Thank You America

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...mer_1.asp#more

Quote:

---

America chose to save us from the most evil party, and the most despicable President in the universe [Saddam]. Meanwhile, the Arab powers stood firmly against the American project. They used all means to thwart them, but Allah’s will had another say in this matter. America turned the Ba’athists into the world’s laughing stock by showing them fleeing in their underwear on live television. Meanwhile, the Arab powers turned those cowards into national heroes on their satellite channels.

---

While our soldiers fight in their pink underwear, others run away wearing a discolored version of theirs.

So. Is the thanks of this and many other Iraqis enough to justify the sacrifices we made?

I like how the author implies that the US was an agent of Allah's will. :2thumbsup:

I have a feeling the Iraqis would've risen up against Saddam anyway. Or at least they would have without the trade sanctions making them dependent on him.

Or am I misinterpreting your question...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I have a feeling the Iraqis would've risen up against Saddam anyway. Or at least they would have without the trade sanctions making them dependent on him.

Or am I misinterpreting your question...?

---

Well they did after the first Gulf War, and they were slaughtered. "The People" also arose against the Chinese government and recently in Iran. Don't rely on some idealistic people's revolution.

This is mostly an interesting article to share. A lot of Americans want people to love us; this is a case it appears there is someone who does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Well they did after the first Gulf War, and they were slaughtered. "The People" also arose against the Chinese government and recently in Iran. Don't rely on some idealistic people's revolution.

---

It has worked in the past. It will work again. Iran is not an open/shut case, there is still potential and unrest there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

It has worked in the past. It will work again. Iran is not an open/shut case, there is still potential and unrest there.

---

The state has many more ways to keep track of you and then kill you than it did 20, even 10, years ago. The Marxist ideal of the "People's Revolution" is well and truly dead, and was never a reality anyway. Every revolution has support either from within the local elite or from an outside power.

Case in Point: In 1991 George Bush Snr told the Iraqis that if they rose up against Saddam the US and Nato would support them. They didn't and the Iraqis were slaughtered, the Marsh Arabs had their homeland drained and hence their culture castrated.

Yippy for the People's Revolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The state has many more ways to keep track of you and then kill you than it did 20, even 10, years ago. The Marxist ideal of the "People's Revolution" is well and truly dead, and was never a reality anyway. Every revolution has support either from within the local elite or from an outside power.

---

The People's Revolution is not a working-class one... I mean it in the sense of the cross-class Democratic movements that can be seen across the world. Like the one in Iran.

And whilst the government has more ways to control us, we have more ways to organise and get information around.

Who's Allah?

He's the guy who runs the kebab shop down the street. His food is really good because so many people keep saying Allah [is a] great [place to eat].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Well they did after the first Gulf War, and they were slaughtered. "The People" also arose against the Chinese government and recently in Iran. Don't rely on some idealistic people's revolution.

This is mostly an interesting article to share. A lot of Americans want people to love us; this is a case it appears there is someone who does.

---

Yes... People rising up in Iran....

I sorta remember something like that back in '79, now how did that one turn out again...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes... People rising up in Iran....

I sorta remember something like that back in '79, now how did that one turn out again...?

---

You mean you read something about something like that happening in '79, and it was more complex then you're portraying. Perhaps being located between two western-friendly governments will encourage a more peaceful change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

You mean you read something about something like that happening in '79, and it was more complex then you're portraying. Perhaps being located between two western-friendly governments will encourage a more peaceful change.

---

Uhm....

Where did I "portray" anything....?

Leftie: Iraq's a faillure!

No leftie, Iraq is a succes

leftie: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO it isn't possible

In your heart you know it to be true

leftie: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


needs Starwars music for effect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Leftie: Iraq's a faillure!

No leftie, Iraq is a succes

leftie: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO it isn't possible

In your heart you know it to be true

leftie: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


needs Starwars music for effect

---

Got some extra drinks tonight Frag?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

Got some extra drinks tonight Frag?

---

must be. How could I get it wrong.

