Bush and Blair found guilty of war crimes for Iraq attack

RabidAlpaca said:

Get the hell out of town, clown. Don't try that "i know a veteran" crap with me. I am a combat veteran of Afghanistan (Airborne Infantryman with the 173rd ABN). I do not blame soldiers for following orders. I accused the government of committing genocide, which they did. Now don't try to put your words in my mouth.

Click to expand...

Bombing a city is not the equivalent of committing genocide. At no time was it America's goal to eliminate the Japanese people.

RabidAlpaca said:

Ha, and that justifies genocide? Well hey, why don't we use nukes today? It's justified to take out any city if there's a military target there right? I suppose it would be fare game for another country to nuke DC because of how many military bases there are there if we were in a war with that country, right? You can run around and try to justify it all you want. It was an intentional killing of civilians, and it is nothing less than genocide.

Click to expand...

You need to figure out what genocide is. And, your astute tactical knowledge should tell you, that dropping a nuke on DC would do absolutely squat to the US's ability to wage war. Not much on the big picture, are you?

Medusa said:

i wouldnt be proud of any war :roll:

Click to expand...

what you wouldnt be proud of the fact you were able to help and work with local people evryday and help them build a decent infastructure and a future? War isn't just about killing etc

Kane said:

Yeah. Who cares if the "New American Century" /Renaissance required that the American Government kill a couple of million people in the process, in most horrific ways imaginable. Like the fire bombing of Tokyo, heck, its just a footnote in history, right?

What a fine intellectual comment, from a stellar individual. Not. Sheesh. Maybe this whole internet thing was a bad idea.

Click to expand...

1. You dont know me
2. Im British
3. Its called bigger picture stuff but I wouldnt expect you to understand that so just go and enjoy your Doctor Who ( great show by the way)

Oglaigh said:

That is one of the most insane things I have ever heard of in my life, but I am glad you are honest about it. What exactly "had to be done" though in Iraq?

Click to expand...

why is it insane? The people of this court were not in Iraq and neither were many other countries so why the hell would I care about their opinion on the conflict? What we had to do was get rid of a corrupt, unstable government who had long threatened the stability of the region and a power hungry leader who was involved in mass killings of his own people. We should of finished the job during the first gulf war but during the decade after Saddam constantly broke international laws and refused entry to UN weapon inspectors ( hence Operation Desert Fox). The man and his followers were a threat to the west and needed to be dealt with, end of.

mac said:

You need to figure out what genocide is. And, your astute tactical knowledge should tell you, that dropping a nuke on DC would do absolutely squat to the US's ability to wage war. Not much on the big picture, are you?

Click to expand...

I misspoke, it was not "genocide" because the goal was not to wipe out the Japanese as a whole. However, wiping out two entire cities, almost 200,000 human beings is atrocious and absolutely reprehensible. The bombings in europe were different. In those types of bombings, the specific aims were the factories or military targets. Yes, bombs missed, and yes, bombs killed civilians. S*** happens. However, to specifically go out and intentionally target civilians is insane.

Secondly, the nuke on DC was an example in order to pose a moral question, which you did not answer. Would you, or would you not consider it justified and moral if a foreign country nuked one of our cities in order to take out some military bases and factories?

Mass murder is still mass murder, even if perpetrated by the government. I'd like to think that we as Americans are better than that.

mac said:

Bombing a city is not the equivalent of committing genocide. At no time was it America's goal to eliminate the Japanese people.

Click to expand...

The INTENTION behind a genocidal act is irrelevant. Indiscriminately murdering the population in the strike radius was and still is a clearly predictable result, and any sane notion of justice hinges upon being held responsible for the predictable results of one's conduct. Few people (aside from the desperate accused) accept as valid the notion that someone who shoots someone in the head should be considered innocent if they claim as a defense "Oh...I was just practicing...I was trying to hit the target that was a few inches from that guy's head..."

I must also add that genocide is absolutely NOT limited to successful intentional mass murder of a group of people. It certainly *includes* that, but it is meant to apply more broadly to attempts to destroy the ability of a people to exist as a people. There are many actions which constitute genocide but which do NOT necessarily involved killing people outright:

(clarifications like this were explicitly raised by the original architect of the term "genocide", Rafael Lemkin...himself a survivor of the WWII holocaust)
Raphael Lemkin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group." (Lemkin)


The *legalistic* wranglings over officially defining genocide do not change the substance of what is referred to by the charge and identification of genocide.

