Stop playing the who-said-what-game. You know exactly what I mean and I couldn't care less how you put it, but the statement "We completed our mission with efficiency and flawless execution. What happened after that is another story entirely." cleary endorses and supports a war, invasion of a foreign country; "the mission" was to invade Iraq and to prosecute and kill Saddam Hussein or to disarm Iraq! Ok, so tell me again why I'm wrong saying: "I do not approve of your support for war and invasion of other countries [because historically the lossess always outweigh the benefits]"You also seem to be continuing to mix up what I do and don't support. (you approve(d) of "the war")
How in dog's name is having armed forces kill people in someone's else sovereign territory and without prior permission not an act of aggressive war?!
So you did not happen to drop US-American bombs on Iraqi territory which - as a matter of statistics do not always hit the target and - happen to kill civilians? There were no accidents? There was no abuse of power? (your soldiers are infallible?) Either way the war, your war, caused immense direct and/or indirect suffering (are you generally aware of this fact?)?? I haven't seen any figures but I would be pretty surprised to see that the US has been killing tons of civilians in Iraq. Generally the civilian deaths were caused by enemy attacks, suicide bombings, etc.
Even if you were right and most deaths were caused by enemy attacks; isn't it your war that incited those attacks? Personally, I don't see much of a difference. I'm sure you do, hence your support for the war (yes, you will say that you screwed up and it's just "the mission" that you supported; but you still supported the invasion, an aggressive act of violence).
It is said your government was lying and I'm asking if you have heard of it? Obviously there were those alleged weapons, which happened never to materialise: "Although some remnants of pre-1991 production were found after the end of the war, US government spokespeople confirmed that these were not the weapons for which the US went to war."I have no idea what you mean that invading Iraq being an act of self defense was a big fat lie. Who claimed this and was lying?
“Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction…”
As of February 2003, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq"
I've read pretty often that they knew there never was any such thing in Iraq. That is best descirbed as a big fat lie if true.
Edited by kismet, 15 October 2009 - 05:38 PM.