No -it isn't true- it isn't possible.

geez.

you also missed the "search your feelings, son, you know that it's true..." :tongue:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

:wall:

What's the body count in Iraq at now? 300k? Yeah, sounds like a real success.... I kinda remember some words like "we will be welcomed as liberators", "it'll be cheap" and "we won't stay long, it'll be in and out".... Oh, and "Mission accomplished!", of course.

And just when did we start taking columnists opinions as the truth...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Well they did after the first Gulf War, and they were slaughtered.

---

Wasn't that this episode where the USA told them to do it and promised to come and help them and then they were slaughtered because the USA didn't come?
I remember it was brought up again in the second gulf war when you guys wondered why some parts of the population weren't as helpful and happy as you had expected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What's the body count in Iraq at now? 300k?

---

Depends who you believe, doesn't it? How high was Mr. Hussein's, again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Depends who you believe, doesn't it? How high was Mr. Hussein's, again?

---

I really don't think it's a good sign when we, as free democratic nations, start comparing ourselves with despotic and murderous dictators....

actually our body count is fairly low... Arabs/Iraqis killing Iraqis... not so much... but, I'm not so sure anybody could have lessened the blow, except perhaps themselves.

I think the idea that any nation can save people from themselves is a rather foolhardy notion, it may have happened just as easily without the prospect of American intervention.

EDIT: and in fact it did... several times.

An interesting article, but one man's opinion does not an argument make. I appreciate his rhetorical examples, and they do make one pause and reflect...do other Iraqis feel this way as well? We shall see.

Here is a link which may shed some light on the effectiveness of the Iraqi security forces we are about to turn over the country to:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.mywarvideo.com/play.php?vid=132

I sure hope that this isn't a widespread example.

PS: The language is a bit strong, so take care that the kiddies aren't around.

Quote:

---

Thank You America

---

Ya welcome.


No charge.

This time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I really don't think it's a good sign when we, as free democratic nations, start comparing ourselves with despotic and murderous dictators....

---

Yes, because we democratic nations are really responsible for the majority of those deaths. :dizzy2:

Did you think desposing Hussein could have, practically, been bloodless?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Yes, because we democratic nations are really responsible for the majority of those deaths. :dizzy2:

Did you think desposing Hussein could have, practically, been bloodless?

---

Bloodless, no, but there are plenty of revolutions/liberations in the world with relatively few casualties. Saddam was weak, he was in no position to cause a bloodbath, the concern is how the different factions in Iraq would behave towards each other without a foreign occupier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore View Post
What's the body count in Iraq at now? 300k?

---

I think its more around 3k my friend you added some extra zeros. Even with iraqi "casualties" the death toll is nowhere near 300k.

The question isnt WHAT they would do without a foreign oppressor, it is what they WILL do now that Obama is running away with his tail between his legs. Sighs why does america have no more persevering spirit...... (vietnam, korea.)

Well there's always the option of just keeping your nose out of other people's buisness in the first place...

However, sometimes intervention is a necessary evil. i may think we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but i think once you start a job you shouldn't leave it half finished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I think its more around 3k my friend you added some extra zeros. Even with iraqi "casualties" the death toll is nowhere near 300k.

---

If you do any reading on the subject of casualties and Iraq, you'll find that the numbers are very hard to pin down (of Iraqi casualties, not Coalition).

Here's a site that tries to pull the Coalition numbers together. Their latest tally:

U.S.: 4,327
U.K.: 179
Other coalition: 139

U.S. wounded: 31,156

Estimate of Iraqi civilians: 45,611
Estimate of Iraqi Security Forces: 9,142

Note that these numbers do not take into account the ethnic cleansing that was occurring neighborhood-to-neighborhood for the last three years.

i understand the difficulty that is required in pinning down the casualties. However i believe that making a claim of 300k is rather absurd to claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

i understand the difficulty that is required in pinning down the casualties. However i believe that making a claim of 300k is rather absurd to claim.

---

Bah, the estimates I've seen are ranging from just under 100k up to over 300k.


And yes, I am of course talking about people. Not just american soldiers. Funnily, I care about other humans too....