RabidAlpaca said:

I misspoke, it was not "genocide" because the goal was not to wipe out the Japanese as a whole. However, wiping out two entire cities, almost 200,000 human beings is atrocious and absolutely reprehensible. The bombings in europe were different. In those types of bombings, the specific aims were the factories or military targets. Yes, bombs missed, and yes, bombs killed civilians. S*** happens. However, to specifically go out and intentionally target civilians is insane.

Secondly, the nuke on DC was an example in order to pose a moral question, which you did not answer. Would you, or would you not consider it justified and moral if a foreign country nuked one of our cities in order to take out some military bases and factories?

Mass murder is still mass murder, even if perpetrated by the government. I'd like to think that we as Americans are better than that.

Click to expand...

But in a total war situation you could argue that to target cities and lower a populations morale is to eventually win the battlefield. Targeting civillian populations is a horrible thing but I can't even imagine what it must of been like to have been alive during World War Two never mind make those kind of calls. We can speculate of course but we can not fully understand the calls they had to make in order to win that War.

RabidAlpaca said:

I misspoke, it was not "genocide" because the goal was not to wipe out the Japanese as a whole. However, wiping out two entire cities, almost 200,000 human beings is atrocious and absolutely reprehensible. The bombings in europe were different. In those types of bombings, the specific aims were the factories or military targets. Yes, bombs missed, and yes, bombs killed civilians. S*** happens. However, to specifically go out and intentionally target civilians is insane.

Click to expand...

There was never an intentional targeting by US forces of civilian populations. However, it was known that the capability did not exist to accurately target military and industrial facilities co-located with civilian communities without unintentionally hitting the civilians communities and the civilians within them. The only difference between the nuclear and non-nuclear bombings of WWII was the capacity of the bombs.

Secondly, the nuke on DC was an example in order to pose a moral question, which you did not answer. Would you, or would you not consider it justified and moral if a foreign country nuked one of our cities in order to take out some military bases and factories?

Click to expand...

If we declared war on a country and refused to surrender to it, I find it completely moral for that country to act in any way they deemed necessary to defend themselves and end the conflict.

Mass murder is still mass murder, even if perpetrated by the government. I'd like to think that we as Americans are better than that.

Click to expand...

Well, we seem to have overcome the use of the word Genocide, perhaps now you need to look up murder. We were at war...as the defender. Japan declared war on us, and just a few days prior to the first bombing....refused to end hostilities. This was an act of war, not of murder.

mac said:

There was never an intentional targeting by US forces of civilian populations. However, it was known that the capability did not exist to accurately target military and industrial facilities co-located with civilian communities without unintentionally hitting the civilians communities and the civilians within them. The only difference between the nuclear and non-nuclear bombings of WWII was the capacity of the bombs.

Click to expand...

It was a n-u-c-l-e-a-r bomb. If dropping a nuke on a city is not intentionally targeting civilian populations, then nothing is.

mac said:

If we declared war on a country and refused to surrender to it, I find it completely moral for that country to act in any way they deemed necessary to defend themselves and end the conflict.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess there's nothing to say to that, you clearly do not believe in the geneva convention, the rules of war, or even downright dignity, but at least you admit it.

mac said:

Well, we seem to have overcome the use of the word Genocide, perhaps now you need to look up murder. We were at war...as the defender. Japan declared war on us, and just a few days prior to the first bombing....refused to end hostilities. This was an act of war, not of murder.

Click to expand...

In Afghanistan, if there were insurgents hiding in a local village, we would engage the insurgents in the buildings that they were hiding, using the maximum necessary force possible. We did not, however, drop a MOAB and level the entire village, killing 200 people to get to 20 insurgents. You can not use the guise of war to do whatever the hell you want. There are just, and unjust killings.

You condone the intentional killing of civilians, and I accuse you of having no honor whatsoever.

Kane said:

I'm sure you'd both agree that the nukes on Japan were not necessary, were only used to display U.S. post-war dominance, and were used after the war in Japan was won, as U.S. officials admit?

(just so that we get our history lesson accurate.)

