Saying that lives are being lost in Iraq is as intellectually illuminating as saying that cancer kills people.Between 1980 and 2003,at least 1million people died in Iraq whether through wars or sanctions(that is a major underestimate)

I have always noted this point,every single poll of Iraqis conducted since 2003,bar one,has shown that a plurality of Iraqis think the overthrow of Saddam is worth it.It could be that there are non-Iraqis here who love Iraq more than the Iraqi people,human emotion is a strange thing,but we should never discount the opinion of the people most affected.

One might say that nothing justifies the colossal loss of lives US troops have sustained but those same troops voted in huge numbers for Bush against John Kerry in 2004,just as they did earlier in 2000 against Gore.

So between Iraqis who think the removal of Saddam is worth it and US military personnel who exercise their rights by voting Bush overwhelmingly,what is the fuss about?

debosky:

@ darfur

I see you are just getting attuned to the methods of Kobo - always trying to twist arguments or points to his own leanings.
Criticizing bush is not acceptable, expressing your opinion [/b]that lives are being lost in Iraq [b]is not acceptable, it can only be acceptable if you first SOLVE the problems in Rwanda, Darfur, and Ajegunle first. You must first of all in every post castigate every ill and wrong thing in your own country [/b]and continent (with copious [b]proof of how you've personally solved 90% of the problems of course) before you can castigate a wrong decision by someone else, especially Saint Bush.

Heck till your village is full of hummer riding soccer moms (as a result of your ACTIONS of course) , you can't complain or talk about poverty in Burma! That would be a travesty - that would be WHINING. LMAOO!!

Mr. kobo whose place it is to tell us that our actions have not saved a single life, that we are just whining with no product. To express your views wherever you please is not acceptable - you must be seen (by honourable kobo of course) to be acting first before you are given the enormous privilege of speaking your mind.

You mention Iraqi deaths and he says you are more concerned about those than African deaths - classic kobo thinking. . .once again LMAO!!

WELL SAID. REMEMBER TO CAP IT NEXT TIME TOO.

savanaha:

@ Kobojunkie, what was the best way to come out of Vietnam? No one is interested in playing the blame game but you make it seem that because people are killed by lawlessness in other countries those that are killed in wars are therefore not very significant.

Also I don't care for your money and the powers at work know why they want the war to continue. First it was for freedom, then terrorism. It started in Afghanistan then Iraq where next. You only think anyone not in agreement with your mode of thinking is whining or trying to score brownie points. Doesn't really matter to me what you think but equating those that wonder the point of the war to a woman whining about having a child is callous and just plain ridiculous

The best way to come out of Vietnam that resulted in the death of over a million people?? Is that really what you are proposing now?? Even with all we know of what happened after the pull out?? NO, this is not about wondering. Anyone who claims to be wondering is really ridiculous at this point and has little knowledge of what is happening in IRaq and I suggest the person go to an IRAQI site at least to read up information on why the war is still on or why US forces are there. This is simply about people continuing to use the WAR to play emotional games, simple. If you want the war to end, NO need to continue to play the BLAME game 5 years into it, go tell the people to stop or something and spare us the BLAME game. I have simply had enough of it and I am simply acting by telling the dude how I feel about his continuing to WHINE about it, 5 years in.

IF whining can save a life, feel free to continue but there is NOT A SINGLE OUNCE OF EVIDENCE that it does, so I am all for the people to SHUT UP ALREADY about it. That's all

And PS: If you are one of those who feel to launch Personal ATTACKS on those who do not see things as you do, Kindly DO NOT REPLY THIS cause I am sick of folks who continue to do that and think in some way they are more intelligent by doing so; personally, my time is too precious to waste on such, IMHO, immature dealings

4 Play:

Saying that lives are being lost in Iraq is as intellectually illuminating as saying that cancer kills people.Between 1980 and 2003,at least 1million people died in Iraq whether through wars or sanctions(that is a major underestimate)

[b]I have always noted this point,every single poll of Iraqis conducted since 2003,bar one,has shown that a plurality of Iraqis think the overthrow of Saddam is worth it.[/b]It could be that there are non-Iraqis here who love Iraq more than the Iraqi people,human emotion is a strange thing,but we should never discount the opinion of the people most affected.

