Re: Sadr blames US for carnage

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6NyPh.3993$be2.649@xxxxxxxxxxx

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0mwPh.5970$ya1.749@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:RgwPh.84$F%1.75@xxxxxxxxxxx

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uGvPh.5801$B25.951@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"n5hsr" <n5hsr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:zdKdnVr9EuvO45PbnZ2dnUVZ_qKqnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hmm, isn't that a bit like the Japanese blaming the U.S. for Pearl
Harbor?

--
Charles of Schaumburg.


You're really smart, so maybe you can assist with this question: Before
we invaded Iraq, were there suicide bombings every single day?


They were surpressed by a maniacle, tyrannic dictator that set about to
kill Shiites and prevent them from being any part of his government. As
an aside, you probably recall that Shiites are the majority population.
No, you probably don't remember.


I know what you just typed, but I want to confirm something before we
continue. Are you saying that Saddam's brutality was a valid reason to
send our soldiers to Iraq?


I didn't say that. You did.

What I said was a response to your question, where were the suicide
attacks before? Before, there were EITHER no attacks because Saddam
surpressed them, or there were attacks but Saddam surpressed the news.
Either way, knowing of the attacks now is a marked improvement over what
was going on before.

A valid reason to send troops to Iraq would have been to enforce the Cease
Fire Agreement that Saddam signed with UN forces back in 1991, then
promptly ignored.


Here's what we know from people who've fled the country:

- People were able to go shopping without worrying that they'd come home in
a lawn & leaf bag, all ready for burial.
- Entire neighborhoods weren't being turned into brick piles.
- In other words, life is hell there now.

Regardless of HOW stability was maintained, it *was* maintained, and as
anyone without religious adherence to one policy will tell you, we are often
better off with stability no matter WHO enforces it. As evidence of this,
you will notice that our government doesn't say squat about the dictatorship
which runs mainland China.

As far as enforcing agreements, let's not be silly. According to our own
DoD, very little in the way of troops, aircraft or weaponry was able to move
around in Iraq without our knowing about it, during the time we were
monitoring the country's borders. It was a perfect, cheap solution:
rope-a-dope.

There was one problem with it, though: It did not result in enough political
points for certain politicians. It was boring. It did not make for good TV.

Meanwhile, in Fortune magazine (IIRC, might've been Forbes) way back then,
there was an article in which a Raytheon spokesman said the air patrols were
the best new technology testing situation which they and the DoD could ever
dream of.

But still, it didn't make good fodder for political ***-waving.


.

Quantcast