But hey, aas far as I know, "casualty" means everyone not able to fight on(ie. including wounded), not just those killed... So if we're talking about that, the figure is likely to be at least 300k...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

300k is rather absurd to claim.

---

Um, why? In the absence of verifiable numbers, with neither the Iraqi government nor the coalition forces counting Iraqi deaths, and with documented fatalities pushing 100k, why would 300k be "absurd"? The ethnic cleansing has been very intense, by all reputable accounts. Whole neighborhoods and towns have become Shia-only or Sunni-only or Kurd-only, and neither we nor the Iraqi guv have been able to put that dragon back in the bottle.

There have been a lot of casualty numbers batted around. I would think carefully, and back up my argument before labeling one "absurd."

I just do not believe that the number has reached 300k. Maybe i am wrong and there are many things the US government is covering up. for example, the contractors (mercenaries) are not recorded.

The claim that i dont consider iraqi citizens as human is both hurtful and unjust to claim. Just because i do not believe that 300000 people have died yet does not mean i think that those people are less than human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Maybe i am wrong and there are many things the US government is covering up. for example, the contractors (mercenaries) are not recorded.

---

I don't think the US killed 300k people. But the argument is about how many have died violently since the invasion of Iraq - whether killed by Coalition armies, the Iraqi army, insurgents or militias. To the best of my knowledge, the US government does not cover up Iraqi casualties, it just refuses to try to count them. This makes it conveniently easy to shout down high estimates as lacking evidence. My government - the UK - does exactly the same thing.

I suspect that if the coalition forces in Iraq before and Afghanistan/Pakistan attempted to keep tract of civilian deaths, they would be far more effective. Killing the people you are trying to save is not smart and the first step in trying to avoid it is knowing that you are doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I don't think the US killed 300k people. But the argument is about how many have died violently since the invasion of Iraq - whether killed by Coalition armies, the Iraqi army, insurgents or militias. To the best of my knowledge, the US government does not cover up Iraqi casualties, it just refuses to try to count them. This makes it conveniently easy to shout down high estimates as lacking evidence. My government - the UK - does exactly the same thing.

I suspect that if the coalition forces in Iraq before and Afghanistan/Pakistan attempted to keep tract of civilian deaths, they would be far more effective. Killing the people you are trying to save is not smart and the first step in trying to avoid it is knowing that you are doing it.

---

Not just that, you would also have to count the people who have died because of suicides(seeing your family ripped to shreds is rather hard), hunger/poverty, lack of medical treatment, etc.


@Centurion1: The comment on "Iraqi's are humans too" wasn't meant to imply that you didn't think of them as humans, of course.

As for you not believing it's 300k, well, that's just something we just don't know. But we know it's at least about 90k. And we know that a lot of deaths go unrecorded. Is it 100k extra? 200k? 300k? We don't know, and we are unlikely to ever know. But that's where the estimates are. Between just below 100k and above 300k have died. Just where that "between" is, isn't something we can figure out. But 300k is as likely, based on the facts we have, as 100k.

Iraq Body Count has it at roughly 100 000 recorded civilian casualty estimate. However, this is only RECORD deaths and as such the actual number is likely to be far higher. Other estimations, for instance had the casualty figures at 100 000 during 2004.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Iraq Body Count has it at roughly 100 000 recorded civilian casualty estimate. However, this is only RECORD deaths and as such the actual number is likely to be far higher. Other estimations, for instance had the casualty figures at 100 000 during 2004.

---

Found a few more sources for casualties. Here is a peer reviewed survey that estimates 151 000 before May 2006. In fact, just look at this wiki page.

Who's counting, perfectly possible that it are 300k by now. But so what really, would have happened at some point anyway. Terrible and all that but at least the country has a chance, I am not going to nod at the idea that they are worse of than they were previously. It's all there for them to screw up, they seem to be doing great at that so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Who's counting, perfectly possible that it are 300k by now. But so what really, would have happened at some point anyway. Terrible and all that but at least the country has a chance, I am not going to nod at the idea that they are worse of than they were previously. It's all there for them to screw up, they seem to be doing great at that so far.

---

Wait... what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Wait... what?