One might say that nothing justifies the colossal loss of lives US troops have sustained but those same troops voted in huge numbers for Bush against John Kerry in 2004,just as they did earlier in 2000 against Gore.

So between Iraqis who think the removal of Saddam is worth it and US military personnel who exercise their rights by voting Bush overwhelmingly,what is the fuss about?

a plurality of iraqis think the US troops are occupiers who should leave their country.

also A plurality of nigerians think the PDP should be removed . do we want an iraqi style situation to get the PDP or even abacha out . . .NO.

Under saddam, most iraqis knew how to be alive. lie low, no dissent, etc. today bomb can explode anytime, anyday, anywhere and you think they are happy. Haba.

and what will you do if we reply? use your ACTION against us?

@ 4play

Were polls taken before the war in Iraq to gauge people's expectations then?

Having Saddam removed is one thing, do the majority of Iraqis support the over 90,000 documented deaths and likely thousands more undocumented that have occured? Or the daily suicide bombings and general insecurity? Unless of course you are suggesting that the current carnage and destruction in Iraq was the ONLY way Saddam could have been removed, then the issue is a lot more complex than the current 'hindsight' view of some Iraqis (I doubt the spread and veracity of these so called 'polls' anyways) and the views of Soldiers - did the Iraqi people make a plea to Bush to come 'save' them from Saddam?

Are the immense losses of Iraqi life necessary all in the name of overthrowing Saddam? I don't think so.

recent evidence by scott McClellan shows the whole irak war build up was a deception.

so who do we blame? kobo or 4play?

Kobojunkie:

The best way to come out of Vietnam that resulted in the death of over a million people?? Is that really what you are proposing now?? Even with all we know of what happened after the pull out?? NO, this is not about wondering. Anyone who claims to be wondering is really ridiculous at this point and has little knowledge of what is happening in IRaq and I suggest the person go to an IRAQI site at least to read up information on why the war is still on or why US forces are there. This is simply about people continuing to use the WAR to play emotional games, simple. If you want the war to end, NO need to continue to play the BLAME game 5 years into it, go tell the people to stop or something and spare us the BLAME game. I have simply had enough of it and I am simply acting by telling the dude how I feel about his continuing to WHINE about it, 5 years in.

You yet have to answer why the forgotten war in Afghanistan. I realize it is hard for you to understand why people think differently than you do. . . I have a feeling the war in Iraq might end up like Vietnam where America has to just pull out.
I don't know if you know this but there is actually information coming out about why the war was started and what Bush posited contrary to what you believe so you should read up on both sides or all the sides before telling me to go find out.

otele:

recent evidence by scott McClellan shows the whole irak war build up was a deception.

so who do we blame? kobo or 4play?

Why feel the need to CONTINUE THE BLAME GAME 5 years into the WAR?? We know now that INformation used were false. We have known that for years now. Why continue this blame game for pete's sake?? What do you hope to accomplish by it ?? How many lives can you save by it?? Does continuing this dreadful blame game change anything ??  

Now, on the other hand, I know people who have sold millions of books using this blame game for their gain. They are now millionaires cause of it but still, lives are being lost, both in Iraq and afghanistan, while these people profit greatly from these lives and I am supposed to believe they CARE MORE about these families than those who are not going around SPEWING BLAME HERE AND THERE ??

otele:

recent evidence by scott McClellan shows the whole irak war build up was a deception.

so who do we blame? kobo or 4play?

Exactly.

BUT WAIT WE BLAME OURSELVES BECAUSE TO WONDER IS TO WHINE

otele:

a plurality of iraqis think the US troops are occupiers who should leave their country.

also A plurality of nigerians think the PDP should be removed . do we want an iraqi style situation to get the PDP or even abacha out . . .NO.

Under saddam, most iraqis knew how to be alive. lie low, no dissent, etc. today bomb can explode anytime, anyday, anywhere and you think they are happy. Haba.