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

I think the nukes saved lots of American lives. And Japan was a worthy guinea pig for that technology. They pretty well asked for it based on

1) their disgusting sneak attack on Pearl Harbor

2) their treatment of American POWs and how they treated the lands they conquered and the peoples in those lands

3) and having known guys who had to burn Japanese out of caves or machined gunned fanatic banzai charges down, there was a very real belief that Japan would not surrender unless it was almost evaporated

Click to expand...

Pearl Harbor not a surprise attack (which was allowed to happen, FDR had prior knowledge due to communication intercepts), the Japanese broke radio silence

Gen. MacArthur himself said the nuclear attack was not necessary, even more govmnt officials agree. Look it up!

Its evil to even imply people should be used as guinea pigs!

RabidAlpaca said:

It was a n-u-c-l-e-a-r bomb. If dropping a nuke on a city is not intentionally targeting civilian populations, then nothing is.

Click to expand...

The target was the military and industrial complexes within the city. As you've pointed out, it was a n-u-c-l-e-a-r bomb. The civilian deaths were unavoidable.

Well, I guess there's nothing to say to that, you clearly do not believe in the geneva convention, the rules of war, or even downright dignity, but at least you admit it.

Click to expand...

Absurd for many reasons, not the least of which is that the Geneva convention wasn't in place until after the bombings, so you are judging in retrospect.

In Afghanistan, if there were insurgents hiding in a local village, we would engage the insurgents in the buildings that they were hiding, using the maximum necessary force possible. We did not, however, drop a MOAB and level the entire village, killing 200 people to get to 20 insurgents. You can not use the guise of war to do whatever the hell you want. There are just, and unjust killings.

Click to expand...

Again, retrospect. First, the Afghan war and WWII were two entirely different types of war fought in entirely different times. Second, you were fighting insurgents, not a unified country. Third, Afghanistan has no military-industrial complex.

You condone the intentional killing of civilians, and I accuse you of having no honor whatsoever.

Click to expand...

I do not, but you can be as clueless as you like.

RabidAlpaca said:

Get the hell out of town, clown. Don't try that "i know a veteran" crap with me. I am a combat veteran of Afghanistan (Airborne Infantryman with the 173rd ABN). I do not blame soldiers for following orders. I accused the government of committing genocide, which they did. Now don't try to put your words in my mouth.

Click to expand...

Any soldier who believes his government committed genocide and still served in the military really is some kind of weirdo. You believe your government committs genocide, yet you volunteer to serve in its army? Clearly you don't have the courage of your convictions, or you're not telling the truth. I don't know which it is and frankly I don't care.

And I'll match my combat record with you any day of the week. The difference between us is that I don't use it as a crutch.

RabidAlpaca said:

I misspoke, it was not "genocide" because the goal was not to wipe out the Japanese as a whole. However, wiping out two entire cities, almost 200,000 human beings is atrocious and absolutely reprehensible. The bombings in europe were different. In those types of bombings, the specific aims were the factories or military targets. Yes, bombs missed, and yes, bombs killed civilians. S*** happens. However, to specifically go out and intentionally target civilians is insane.

Secondly, the nuke on DC was an example in order to pose a moral question, which you did not answer. Would you, or would you not consider it justified and moral if a foreign country nuked one of our cities in order to take out some military bases and factories?

Mass murder is still mass murder, even if perpetrated by the government. I'd like to think that we as Americans are better than that.

Click to expand...

Yet in spite of your government committing genocide - which is a stupid claim - you went willingly to serve that government as a soldier. Amazing.

Kane said:

Pearl Harbor not a surprise attack (which was allowed to happen, FDR had prior knowledge due to communication intercepts), the Japanese broke radio silence

Gen. MacArthur himself said the nuclear attack was not necessary, even more govmnt officials agree. Look it up!

Its evil to even imply people should be used as guinea pigs!

Click to expand...

Nobody believes that Pearl Harbor fiction except deluded conspiracy theorists....oh wait, never mind.

Of course MacArthur didn't want the A bomb used because it ended the war and more chances for his personal glory. MacArthur was perfectly willing to fight to the last soldier, as long as it wasn't him. read the story about him leaving nurses behind for the Japanese in the Phillipines but making sure his personal property was saved and his wife's Fiipino servants got out.

You ought to really read a history book or two.