---

They are kinda killing eachother, didn't you know

I believe that fragony means that under the leadership of saddam Hussein in time he may have ended up killing 300k of his own people. I dont know if that would happen but he did kill many people.

hore Tore, I agree it is stupid to try to pin down a number. I may think they are less than 300k and you may believe they are more, it doesnt matter unless we know the truth. Oh and originally i thought you were talking about US casualties. My mistake

Honestly, what's the whole point of this? Because one dude among millions writes a column titled "Thank You America', the invasion suddenly becomes a success?

Call it a godwin, but people thanked Nazi Germany when they invaded Europe. Then people thanked USSR when the red army 'freed' Europe. I'm pretty sure I could find dozens of newspapers from various countries with columns such as "Thank you Mr. Hitler".

My point obviously is not that USA = Nazi Germany or USSR, but rather that you'll always find people supporting foreign invaders, for a whole lot of reasons (sometimes good ones, sometimes bad ones. In this case, the guy obviously has a point).

Now, where are the 'many other Iraqis' who are glad the US invaded their country? Do you have any poll, any statistics? 'cause otherwise, I fear I'll keep thinking the invasion was and is an epic failure that created more harm than good.

Think about the children!!!

Seriously though the children love americans........ Of course for some of them america has been their all their lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Seriously though the children love americans........ Of course for some of them america has been their all their lives.

---

You gonna post a source for that? Random claims are not going to convince me.

Well it was half joking but if you want sources....

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57359

Yeah i think the key thing is that they are used to the soldiers. and lets be honest while there have been a few isolated incidents of violence by American soldiers, the vast majority are just kids themselves or have kids back at home. i mean compared to the average insurgent i bet the Americans who give them candy and stuff do seem like pretty nice guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I believe that fragony means that under the leadership of saddam Hussein in time he may have ended up killing 300k of his own people. I dont know if that would happen but he did kill many people.

---

He did, but much of the killing seems to have been either during the Iraq-Iran War or in the aftermath of the first Iraq war. I think when wars start, the gloves start to come off as regimes are fighting for their survival and seem themselves taking extreme measures (examples of this include the Terror of the French revolution and the Holocaust). Saddam was still a brutal dictator in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, but I don't think Iraqis were being killed at anything like the rate they were a decade or two earlier - or after the invasion. He had cowed his people - and was also under extreme international pressure.

There's a separate debate about indirect deaths during the period of sanctions etc, but they may be even harder to estimate than violent deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

But so what really, would have happened at some point anyway.

---

Perhaps, but it's far from a certainty. The terrible rate of killings after the invasion seem to be due to a breakdown of authority. The allies disbanded the Ba'ath security apparatus and the Iraqi army, but did not put anything effective in its place until - perhaps - recently. I think that gave the insurgents and the militias the space they needed to cause havoc. It's possible alternative post-Saddam scenarios would have lead to similar or worse (open civil war), but my hunch is that would have been unlikely. I suspect who ever emerged as top dog - whether another strong man or a more democratic regime - they would have had the police and army still in play to prevent the chaos we saw in Iraq. Places like the much of the former Communist bloc and South Africa have managed seemingly more difficult transitions with less bloodshed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I believe that fragony means that under the leadership of saddam Hussein in time he may have ended up killing 300k of his own people. I dont know if that would happen but he did kill many people.

---

To my knowledge he had already killed more than three hundred thousand by the time he was desposed.

Well there you go, it was a dirty job, but it needed to be done. I don't care who you are, you can't support Hussein with a good conscience

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

To my knowledge he had already killed more than three hundred thousand by the time he was desposed.

---

In the 30 years and two wars he was in power, sure.

The point isn't about how many he had killed - it's about how many more he was capable of killing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

In the 30 years and two wars he was in power, sure.

The point isn't about how many he had killed - it's about how many more he was capable of killing.

---

So I'm going to throw in a Godwin and say that if Hitler had finished the Holocaust and the war you would rather us keep him in power than despose of him? No thanks. Hussein had to go, just like Hitler had to go.