I agree that most Iraqis think the US should leave now but they also think the removal of Saddam in the first place was worth it.

As for most Iraqis knowing how to stay alive,I guess the 1million Iraqis who died in the 80s didn't know "how to be alive",maybe the residents of Halabja who were gassed didn't "lie low" enough,hundreds of thousands of women and children who died during the Anfal campaign and the Shia uprisings in the 90s were probably all "dissenters" who "didn't know how to be alive".

Is it the Kurds(who make up 20%) or the Shias(who make up 60%) that prefer Saddam's era? The Sunnis who essentially used to run Iraq under minority-rule have the biggest "megaphone" but their ability to dominate the information war shouldn't obfuscate reality.

Most Zimbabweans are far worse off today than they ever were under white-minority rule,I wonder why few of us are suggesting that Ian Smith should never have been hounded out of power in the first place.

savanaha:

You yet have to answer why the forgotten war in Afghanistan. I realize it is hard for you to understand why people think differently than you do. . . I have a feeling the war in Iraq might end up like Vietnam where America has to just pull out.

Afghanistan is now a forgotten war?? I did not know that cause I actually read up on both at least weekly so how can I answer your question when I have no clue what you are referring to. It is hard for me to understand why people think differently?> I would not be having this debate with you if you did not think differently so how did you figure that it is hard for me to understand why people think differently??

You suddenly have a feeling that the war in Iraq will end up like the Vietnam war where America just pulled out ?? I thought earlier you had posted that as best solution?? I asked you of your best solution since you claimed it should have ended but is on going. Where are you exactly so I can catch up here.

savanaha:

I don't know if you know this but there is actually information coming out about why the war was started and what Bush posited contrary to what you believe so you should read up on both sides or all the sides before telling me to go find out.

If you do not realize it by now, that news has been going around for years now. I don't understand why that is news today when it was also news a couple of years ago, shrugs!

savanaha:

Exactly.

BUT WAIT WE BLAME OURSELVES BECAUSE TO WONDER IS TO WHINE

By this I begining to think you like to twist things yet you accuse me of twisting. Please again explain this your theory that people who continue to BLAME BUSH FOr the WAR are WONDERING. You and only you have so far brought up this WONDERING theory and you continue to post it as if anyone else is on the same boat with you on this. I posted some questions to you earlier. Who exactly are these people who are WONDERING and how come??

4 Play:

I agree that most Iraqis think the US should leave now but they also think the removal of Saddam in the first place was worth it.

have you heard of something called cost-benefit analysis? go figure.

about staying alive, saddam was a terror. but even the shias today know that irak was better and more secure under saddam than today. today in their country violence is normal. it is chaotic. how can you know their country better than them.
they want the americans out,
the rest of the world wants the americans out.
the british want them out(and have started pulling out themselves.
the un did not legalise the war,
the war is unpopular in america, uk, europe, etc

only bush and co, israel, blair and co, kobo and 4play and co want this war. he he he hee  eh eh ehe

4 Play:

Most Zimbabweans are far worse off today than they ever were under white-minority rule,I wonder why few of us are suggesting that Ian Smith should never have been hounded out of power in the first place.

that is the crux of my point - is the removal of Saddam completely and utterly synonymous with the immense loss of lives that have occurred since then? The entire thought process behind the war was wrong - it was based on wrong premises and grandiose expectations of victory - it failed. BUT the main protagonists have REFUSED to admit as such and are still justifying their actions. I am sure there are ways Saddam could've been removed without the chaos there is now.

Now to some, this is plain 'whining' and all that, but when some people still continue to believe their actions were justified and say so from the rooftops, then everyone else has the right to equally denounce the actions.

In one breath you quote 'polls' as being an authentic measure of Iraqi feelings, the next, you mention the Sunni 'megaphone' capable of obfuscating reality - which is the true reality then?