"Admiral Kimmel, in a 1958 interview, articulated the reason he and General Short were kept in the dark about the impending attack -- Roosevelt needed the attack a pretext to enter the war. "

9-11 Review: The Pearl Harbor Attack

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408

"In November, 1940, FDR ordered the Red Cross Disaster Relief director to secretly prepare for massive casualties at Pearl Harbor because he was going to let it be attacked."

http://redroom.com/member/steven-ro...ow-japanese-attack-on-pearl-harbor-on-purpose

Kane said:

Pearl Harbor not a surprise attack (which was allowed to happen, FDR had prior knowledge due to communication intercepts), the Japanese broke radio silence

Gen. MacArthur himself said the nuclear attack was not necessary, even more govmnt officials agree. Look it up!

Its evil to even imply people should be used as guinea pigs!

Click to expand...

yeah we should have hung FDR for his screw ups too.

but I am glad we nuked Japan, my father was going to be in the invasion force

Wiggen said:

None of those pissant foreign international 'courts' are worth a damn. They are all highly political and I give as much credence to them as I do to any Kangaroo Court.

Click to expand...

That may be true. However, it doesn't mean that they are wrong in their condemnation. You do realize that the world hold the U.S up as a country that doesn't give a damn about anything as long as it gets its way? Well, until Obama is outed, it has died down slightly since he came into the Oval office, then the antipathy will rise again from western Europe.

TurtleDude said:

yeah we should have hung FDR for his screw ups too.

but I am glad we nuked Japan, my father was going to be in the invasion force

Click to expand...

exactly hte Nukes saved thousands if not millions of lifes! Japan got of lucky with a couple of Nukes because if the allies which by that point included Russia had invaded Japan it would of been a mess.

Kane said:

Pearl Harbor not a surprise attack (which was allowed to happen, FDR had prior knowledge due to communication intercepts), the Japanese broke radio silence

Gen. MacArthur himself said the nuclear attack was not necessary, even more govmnt officials agree. Look it up!

Its evil to even imply people should be used as guinea pigs!

Click to expand...

Not one for the bigger picture are you? Why do you think the Cold War was so Cold?

Higgins86 said:

why is it insane? The people of this court were not in Iraq and neither were many other countries so why the hell would I care about their opinion on the conflict? What we had to do was get rid of a corrupt, unstable government who had long threatened the stability of the region and a power hungry leader who was involved in mass killings of his own people. We should of finished the job during the first gulf war but during the decade after Saddam constantly broke international laws and refused entry to UN weapon inspectors ( hence Operation Desert Fox). The man and his followers were a threat to the west and needed to be dealt with, end of.

Click to expand...

The people of this court were not in Iraq and neither were many other countries so why the hell would I care about their opinion on the conflict?

Click to expand...

That makes absolutely no sense. That's like saying that a death's head guard in Auschwitz should tell a Jewish tribunal to stick their case up their arse because they were not there. Now, I am not comparing the Iraq war or your service in it to the Holocaust, but the point is valid in countering your invalid point.

What we had to do was get rid of a corrupt, unstable government who had long threatened the stability of the region and a power hungry leader who was involved in mass killings of his own people.

Click to expand...

The war aim at the start was to remove Saddam because he had WMD. That turned out to be false. The other claim was al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia under the leadership of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, that too turned out to be false. He was in a part of Iraq(the North) where Saddam's control was timid and the only time he visited Baghdad was because he needed to go to a hospital. There was no collusion at all regarding Saddam and al-Qaeda, not one bit of evidence at all. They were the main objectives.

Regarding the threat from Iraq, Iraq had no threat at all. Bush even said that even if Saddam were to leave office, America was still invading. Do you know that bush Blair memo came out in 09 where Bush said that the U.N were not going to find any WMD, so America would paint a reconnaissance plane in U.N colors, fly it over Baghdad and have Saddam shoot it down as a pretext to invade?

Regarding the mass killings of its own people. As a way to strengthen its position in the region, America supported Saddam in 1982 and many years later. They removed Iraq from the nations sponsoring terrorism list in 1982 and replaced it with Cuba. America traded with Saddam even when his worst crimes were known.

If you feel so strongly about people killing their own citizens, do you condemn Bill Clinton for supporting Turkey killing their Kurds in the late 90's?

We should of finished the job during the first gulf war but during the decade after Saddam constantly broke international laws and refused entry to UN weapon inspectors ( hence Operation Desert Fox).

Click to expand...

