heavy loss in Iraq

Our gov't certainly wasn't concerned about the plight of the Iraqi people.
We supported saddam for many year's, loaned him millions of taxpayer $$$'s, sold him WMD (and didn't blink an eye when he used them against his own people) and starved 1.5 million Iraqi's to death via the U.S. led/maintained embargo.

The reason we invaded, one word, I'm sure you've heard it before...OIL.
And of course $$$ for bushco inc., evidenced by the billions in no-bid contracts the gov't signed with Chaney's boys over at Enron.

Our gov't doesn't give a shit about the Iraqi people or our soldiers over there.

 

They were shooting at our aircraft when we flew over their country....there aren't a whole lot of others we were doing that to either.

There are plenty of dictators throughout the world, and violence and human rights abuses that go above what was going on in Iraq...we aren't planning to invade all of them too I hope.

 

So the UN should police the entire world, intervening militarily whenever they disagree, and then policing and rebuilding all of the areas once they are bombed and invaded?
And since the UN isn't doing it its up to us, or the soldiers rather, to do the job?

 

The fact is that the U.S. has, and still is, supporting nations that have as dismal human rights recirds as Iraq.
Iran, S. Vietnam, Chilie and most of Cental America in the past, currently Columbia, Pakistan and Egypt, among others.
We supported bin and the taliban during reagan's years, gave 'em millions.

P.S. saddam offered to step down 3 days before bush invaded.

P.P.S. the taliban offered to turn bin-laden over before we invaded them. jr. said no deal.

 

I don't think he is any worse than countless others who have been allowed to stay in power,and I don't understand how any force, whether it be international or one superpower, could ever wipe out all of them, and prevent others from arrising in their place.

I understand where your motivation is coming from,and I agree that what these people do is evil, but I just don't see invading,taking over, and policing is remotely feasible.

and

If that is the motivation, then it should be stated.

 

"Ranger, did you post guides on growkind.com?"

Yes, among other places.

 

The no-fly zone was something the U.S. imposed on Iraq by itself. There was no international formalism about it. If anyone has documentation showing a legal foundation for it, I'd like to hear it.

In any event, the no-fly zone was meant to protect rebels in the north and south who were trying to overthrow Saddam. In the late 90s the CIA was working with groups in the north to try to overthrow Saddam.

.

 

Most of the countries with troops in Iraq are on a schedule now to reduce their troop numbers, even Britain. The window of opportunity to establish security with the help of other countries is closing.

.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/06/bush.peace.mom.ap/index.html

.