Some people want to be 'convinced' that others care more first - the truth shall set you free, whether they profited or not is secondary - if someone makes a factual account of things that went wrong, in the process enlightening people and getting rich, focusing on whether he made money or not is tangential at best. Lets not even go into the billions some have made BECAUSE of the war from military contracts and reports of WASTED funds meant for 'Iraqi reconstruction' that have gone down the drain.

debosky:


Were polls taken before the war in Iraq to gauge people's expectations then?

Having Saddam removed is one thing, do the majority of Iraqis support the over 90,000 documented deaths and likely thousands more undocumented that have occured? Or the daily suicide bombings and general insecurity? Unless of course you are suggesting that the current carnage and destruction in Iraq was the ONLY way Saddam could have been removed, then the issue is a lot more complex than the current 'hindsight' view of some Iraqis (I doubt the spread and veracity of these so called 'polls' anyways) and the views of Soldiers - did the Iraqi people make a plea to Bush to come 'save' them from Saddam?

Are the immense losses of Iraqi life necessary all in the name of overthrowing Saddam? I don't think so.

If we use this same logic all through,then the world was wrong to hound Ian Smith's white-minority rule out of power because the replacement-Mugabe-has made living standards far worse for Zimbabweans than it ever was before.

Iraqis don't support the current situation but Iraqi Kurds and Shias never liked the previous situation and think Saddam's removal is worth it.Why cry more than the bereaved? When Saddam was decimating Shias and Kurds,how many people poured into the streets to complain?

Is it any wonder that entire Iraqi army divisions preferred not to fight in 2003? Apart from Fedayeen Saddam and many Sunni dominated corps,the rest stood aside while some facilitated the invasion itself.Instead of crying more than the bereaved,we should respect the preferences of Iraqis who actually lived under Saddam.

otele:

have you heard of something called cost-benefit analysis? go figure.

about staying alive, saddam was a terror. but even the shias today know that irak was better and more secure under saddam than today. today in their country violence is normal. it is chaotic. how can you know their country better than them.
they want the americans out,
the rest of the world wants the americans out.
the british want them out(and have started pulling out themselves.
the un did not legalise the war,
the war is unpopular in america, uk, europe, etc

only bush and co, israel, blair and co, kobo and 4play and co want this war. he he he hee  eh eh ehe

Ok ok,  you caught me,  I want the war and I am not backing down,  now what ??  _{rolls eyes !!!}

Should I have to listen to people WHINE me to DEATH cause their side ( there should be such a thing), against the war did not win or something?? I accept I am worse than the many people who have profited from WHINING about this war and are now living in their lavish houses and writing more books so they can get more money from the many emotional people out there.

On a serious note, The country voted to have this war which is now 5 years in . We now have more information to show that we did not have the best intelligence at the time that we went in but we are there now and have been for years now, does continuing this BLAME GAME AND WHINE-FEST really benefit anyone?? I mean I still say look at the many millionaires that this WHINE-FEST has created to understand why ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER than words and why some of us are utterly sick and tired of this. I have been tagged HEARTLESS and someone who does not VALUE human life but how many lives have actually been saved by this?
Politicians continue to play the BLAME card and are using it to win elections at the end of the day, playing on people's emotions and do you think that is best for all instead?? They figure they need to take advantage of it and they are doing just exactly what the many who have profited from the WHINE-FEST have, all in the name of caring more for human life than those who do not WHINE with them. Are you kidding me??

have a heart kobo. people are dying and you are indifferent to their feelings. can you beat a child and stop the child from crying at the same time? people feel pain and are expressing it daily b/c the pain is daily. haba.

have a heart. your statements are so insensitive (and i'm being polite) to the feelings of those directly affected by this terrible mistake of bush.

people's children are dying and bush's daughter is marrying.(not suggesting she should not b4 kobo use me for lunch ) but people have feelings and must express it

debosky:

that is the crux of my point - is the removal of Saddam completely and utterly synonymous with the immense loss of lives that have occurred since then? The entire thought process behind the war was wrong - it was based on wrong premises and grandiose expectations of victory - it failed. BUT the main protagonists have REFUSED to admit as such and are still justifying their actions. I am sure there are ways Saddam could've been removed without the chaos there is now.