You didn't finish off the job because Saddam was a useful pawn in the region for stability - to keep Iran in check if you will. You actually also strengthened his position by engaging in the U.N sanctions which killed 500,000 people and which UN diplomats called "genocide." Madeline Albright also said basically it was tough luck if thousands of babies had to die during the sanctions.

The man and his followers were a threat to the west and needed to be dealt with, end of.

Click to expand...

After years of continuously supporting them, yeah? They were not a threat at all to the west in reality, nor where they during the first gulf war. They may have had a large army, but their weaponry was poor particularly their air force. A main reason why America won the first and second wars against Iraq.

The Iraq that stands today is incredibly destitute and is all over the place. Male rapes and other things have augmented exponentially along with the decline of womens rights and college attendees.

Oglaigh said:

That makes absolutely no sense. That's like saying that a death's head guard in Auschwitz should tell a Jewish tribunal to stick their case up their arse because they were not there. Now, I am not comparing the Iraq war or your service in it to the Holocaust, but the point is valid in countering your invalid point.



The war aim at the start was to remove Saddam because he had WMD. That turned out to be false. The other claim was al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia under the leadership of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, that too turned out to be false. He was in a part of Iraq(the North) where Saddam's control was timid and the only time he visited Baghdad was because he needed to go to a hospital. There was no collusion at all regarding Saddam and al-Qaeda, not one bit of evidence at all. They were the main objectives.

Regarding the threat from Iraq, Iraq had no threat at all. Bush even said that even if Saddam were to leave office, America was still invading. Do you know that bush Blair memo came out in 09 where Bush said that the U.N were not going to find any WMD, so America would paint a reconnaissance plane in U.N colors, fly it over Baghdad and have Saddam shoot it down as a pretext to invade?

Regarding the mass killings of its own people. As a way to strengthen its position in the region, America supported Saddam in 1982 and many years later. They removed Iraq from the nations sponsoring terrorism list in 1982 and replaced it with Cuba. America traded with Saddam even when his worst crimes were known.

If you feel so strongly about people killing their own citizens, do you condemn Bill Clinton for supporting Turkey killing their Kurds in the late 90's?



You didn't finish off the job because Saddam was a useful pawn in the region for stability - to keep Iran in check if you will. You actually also strengthened his position by engaging in the U.N sanctions which killed 500,000 people and which UN diplomats called "genocide." Madeline Albright also said basically it was tough luck if thousands of babies had to die during the sanctions.



After years of continuously supporting them, yeah? They were not a threat at all to the west in reality, nor where they during the first gulf war. They may have had a large army, but their weaponry was poor particularly their air force. A main reason why America won the first and second wars against Iraq.

The Iraq that stands today is incredibly destitute and is all over the place. Male rapes and other things have augmented exponentially along with the decline of womens rights and college attendees.

Click to expand...

"That's like saying that a death's head guard in Auschwitz should tell a Jewish tribunal to stick their case up their arse because they were not there. Now, I am not comparing the Iraq war or your service in it to the Holocaust"



this is where I stopped reading, the fact you would even mention the Holocaust in this thread just shows a level of stupidity im not accustomed to dealing with. Good luck though im sure the rest of your post was just great

Higgins86 said:

"That's like saying that a death's head guard in Auschwitz should tell a Jewish tribunal to stick their case up their arse because they were not there. Now, I am not comparing the Iraq war or your service in it to the Holocaust"



this is where I stopped reading, the fact you would even mention the Holocaust in this thread just shows a level of stupidity im not accustomed to dealing with. Good luck though im sure the rest of your post was just great

Click to expand...

Your point(s) was ridiculous and your point about not caring what happened because you were there and the courts weren't, was tantamount to my Holocaust analogy. I am sorry that you didn't read the rest of it, but that is your problem.

Basically what you're saying is that you cannot counter anything I said, at all. So you take an analogy and use it is an excuse to show that you cannot debate and try and make yourself out to be smart? Cool. Good luck to you as well.

Oglaigh said:

Your point(s) was ridiculous and your point about not caring what happened because you were there and the courts weren't, was tantamount to my Holocaust analogy. I am sorry that you didn't read the rest of it, but that is your problem.

Basically what you're saying is that you cannot counter anything I said, at all. So you take an analogy and use it is an excuse to show that you cannot debate and try and make yourself out to be smart? Cool. Good luck to you as well.

Click to expand...

Sorry not caring about a Malaysian court's view on the Iraq was is Ridculous? Ok mate.