I think its a little different killing 300k + in over 30 years than in 6 (2003 invasion ?) not that Saddam is somehow better than America (he's worse)

A big part of the reason for these excessive casualties is the mess the coalition forces made of the after invasion, which leans more towards incompetence than malice... not that that is paticularly comforting for the family's of the dead...

Yep, but in the end Saddam was hanged for killing 200-something people, not 300,000+. Go figure...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I think its a little different killing 300k + in over 30 years than in 6 (2003 invasion ?) not that Saddam is somehow better than America (he's worse)

A big part of the reason for these excessive casualties is the mess the coalition forces made of the after invasion, which leans more towards incompetence than malice... not that that is paticularly comforting for the family's of the dead...

---

Most of the dead in Iraq were not killed by the coalition, but rather by insurgents. If I owned a chain of stores and one was robbed, I might be upset at the manager for not providing adequate security for his location (presuming I had given him the responsibility), but the actual blame for the robbery should lie with the offender and him or her only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Yep, but in the end Saddam was hanged for killing 200-something people, not 300,000+. Go figure...

---

If you're trying to say the allegations were made up, you get a :dizzy2:.

How long would it have taken to try him for every single seperate incident of murder or mass murder? Too long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What's the body count in Iraq at now?

---

Taking into account the populational growth in Iraq ever since Homo Georgicus began populating Iraq, along with the end of the Würm glacation triggered the first great leap in human demographics in Iraq. Coupled with the exponential growth triggered by the introduction of farming practices among Iraq, followed by the posterior inventions like irrigation and better tools managed to increase the population limit of Iraq to new limits. Due to the gigantic number of humans living in Iraq and the lack of coordination amongst them, it was there that the first states were born, as a means of organizing ex-tribes into a coordinated living. Afterwards, humans never stopped inventing new ways to exploit the land and agriculture, which lead to a continuous increase in agricultural output, with all its relevant consequences in the impact of Iraqi demographics. As such, nowadays the population of Iraq is greater than ever was.

Taking into account all the humans that died ever since Homo Georgicus first settled in Iraq, puts the current death toll in Iraq at a colossal range of 2-3 Billion deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

If you're trying to say the allegations were made up, you get a :dizzy2:.

How long would it have taken to try him for every single seperate incident of murder or mass murder? Too long.

---

I'm not trying to say anything, just stating the facts. Maybe the court decided to take a random sample of less than 0.1% deaths, I don't know... Didn't watch the trial...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I'm not trying to say anything, just stating the facts. Maybe the court decided to take a random sample of less than 0.1% deaths, I don't know... Didn't watch the trial...

---

My apologies then, but if one instance of mass murder is enough to get him the death penalty, why bother with so many more trials? Each trial comes at a cost to the court system and the government when Iraq desperately needs money, and there are only so many death sentences a judge can effectively had down...

Most of the dead in Iraq were not killed by the coalition, but rather by insurgents.

Yes, and there was an insurgency because of the invasion and probably because of the strategy they used for the after invasion. I wasn't rating them in terms of evilness just taking into account the timeframe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...mer_1.asp#more



While our soldiers fight in their pink underwear, others run away wearing a discolored version of theirs.

So. Is the thanks of this and many other Iraqis enough to justify the sacrifices we made?

I like how the author implies that the US was an agent of Allah's will. :2thumbsup:

---

You are welcome. And I will gladly accept Allah in return for the ability to marry numerous wives. Just don't ask me to blow myself up. And I didn't go to church, nor will I go to a mosque. And don't ask me to do anything that rhymes with "prostate". And I still like the Juden, so nyah. And I won't stop drinking. ever. Erm. Nevermind. I'll just have multiple girlfriends. Yay! Your welcome anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

You are welcome. And I will gladly accept Allah in return for the ability to marry numerous wives. Just don't ask me to blow myself up. And I didn't go to church, nor will I go to a mosque. And don't ask me to do anything that rhymes with "prostate". And I still like the Juden, so nyah. And I won't stop drinking. ever. Erm. Nevermind. I'll just have multiple girlfriends. Yay! Your welcome anyway.

---

That is too good DA. :laugh4:

I think we should add one proviso: You still ain't gettin' my Budweiser, and oh yeah, that oil? Well give that back when you people can sit down at the peace table with each other like good little boys and girls and talk about it. Until then,

Piss up a rope!

Your welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Yes, and there was an insurgency because of the invasion and probably because of the strategy they used for the after invasion. I wasn't rating them in terms of evilness just taking into account the timeframe.

---

The rest of the paragraph you quoted is basically my response to your point here.

The rest of the paragraph you quoted is basically my response to your point here.

Yes but your hypothetical situation didn't include the fact that the goverment created the criminal that robbed the store...

It seems fairly logical to me, if you go to war with a country and then occupy it, then casulties caused resisting this occupation are directly the fault of the occupiers. There would be no force resisting the occupiers if the occupiers weren't there, thus the harm they cause is the direct fault of the occupiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

It seems fairly logical to me, if you go to war with a country and then occupy it, then casulties caused resisting this occupation are directly the fault of the occupiers. There would be no force resisting the occupiers if the occupiers weren't there, thus the harm they cause is the direct fault of the occupiers.

---

Many or most of these forces aren't ''resisting the occupiers'', they are trying to carve out a power niche (which they would have done upon any dismantling of the Saddam dictatorship, unless another dictatorship had been immediately installed). Secondly, now that Iraqis have their own government and a large control over their own fate it isn't really an occupation anymore. Also, you're ignoring this little thing called personal responsibility - it is entirely the choice of these individual groups to take up arms or not. Either way, you can be upset at the failures in providing security, but you can't blame the security for the criminal.

Many or most of these forces aren't ''resisting the occupiers'', they are trying to carve out a power niche (which they would have done upon any dismantling of the Saddam dictatorship, unless another dictatorship had been immediately installed).

Much of thier justification and recruitment comes directly from the occupiers, the fact they guys on top are in it for themselves is not the point, the reason they are able to carve out thier own niche is because they are resisting the occupiers, even if its only for thier own interests. If we had not intervened the Dictatorship would have continued, not that this a good thing but we had no good reason to go there and a few good reasons not to.

Of course we could have also intervened but had an actual plan for running the country and adequate troops to do the job, if we had been prepared from the start we may have avoided a whole lot of casulties...

Either way, you can be upset at the failures in providing security, but you can't blame the security for the criminal.

You can blame the 'security' when they are the whole reason that the person is a criminal, no 'security' no criminal, thus the security is directly to blame for the criminal.

[QUOTE=LittleGrizzly;2299176]Many or most of these forces aren't ''resisting the occupiers'', they are trying to carve out a power niche (which they would have done upon any dismantling of the Saddam dictatorship, unless another dictatorship had been immediately installed).

Quote:

---

Much of thier justification and recruitment comes directly from the occupiers, the fact they guys on top are in it for themselves is not the point, the reason they are able to carve out thier own niche is because they are resisting the occupiers, even if its only for thier own interests.

---

Fighting against fellow Iraqis and ethnic cleansing is a funny way of fighting the occupiers.

Quote:

---

If we had not intervened the Dictatorship would have continued, not that this a good thing but we had no good reason to go there and a few good reasons not to.

---

I think toppling Saddam was a good enough reason. In the long run we may have even saved bloodshed. How? We take him out now, there's a war, he's dead, we have troops to help reduce the violence, and eventually it goes away (or at least reverts to normal for the region). Or we let him stay, kill more people, and wait for him to die or be thrown out so we could have the same mess then instead (only without the men in desert camouflage trying to keep some semblance of order).

Quote:

---

Of course we could have also intervened but had an actual plan for running the country and adequate troops to do the job, if we had been prepared from the start we may have avoided a whole lot of casulties...

---

No dispute there.

Quote:

---

You can blame the 'security' when they are the whole reason that the person is a criminal, no 'security' no criminal, thus the security is directly to blame for the criminal.

---

They aren't though. This mess would have happened anyway, sooner or later, and as said, it's being used to settle old scores rather than to necessarily throw off the occupier.