You are sure there are ways of removing Saddam without the chaos we are seeing today? Please enlighten further on this.I am curious to know what grand scheme you could have whipped up.

The premise of the Iraq war is that Saddam posed a threat to US and Israeli interests in the region and this threat has been neutralized.

You have sidestepped my point about the consequences of leaving Saddam in power.Saddam's regime did cost lives-you seemed to have forgotten that.The pertinent question has always been whether the removal of Saddam is worth the current level of bloodshed,my answer is yes.Most Iraqis are no more nostalgic about the Saddam era anymore than Zimbabweans are nostalgic for the Ian Smith era.

In one breath you quote 'polls' as being an authentic measure of Iraqi feelings, the next, you mention the Sunni 'megaphone' capable of obfuscating reality - which is the true reality then?

The true reality is that most Kurds and Shias think the removal of Saddam is worth it but we mainly get fed the opinion of the minority Sunni who dominate the information campaign.Iraq is deeply sectarian and many people seem to forget that.

otele:

have a heart kobo. people are dying and you are indifferent to their feelings. can you beat a child and stop the child from crying at the same time? people feel pain and are expressing it daily b/c the pain is daily. haba.

have a heart. your statements are so insensitive (and i'm being polite) to the feelings of those directly affected by this terrible mistake of bush.

people's children are dying and bush's daughter is marrying.(not suggesting she should not before kobo use me for lunch ) but people have feelings and must express it

ROFLMAO!!! Are you in essense saying that if I do this,

people are dying in IRaq, precious blood is being spilled daily and it is all because of BUSH and his goons who lied to us, 

that means I am more caring, senstive and all the other mushy emotions people like to associate with things like this?

You know what, NO OFFENCE TO YOU BRO, I think this debate is not going well at all cause it seems people are turning this to an emotional debate than what it really is about. I notice in this sort of situation, all th quack psychiatrists come out to tell you how they can read your thoughts and the psychics also show up to tell you of your issues when you do not see things from their sentimental angle. I would rather get back to the main point at this time, if this is all there is to go with.

Just so you know, if this was 5 years ago, fine, but it is five years into it all, I still say apart from those who are now millionaires, who else has gained from all this whining?? The poor human lives the whiners so care about ??

Kobojunkie:

Should I have to listen to people WHINE me to DEATH cause their side ( there should be such a thing), against the war did not win or something??

Who is forcing you to listen. . .I guess I forgot to add this to my previous post - alternative three cut off your ears/puncture your eardrums!

@ 4Play

I think this issue is more than crying more than the bereaved - people ARE dying who shouldn't be dying, I do not think the US approach was NECESSARY as the ONLY way Saddam could have been removed and the issues in Iraq resolved - that is a conceptual matter and cannot be simply reduced to '80% don't want Saddam while 20% do, majority wins'

There are deep ethical and moral questions as to the whole approach to go into Iraq, why did it not go through the UN? Why were facts distorted all in an attempt to achieve regime change? Was/Could the resultant hot-bed for terrorist training and export around the world contemplated in the initial analysis? Did a hot-headed decision based more on ideology than on reality on ground be regarded as simply 'helping' the Iraqis?

I believe this whole 'benefiting the Shias and Kurds' line to be revisionist, no one even contemplated that or mentioned it as the core reason behind the push into Iraq - it was an attempt to 'stop' weapons of mass destruction from being used and proliferated. If it was simply out of concern for the Iraqis and removing Saddam, why is there no US intervention in Darfur? They still do not donate helicopters not to mention troops to the quantum needed to make some impact there or in other locations. This isn't about crying more about the bereaved, but when you paint it as if this intervention was a godsend or that the iraqi's were clamoring for it, that is nothing more than an untruth or at best an afterthought.

otele:

have you heard of something called cost-benefit analysis? go figure.

about staying alive, saddam was a terror. but even the shias today know that irak was better and more secure under saddam than today. today in their country violence is normal. it is chaotic. how can you know their country better than them.
they want the americans out,
the rest of the world wants the americans out.
the british want them out(and have started pulling out themselves.
the un did not legalise the war,
the war is unpopular in america, uk, europe, etc

only bush and co, israel, blair and co, kobo and 4play and co want this war. he he he hee eh eh ehe

This confused rant of yours doesn't address the central point-would most Iraqis prefer Saddam to Maliki?

