What I do not understand.

estebancambias

Why is it that when America attacked Iraq illegally it was deemed a war, yet the same act was labelled terrorism when Afghan suicide bombers attacked the USA on 9/11?

What makes America's attack more plausible? People like Bill O 'Reilly have called Iraq pre-2003 a terrorist state, which is simply not the case. However would anyone take that man seriously...''I have no respect for the Iraqi's, they are little more than prehistoric...''


Also there are over 30 dictators left in the world, why has Bush not declared war on these countries?

Dirk Gently

estebancambias wrote:

Why is it that when America attacked Iraq illegally it was deemed a war, yet the same act was labelled terrorism when Afghan suicide bombers attacked the USA on 9/11?

Because that would mean other players such as the EU would have to impose sanctions / do a war on the U.S. and declare them a terrorist state. Not good for business! (They were mostly Saudi bombers btw but outing the only very recently out of favour Taliban seemed like a logical stepping stone to Iraq who could not be remotely linked to the attacks beyond the fantasy of America news channels. A dude who looked like that former CIA operative Ben Laden (evil genius mastermind, lord of impressive highly trained, highly organised Arab special ops army of jihad overlords who hate our freedom) was spotted on a camel there visiting from western Pakistan so Afghanistan made an all round nice easy target and coincidental first step in the project for a new American century which was drafted a few years before 9/11.

Terrorism is generally used to describe attacks by non state entities but when the acts of terror are committed by State forces they are usually described as necessary military action with collateral damage. He who can spin the media has the moral high ground.

estebancambias wrote:

Also there are over 30 dictators left in the world, why has Bush not declared war on these countries?

Only dictator$ (or democratically elected leader$ for that matter) who threaten US interest$, i.e. threaten US profit$ / corporate contract$ and who do not have a $ignificant military get to rumble with the U.$. In other word$ only Dictator$ who'$ outing will have a po$itive effect on ve$ted interest$ bank balance$ get removed. Dictator$ are good for busine$$ as long a$ they are either in$talled by the U.$. (see the history of Latin American States) or co-operate with the U.$ (see Pakistan / Saudi Arabia).

The Taliban and $$$adam were cool a$ long as they $upported U$ interest$, it'$ only when they don't $upport U.$. interest$ they get outed on prime time TV as monsterou$ demon$ who Uncle $am must do a war with for the $ake of Freedom. Opposition to neo-liberali$m / thinking of trading oil in €uro$ / mineral rich /weak military / non-we$tern foreign looking poor people in middle of nowhere countrie$ are alway$ good target$, dictator$hip or not. It'$ not about democracy, it'$ about $ecure $upply of energy and continuing profit$, under whatever regieme is necce$$ary to impo$e. It appears they made a bit of a boo boo in Iraq a$ regard$ the whole $ecurity of $upply $ituation but it wasn't a complete di$a$ter, lot$ of contractor$ are $till making a killing.

LegacyUser

Personally i dont think there was too much to it...This is the way I look at it.
The middle east is a region vital to U.S national intrests. The U.S being the worlds foremost consumer of crude oil relies on a constant reliable flow east to west.This was more or less guarenteed during the early to mid 80s with Iraq on side,Saudi on side,UAE on side etc...etc...

But when Iraq started becoming a problem in the region (especially towards Israel,who then took prompt action to make sure Sadam never had Nuclear power) it threatened the regions stability....and thus the once guarenteed oil supply...(memories of the oil crisis in the 70s were probably still fresh).

What the US did was to remove a figure of menace from the region...and in doing so served the United States national intrests.

Clownbag is correct in his/her view that it was an almost economically motivated war...but I really dont see a big deal with it.Every countries Goverment should do all it can to serves its National intrest and the US did just that....but thats just a purely objective point of view.

mike65

QFT Some need to wonder about why wars are actualy fought. They are fought so you and I can enjoy the standards we have become accustomed to.

As for the 30 or so dictators around and about - if the USA invaded say Zimbabwe (as worthy candidate for such action as I can think of) I presume the usual suspects would be marching to "Stop teh War!"

Mike.

Akrasia

mike65 wrote:

QFT Some need to wonder about why wars are actualy fought. They are fought so you and I can enjoy the standards we have become accustomed to.

As for the 30 or so dictators around and about - if the USA invaded say Zimbabwe (as worthy candidate for such action as I can think of) I presume the usual suspects would be marching to "Stop teh War!"

Mike.

Of course we would.

Wars do far more harm than good.

There are other ways of helping people and removing dictators.

LegacyUser

But a decade of sanctions did little to remove Sadam...whats the alternative to using military force to remove an un-desireable??

I agree with Mike...you and me and every other Westerner enjoys certain common liberties and qualities of life, people under Dictatorships dont even know the meaning of....and we actually cherish these without even being aware of them at times.We have a very high standard of living/personal freedoms which we need to protect...but its invariably linked to other first world,westernised nations including the US....so personally Im very happy to have the worlds only superpower/world policeman shares a similar point of view

We dont live in a world like in the movies where good is always good and will always win out over evil...so mistakes have happened with a human cost...but Im a firm advocate of the Iraq war and I still believe it will ,eventually, lead to a more stable middle east.

banaman

kaiser1 wrote:

I agree with Mike...you and me and every other Westerner enjoys certain common liberties and qualities of life, people under Dictatorships dont even know the meaning of....and we actually cherish these without even being aware of them at times.We have a very high standard of living/personal freedoms which we need to protect...but its invariably linked to other first world,westernised nations including the US....so personally Im very happy to have the worlds only superpower/world policeman shares a similar point of view

So the fact that 3000 people a day die from preventable diseases and upwards of 500,000 Iraqis, many of them children, have died is acceptable to you as long as you get to have your comfy consumer lifestyle.

Is that really what you're saying?

So what about the famine and the British occupation of this island? By your argument "its only what great powers do " and is therefore acceptable.

So you would have been quite happy to let British rule continue as long as you and your mates got looked after?

Wait till its your kids doing the dying, will you complain then?
Because if you do you're a hypocrite.

estebancambias

As I have said before, Tim McVeigh kills 168 people with the exuse that in the long-run it will benefit the people of America, George Bush makes the same statement in relation to the Iraqi's. What gives Bush the right to send troops to Iraq and kill Iraqi's, soldiers or otherwise. Why is this more accepted than Tim McVeigh's actions? Oh that's right because it's 'foreign policy'. The Iraq war is illegal, as unprovoked as the Oklahoma bombing was. But look who is dead, oh yeah it's McVeigh, why? Because he killed Americans. Yet Iraqi citizens are being killed everday but this is acceptable because it's not Americans being harmed.

eoin5

kaiser1 wrote:

But a decade of sanctions did little to remove Sadam...whats the alternative to using military force to remove an un-desireable??

I agree with Mike...you and me and every other Westerner enjoys certain common liberties and qualities of life, people under Dictatorships dont even know the meaning of....and we actually cherish these without even being aware of them at times.We have a very high standard of living/personal freedoms which we need to protect...but its invariably linked to other first world,westernised nations including the US....so personally Im very happy to have the worlds only superpower/world policeman shares a similar point of view

We dont live in a world like in the movies where good is always good and will always win out over evil...so mistakes have happened with a human cost...but Im a firm advocate of the Iraq war and I still believe it will ,eventually, lead to a more stable middle east.

:eek:

I feel like crying

LegacyUser

Banaman....but look at Iraq today...whos doing all the killing??
The most ruthless man Iv known was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his al-Tawhid wal-Jihad....but he wasnt American!!
At the moment its Muslims doing most of the killing...and alot were in Iraq prior to the war.

As far as comparing Iraq to ireland during british rule its not really like for like.
What did we know before British rule??...nothing..we were always British subjects,so knew nothing of true Independence.The Americans would do anything to get out of Iraq..its not thier intention to stay...but they will till the region has stabalised.

indough

estebancambias wrote:

Also there are over 30 dictators left in the world, why has Bush not declared war on these countries?

I wouldn't say they are on good terms either. The 'rogue states' are well known as being such, you only have to look at the recent presence of states such as Iran and North Korea in the media. It's not like the US is hiding from them, just choosing their battles wisely. It makes more sense to attack the weaker nations first, to build bases in the region and also to build momentum.

Fratton Fred

I remember receiving a chain email from a colleague about human rights atrocities in Afghanistan. Women being stoned to death for going out without their husband, girls being thrown out of school for being girls and not worthy of an education, Radio and TV outlawed because it was a toold of the devil, women teachers, lawyers and doctors forced to give up work and wear a Burkha. There was also the destruction of several world heritage sites in Afghanistan because they were Buddhist and went against the “One True God” philosophy.

This email was calling for the immediate intervention of the west to bring down the Taliban government and restore freedom to the people of Afghanistan.

Now it’s done they same people are bleating on about there being troops there. If you want to know who these people are, they are lying in front of an aeroplane at Heathrow, or a bulldozer in Wicklow or chaining themselves to the fences at Shannon………..

nacho libre

kaiser1 wrote:

Personally i dont think there was too much to it...This is the way I look at it.
The middle east is a region vital to U.S national intrests. The U.S being the worlds foremost consumer of crude oil relies on a constant reliable flow east to west.This was more or less guarenteed during the early to mid 80s with Iraq on side,Saudi on side,UAE on side etc...etc...

But when Iraq started becoming a problem in the region (especially towards Israel,who then took prompt action to make sure Sadam never had Nuclear power) it threatened the regions stability....and thus the once guarenteed oil supply...(memories of the oil crisis in the 70s were probably still fresh).

What the US did was to remove a figure of menace from the region...and in doing so served the United States national intrests.

Clownbag is correct in his/her view that it was an almost economically motivated war...but I really dont see a big deal with it.Every countries Goverment should do all it can to serves its National intrest and the US did just that....but thats just a purely objective point of view.

ah yes anything can be justified in the national interest and the consequences sanitized. still it's easy to be objective about it all when the consequences are suffered by others....

Mick86

Akrasia wrote:

Of course we would.

Yes, I remember when Iraq attacked Iran there were demonstrations all over the place, same when Iraq invaded Kuwait. 10th Sept 2001 saw the world up in arms in support of the US while the Sudanese government is snowed under with protests about their genocide in Darfur. The anti-war brigade is very selective about the wars it opposes.

Akrasia wrote:

There are other ways of helping people and removing dictators.

Such as?

banaman wrote:

So the fact that 3000 people a day die from preventable diseases and upwards of 500,000 Iraqis, many of them children, have died is acceptable to you as long as you get to have your comfy consumer lifestyle.

Were it not for donations from western consumer societies far more people would die of disease and hunger every day than do at the moment.

The vast majority of the Iraqis who have died in the last four years were killed by fellow Muslims.

Liam Byrne

1) Wars should NEVER be the primary option. There may be occasions where it is a last resort, and if someone invades your country you should definitely be entitled to defend yourself, but starting one on a whim (or for purely financial reasons) is despicable and just as evil as anything Saddam ever did.

2) If there had been a justifiable, tangible, factual reason for the invasion of Iraq, wouldn't the American Government have come right out and say it, instead of spouting a whole help of lies ?

BTW, if someone can give me THE reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq, then I'll gladly debate whether it was justified, but since I've heard about 20 wildly different excuses and attempted justifications - where the hell ARE those "40 minutes away WMDs", anyway ? - I need it spelt out before I can determine whether the pros outweighed the cons (funny how the word "cons" cropped up there, actually).

And let's look closer to home (even though Baghdad is closer than New York).....in the North, there were terrorists (check) there were people sympathetic to terrorists (check) there were human rights abuses (check)...while lots of us would have been glad if someone had invaded and taken out all the terrorists, would we have been happy if those invaders had then killed a hundred thousand or so Irish people ? More than the terrorists would have managed if left alone ?

If you want to know who these people are, they are lying in front of an aeroplane at Heathrow, or a bulldozer in Wicklow or chaining themselves to the fences at Shannon………..

Or living normal lives in Ireland horrified that we are implicit in an illegal and unjustified war, and stunned that they have to come on boards.ie in an attempt to get people to realise that wars - particularly ones like Iraq - are wrong.

Im a firm advocate of the Iraq war and I still believe it will ,eventually, lead to a more stable middle east.

Define "stable".....the U.S. reckoned it was "stable" when they installed Saddam......funny how "stable" becomes synonymous with "in our interests".....

And since you're a self-proclaimed firm advocate of the war, you might let us know the real reasons behind it....I mean, in order to be able to agree with something, you must know and believe in them. So did Bush lie and exaggerate because he knew [some] people would only advocate it if he exaggerated and lied ?

kaiser wrote:

personally Im very happy to have the worlds only superpower/world policeman shares a similar point of view

Depends on what that "point of view" is.....freedom for ourselves - agreed; freedom for others to disagree with us is also required; as is truth, honesty and openess....give us the facts and we'll decide if we support you.....lie and we'll criticise you.

And finally (without getting personal) I seem to remember someone with a similar nickname to your username who was hell-bent on invading everyone who disagreed with him, too......funny how perceptions vary depending on which side you think you're on, isn't it ?

Dr_Teeth

2002 called, it wants it's thread back. Anyway, I agree with Dick Cheney, he is clever:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

A Dub in Glasgo

nacho libre wrote:

ah yes anything can be justified in the national interest and the consequences sanitized. still it's easy to be objective about it all when the consequences are suffered by others....

QFT

It is amazing to see how quickly people become warmongers if it is in the 'national interest'.

johnnyskeleton

estebancambias wrote:

Why is it that when America attacked Iraq illegally it was deemed a war, yet the same act was labelled terrorism when Afghan suicide bombers attacked the USA on 9/11?

I wonder is there a version of boards for affiliates of Al'Quaeda where people ask "Why is it that when we kill Americans it is an act of divine vengence, but when they kill us they are infidels?"

I don't think there is anything more positive or acceptable about "a war" as opposed to "terrorism", but being realistic you have to remember that bullies are only bullies if they can get away with it. And, of course, if you put enough time and money into telling people that what you are doing is right, they might start to believe you.

ednwireland

estebancambias wrote:

Why is it that when America attacked Iraq illegally it was deemed a war, yet the same act was labelled terrorism when Afghan suicide bombers attacked the USA on 9/11?

errrrr werent most of them saudis as i remember ! which makes all the other stuff weird apart from the fact that the oil and dictatorship there kept their heads down

Liam Byrne

johnnyskeleton wrote:

And, of course, if you put enough time and money into telling people that what you are doing is right, they might start to believe you.

Spot-on.....there are (unfortunately) people who have been brainwashed into thinking the war is right, just as there are (equally unfortunately) people who have been brainwashed into thinking that killing inncoent people like on September 11th is right.....

Fact is, though, that while both are wrong, we didn't get roped into allowing the Twin Towers planes land in Shannon , or bullied into thinking that Iraqi investments in this country would suddenly stop if we queried it.

/Andy\

banaman wrote:

So you would have been quite happy to let British rule continue as long as you and your mates got looked after.

What about you? You're happy enough allowing British rule over 1 million of your fellow countrymen!

djpbarry

kaiser1 wrote:

whats the alternative to using military force to remove an un-desireable??

Stop supplying said undesirable with weapons to use on his own people?

kaiser1 wrote:

personally Im very happy to have the worlds only superpower/world policeman shares a similar point of view

One very important point here kaiser1; the US installed Sadam because it was in their interest to do so at the time, to hold the state of Iraq together by whatever means necessary. Once Sadam became a threat to Kuwait / Israel (American allies), he had to be removed. Now America is trying desperately to hold Iraq together, when it is quite obvious that Iraq is never going to be able to exist as one “stable” nation. Let us not forget that Iraq was created by the British and French, in a very similar fashion to Yugoslavia.

kaiser1 wrote:

Im a firm advocate of the Iraq war and I still believe it will ,eventually, lead to a more stable middle east.

To be “a firm advocate of the Iraq war”, you have to firmly believe in the reason for going to war; would you be so kind as to remind us what this was? And I presume “stable” means America-friendly?

kaiser1 wrote:

The most ruthless man Iv known was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his al-Tawhid wal-Jihad....but he wasnt American!!

He wasn’t Iraqi either. Besides, Col. Derek Harvey, who served as a military intelligence officer in Iraq and then was one of the top officers handling Iraq intelligence issues on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned an Army meeting in 2004 that "Our own focus on Zarqawi has enlarged his caricature, if you will — made him more important than he really is, in some ways." Some even doubt whether he ever existed.

kaiser1 wrote:

At the moment its Muslims doing most of the killing...and alot were in Iraq prior to the war.

This is a ridiculously simplistic viewpoint. Sadam held Iraq together against its will. In came America, Sadam was removed and they thought everyone would live happily ever after. What they didn’t realise was that Sadam was keeping people like Muqtada al-Sadr in check. People like al-Sadr don’t want a united Iraq and it is people like him who are causing the chaos that exists there today.

Fratton Fred wrote:

This email was calling for the immediate intervention of the west to bring down the Taliban government and restore freedom to the people of Afghanistan.

Now it’s done they same people are bleating on about there being troops there. If you want to know who these people are, they are lying in front of an aeroplane at Heathrow, or a bulldozer in Wicklow or chaining themselves to the fences at Shannon

That’s a bit of a generalisation, don’t you think? Personally, I am against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I am also anti-Taliban, but let’s not forget the Taliban came into being with the blessing of the US to defeat the Russians.
Now, I am anti-war, but I don’t ever recall lying in front of a bulldozer in Wicklow…

Mick86 wrote:

I remember when Iraq attacked Iran there were demonstrations all over the place, same when Iraq invaded Kuwait. 10th Sept 2001 saw the world up in arms in support of the US while the Sudanese government is snowed under with protests about their genocide in Darfur. The anti-war brigade is very selective about the wars it opposes.

How is this being “selective”? Should we only protest when the “bad guys” are winning?

Mick86 wrote:

Were it not for donations from western consumer societies far more people would die of disease and hunger every day than do at the moment.

Whatever helps you sleep at night…

Mick86 wrote:

The vast majority of the Iraqis who have died in the last four years were killed by fellow Muslims.

Again, a ridiculously simplistic view, which shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation.

meepins

mike65 wrote:

QFT Some need to wonder about why wars are actualy fought. They are fought so you and I can enjoy the standards we have become accustomed to.

As for the 30 or so dictators around and about - if the USA invaded say Zimbabwe (as worthy candidate for such action as I can think of) I presume the usual suspects would be marching to "Stop teh War!"

Mike.

Unless you happen to be among that very small percentage of the wealthy elite and somehow absurdly think that goes for the rest of us.... what you say here is not true.
I can't say I have experienced any windfalls post Iraq invasion. Could be because I have no money in ExxonMobil and Halliburton.

CptSternn

meepins wrote:

Unless you happen to be among that very small percentage of the wealthy elite and somehow absurdly think that goes for the rest of us.... what you say here is not true.
I can't say I have experienced any windfalls post Iraq invasion. Could be because I have no money in ExxonMobil and Halliburton.

Have you forgotten about the planes in Shannon? They just recently announced 500 more flights a week to Iraq during the 'troop build up'. Shannon airport and the surrounding region are experiencing a boom thanks to the Iraq War.

You have the airport, and all the businesses there making huge amounts of money off the war. They are right now being kept alive by the flights to and from Iraq.

Then you have the dirty little secret that no one likes to talk about - the troops staying here. Ireland is housing the American troops throughout Clare and the surrounding area. When the major hotels fill, they book the soldiers in the local B&B's. The US government pays top dollar cash up front to anyone who takes in the soldiers.

Lets also not forget about the restaurants who are cooking for the troops daily. Large orders, for dozens of troops every day are being processed around the hotels.

Don't worry about delivery costs though, the local gards are not only policing the hotels, they are delivering the take-away to the soldiers in all the locations they are currently housed in.

People also aren't talking about parts of the airport even Irish officials can't access because the US military has 'rented' storage areas to hold cargo going to and from Iraq. God only knows what exactly the US is storing here in Ireland, and since FF is getting huge payouts for letting all this happen, they aren't asking any questions.

So it's not just halliburton and the other war profiteers making dosh off the blood of Iraqis, bertie and his 'team' in Dublin have their dirty little fingers poked right in the misery of the Iraqis as well.

Mick86

djpbarry wrote:

How is this being “selective”? Should we only protest when the “bad guys” are winning?.

No you should protest against all wars not just those being fought by the US and Britain.

djpbarry wrote:

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Cocoa.

djpbarry wrote:

Again, a ridiculously simplistic view, which shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation.

It's only simplistic to you because it's a fact which counters the nonsense that the US is responsible for all deaths in Iraq.

djpbarry

Mick86 wrote:

No you should protest against all wars not just those being fought by the US and Britain.

I do. But I don't understand what you're saying here:

Mick86 wrote:

Yes, I remember when Iraq attacked Iran there were demonstrations all over the place, same when Iraq invaded Kuwait. 10th Sept 2001 saw the world up in arms in support of the US while the Sudanese government is snowed under with protests about their genocide in Darfur. The anti-war brigade is very selective about the wars it opposes.

You've outlined 3 conflicts that provoked protests worldwide - I don't understand how this is "selective"?

Mick86 wrote:

It's only simplistic to you because it's a fact which counters the nonsense that the US is responsible for all deaths in Iraq.

I never said that. What I am saying is that the US totally destabilised the country, leading to the situation that exists today. Therefore, they must take a large share of the blame. Let me put it like this; imagine a prison housing several high-risk prisoners. Now, suppose someone breaks into the prison and releases all the prisoners, leading to a massive crime-spree. Who’s to blame? The released prisoners? Or the guy who released them?

CptSternn, have you got any evidence to back up your claims? I would agree with you that we are complicit in the war in Iraq, but I find it hard to believe the cover-up is on such a huge scale.

Mick86

djpbarry wrote:

I do.

I seriously doubt that.

djpbarry wrote:

But I don't understand what you're saying here:

You've outlined 3 conflicts that provoked protests worldwide - I don't understand how this is "selective"?.

Actually I outlined 4 conflicts that very few if anybody at all protested about. Protests are invariably aimed solely at the US, Britain and Israel.

djpbarry wrote:

I never said that. What I am saying is that the US totally destabilised the country,...

In short you are absolving the car bombers of all blame and laying it at the door of the US.

CptSternn

djpbarry wrote:

CptSternn, have you got any evidence to back up your claims? I would agree with you that we are complicit in the war in Iraq, but I find it hard to believe the cover-up is on such a huge scale.

Come to Clare - ask around town in Shannon. If you want, I can take you to the places where troops are staying now. You can watch as they get on and off the buses.

There have been multiple 'incidents' in the local papers which have never made RTE news. Troops got in a fight at Shannon Knights (a nightclub in Shannon) a few months back.

The locals had a disagreement with one over their views on Iraq - it lead to a large fight which the gards were called. In fact, due to this fight, and another at a local chipper the troops can no longer wear *any* military clothing or apparel that signifies the US military, nor can they go out in large groups.

You can still spot them - in groups of two or three in the town - they dress like tourists and all have the military haircut.

I can show you where they order food - of course the companies have been sworn to secrecy. You can watch as the gards pick up large deliveries and take it around to various hotels.

Even the local politicians refuse to believe it. Me? I watch it happen first-hand. Often. The local politicians refuse to even go to the locations to see it for themselves - they outright refuse and claim since its not happening, they won't waste their times going there to see for themselves.

...but ask any locals - they will *show* you.

djpbarry

Mick86 wrote:

I seriously doubt that.

Why?

Mick86 wrote:

Actually I outlined 4 conflicts that very few if anybody at all protested about. Protests are invariably aimed solely at the US, Britain and Israel.

That's not what you said at all. Allow me to remind you:

Mick86 wrote:

I remember when Iraq attacked Iran there were demonstrations all over the place, same when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Not a mention of the US, Britain or Israel there, yet you still speak of "demonstrations all over the place"?!?

Mick86 wrote:

the Sudanese government is snowed under with protests about their genocide in Darfur.

You appear to be completely contradicting yourself .

Mick86 wrote:

In short you are absolving the car bombers of all blame and laying it at the door of the US.

No I'm not. What I am saying is, if it were not for the US-led invasion of Iraq, these guys would still be contained and the Iraqi borders would not be open to gun-runners as they are now.

Mick86

djpbarry wrote:

Why?.

Why not?

djpbarry wrote:

That's not what you said at all. Allow me to remind you:

Not a mention of the US, Britain or Israel there, yet you still speak of "demonstrations all over the place"?!?

You appear to be completely contradicting yourself .?.

I was being facetious. Nobody protests at any war except those perceived to have been started by the US, Britain and Israel.

djpbarry wrote:

No I'm not. What I am saying is, if it were not for the US-led invasion of Iraq, these guys would still be contained and the Iraqi borders would not be open to gun-runners as they are now.

So it's not the fault of the bombers at all then, it's America's fault for not stopping them.

Manic Moran

Not a mention of the US, Britain or Israel there, yet you still speak of "demonstrations all over the place"?!?

I read it as sarcasm.

NTM