtting hin run into his enemies knife that way.

For all these crimninal failures and criminal intention as well, there are many examples regarding the US' role on Iraq. The US support for Saddam. His arming, conventionally and chemically. His terror. His launching of the war against Iran. Allowing him to stay in power after 1991. Allowing him a limited airforce so that he could crack down on the Shia revolt. Motivating and causing the opposition for that rebellion, promising them support and then letting them get massacred withoiut raising one hand to their assistance. And finally the dilletantic expectations of how easy the 2003 war woulöd go, and how nice the Iraqis qwould find it, and how much lack of reaction from terror groups, Iran, Al Quaeda, and ethnic hate and revenge parties there would be. This list of blood-dripping crimes and failings goes non not just since 2003. Not even since 1991. But even since before that. It started already under the Shah.

And any American (or German, for that matter) court where you are found guilty of charges like I describe in the second paragraph, would sentence you and label you as assisting in the committing of the crime.

You allowed yourself to get mislead and deceived by your leaders, and you allowed to commit great injustice even leading beyond the evil that already existed. But you do not even have the grandess to admit that now whiule the obviousness of your policiy failures jump right into your face and stare right into your eyes, and you do not want to stand to your moral and causal responsibility. But you messed it up, you want to get away with it, and you snap when the rest of the world does not let you, and points finger at you.

And then you complain about others being "Anti-American"...!?!? I am a lot of things to which I am "anti" - but "anti-American" is one of the last things I am. I am anti-bull, and anti-lies, anti-short-sightedness and anti-stupidity and anti-murderous-cynism. The nationality is not the issue I have quarrels with - but what is done in its name.

I said it in 2003, and I stillö say so today: Iraq is a much greater failing, than Vietnam. Both wars were casued by ill political perceptions and intentional cheating. Both wars were carried by immense betrayal and lying to the American public. And both wars were decisvely hampered in the competrence of the military way to carry them out. The difference is that in Vietnam it just was "face" that got lost, unneeded. In Iraq, decisive longterm strategic balances were shifted in favour of enemies, and vital interest have been lost without getting any real compensation for their loss. That is what makes Iraq (and Afghanistan) the greatest military failures in the post-WWII time.

Soldiers and warriors should be more critical over the reason for which thexy accept orders to start wars and risk their lives. Because it is nothing less than their lives they risk. Their political leaders at best risk their office - getting much financial compensation anyway. In other words they do not risk anything but other people's lives.

:har: Nicely said. :yeah: