More civilians killed by US troops?

By the way, I wouldn't lie about anything. However, the general public does not have the need to know everything about what is going on and where our troops and operations are located...

 

We've been this way before. Same things happened. Insanity is doing the same things, and expecting the outcome to be different.

 

3-page warning:

This thread will be closed no sooner than 9:00 p.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle

 

Scott J, you're mistaken on the timeline. The inspectors had been kicked out in 1997 (accused of espionage), but they were allowed back in November 2002. Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei made their last report on March 7, 2003. They were forced to withdraw because of Bush's planned invasion. In their report, they said they found no evidence that Iraq had resumed its nuclear programme or had chemical and biological weapons. You can look it up.

Read Bush's State of the Nation Address for 2002. Here is a link to Powell's speech. That was on December 19, 2002 - if you have any weekly news magazines from that week, you can see the yellow circles. I didn't claim he "fabricated" any photos, so it is dishonest of you to claim that I did.

It's no revision. I blamed him during the run-up for how he tried to conflate al Qaida and Iraq and say that Hussein and bin Laden were working hand in glove together.

Who were the "best experts"? The UN inspectors disagreed. France, Germany, China, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada, etc disagreed that the threat was imminent. Many of our own experts disagreed. So who were these "best experts"?

There is quite a bit of compelling evidence that this regime change was planned well in advance of any evidence of imminent attack - that, in fact, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. were scrounging around for an excuse to attack.

Source?

People like me don't think anything of the kind and it is dishonest of you to misrepresent my views, Scott.

It's too bad that you seem to think that war is the only way. If Jimmy Carter is so foolish, why has there been no recurrence of Egyptian-Israeli problems? Because he was SUCCESSFUL, much as you people refuse to admit. Diplomacy, concessions, sanctions, inspections and occasional strategic bombing has had better results than invasion and occupation.

 

What silliness!

War is war. This is what it is. Innocent people die. Now that news is able to travel around the world in less than a minute and we can get live pictures, people are finding out what war really is.

What did they THINK it was?

There are going to be casualties in every war. You train a bunch of men to kill kill kill, and then they kill, and then people want to punish them for it?

I don't think so.

You either want war or you don't. If you can't handle the minimal number of non-soldiers killed in this war, then you don't want war. Don't say you do, because this is what war is and what it does. It isn't clean and simple. It isn't horrific if someone trained to be to be a repetetive killer kills someone on the enemy's side outside of YOUR expected guidelines.

 

Agreed, Gina. All of this is nonsense. Besides, in this type of war where the other side doesn't wear uniforms, how can a person tell if a civilian is friend or foe? I remember stories of Viet Nam how women would rush up to our guys and hand them their babies with bombs attached.

I am amazed there haven't been more "civilian" casualties. It would have been better for our side if we would have just carpet bombed the entire country; we could have wiped out the entire country with millions of dead and never had any troops being killed from roadside bombs, etc. And maybe we would have done that had it not been for the oil.