As for you further points they were all standard boring anti war views that we have all heard before. You didnt address the key issues that led to the Iraq war like the not co-operating with the UN and the exisiting sanctions that were put in place which led to such operations such as Desert Fox. Your point about supporting genocide because of Clintons actions with the Kurds is not relevant as im a Brit and could not care less what Clinton did as he was not in office when I joined the British army. You would of preffered that a mass murderer stayed in power?


"The Iraq that stands today is incredibly destitute and is all over the place. Male rapes and other things have augmented exponentially along with the decline of womens rights and college attendees."

Your point above is not backed up with any stats so I cant take it seriously, when I got to Basra it was a ****hole and when I left it was less of a ****hole and a lot of the local people worked hard with us to make the region safer and to improve the infastructure.

Higgins86 said:

Sorry not caring about a Malaysian court's view on the Iraq was is Ridculous? Ok mate.

As for you further points they were all standard boring anti war views that we have all heard before. You didnt address the key issues that led to the Iraq war like the not co-operating with the UN and the exisiting sanctions that were put in place which led to such operations such as Desert Fox. Your point about supporting genocide because of Clintons actions with the Kurds is not relevant as im a Brit and could not care less what Clinton did as he was not in office when I joined the British army. You would of preffered that a mass murderer stayed in power?


"The Iraq that stands today is incredibly destitute and is all over the place. Male rapes and other things have augmented exponentially along with the decline of womens rights and college attendees."

Your point above is not backed up with any stats so I cant take it seriously, when I got to Basra it was a ****hole and when I left it was less of a ****hole and a lot of the local people worked hard with us to make the region safer and to improve the infastructure.

Click to expand...

As for you further points they were all standard boring anti war views that we have all heard before.

Click to expand...

You didn't address them, because you can't. I am not anti-war by the way, believe. I(if I was alive or old enough when the war was going on) supported armed struggle against the British army in Ireland.

You didnt address the key issues that led to the Iraq war like the not co-operating with the UN and the exisiting sanctions that were put in place which led to such operations such as Desert Fox.

Click to expand...

I gave you the main reasons for Iraq. Not even the most vehement defenders of the Iraq war(Hitchens for example) used the U.N and Saddam's lack of cooperation because it was bogus. Not content there though, you ignored my point that Bush and Blair knew that the U.N would fail to find any W.M.D.

the exisiting sanctions that were put in place which led to such operations such as Desert Fox.

Click to expand...

The sanctions which were killing hundreds of thousands of people. The Desert Fox operation which destroyed Iraqi infrastructure, etc. What had they got to do with the 2003 invasion? Nothing, at all. You're clutching at straws here. You're ignoring everything I said and talking about a 3 day strike.

Your point above is not backed up with any stats so I cant take it seriously

Click to expand...

Many Arabs flocked to Iraq to study in universities. That is not saying Iraq under Saddam was great, but it was hardly worse than it is now. Look up stories and statistics about male rape crimes on the rise. The point about women not being able to go to college is from ITV news. Even Afghanistan, women are banned from parks, cafe's, etc. This comes from the BBC as well. A documentary about a young British girl who goes back to Afghanistan. This is not blaming you now for this. You don't understand that these people wnat laws by God, not by man. They won't see you as liberator's, they see you as occupiers.

when I got to Basra it was a ****hole and when I left it was less of a ****hole

Click to expand...

With no evidence at all to back that up. Tell me, I thought you were going to be welcomed as liberators? Where you?

l

ot of the local people worked hard with us to make the region safer and to improve the infastructure.

Click to expand...

You destroyed the infrastructure from bombings. Your government killed over 500,000 babies from sanctions which U.N diplomats called genocide. You destroyed Iraqi's food distribution system which U.N diplomat's called "one of the best in the world". You fueled hatred of your country and America and the sanctions on Iraq were a main reason for Bin Laden's antipathy towards the west, particularly America. The infant mortality rate has augmented as well.

You didn't improve the infrastructure at all, that is an ample joke.

I am sorry to denigrate your service, but your contempt for courts and other events is truly remarkable. The fact you even brushed off the point about Clinton and the Kurds is all that needs to be said. You specifically said that you stopped a mass murderer killing his own, yet you have no qualms with your ally doing the same. I don't honestly believe that you understand the region or know the dictator's that Britain and America backs up.