Are you suggesting that Iraqi Shias would prefer to replace current Shia rule with Saddam's rule? Or that Kurds would rather have Saddam back? Not even the most passionate American hating Sunni Arab will even dare produce such a lie.

Cost-benefit analysis also applies to leaving Saddam in power.What if the CIA managed to assassinate Saddam?Would his children-Uday and Qusay-been any better. The UN sanctions of the 90s cost lives too-in the hundreds of thousands.

In my view,the reason why there is so much kerfuffle over Iraq is that for the first time in decades,Westerners (in the form of US troops)are also losing their lives.Saddam's Anfal campaign didn't make headlines because no single American died in it

4 Play:



In my view,the reason why there is so much kerfuffle over Iraq is that for the first time in decades,Westerners (in the form of US troops)are also losing their lives.Saddam's Anfal campaign didn't make headlines because no single American died in it

To be honest, thats the reason most Americans would throw at You when the Iraqi war comes up.

4 Play:

This confused rant of yours doesn't address the central point-would most Iraqis prefer Saddam to Maliki?

Are you suggesting that Iraqi Shias would prefer to replace current Shia rule with Saddam's rule? Or that Kurds would rather have Saddam back? Not even the most passionate American hating Sunni Arab will even dare produce such a lie.

Cost-benefit analysis also applies to leaving Saddam in power.What if the CIA managed to assassinate Saddam?Would his children-Uday and Qusay-been any better. The UN sanctions of the 90s cost lives too-in the hundreds of thousands.

In my view,the reason why there is so much kerfuffle over Iraq is that for the first time in decades,Westerners (in the form of US troops)are also losing their lives.Saddam's Anfal campaign didn't make headlines because no single American died in it

Right on!!!!

debosky:

@ 4Play

I think this issue is more than crying more than the bereaved - people ARE dying who shouldn't be dying, I do not think the US approach was NECESSARY as the ONLY way Saddam could have been removed and the issues in Iraq resolved - that is a conceptual matter and cannot be simply reduced to '80% don't want Saddam while 20% do, majority wins'

People are dying who shouldn't be dying? What about the ones who died under Saddam,maybe in their case,they "should be dying".

You haven't been able to tell us how Sunni minority-rule could have been ended without the bloodshed we are seeing today.What deep moral and ethical issue supersedes Sunni and Kurdish hatred for Saddam?

I believe this whole 'benefiting the Shias and Kurds' line to be revisionist, no one even contemplated that or mentioned it as the core reason behind the push into Iraq - it was an attempt to 'stop' weapons of mass destruction from being used and proliferated. If it was simply out of concern for the Iraqis and removing Saddam, why is there no US intervention in Darfur? They still do not donate helicopters not to mention troops to the quantum needed to make some impact there or in other locations. This isn't about crying more about the bereaved, but when you paint it as if this intervention was a godsend or that the iraqi's were clamoring for it, that is nothing more than an untruth or at best an afterthought.

To rejog your memory,the Americans called the 2003 campaign "Operation Iraqi Freedom",that is a pretty good indication that the operation had more than WMD as its stated focus.You only have to read the texts of Bush's speeches-widely available on the internet-to see how much this aspect was stressed upon by the Bush administration.So much so that before the war,many accused the Bush administration of attempting to bring democracy to Iraq by "force of arms".

As for Darfur,you contradict yourself.After stressing the importance of working through the UN,you then proceed to question why the US hasn't gone in guns blazing into Darfur.Its obvious that the UNSC,due to China and Russia,won't allow this. However,its important to note that the US is responsible for nearly 50% of the humanitarian aid sent to Sudan.

Its also important to note that it was US sanctions,while the whole world dithered,that helped end the conflict in South Sudan that cost more than a million lives.If America were to intervene in Darfur militarily,there would inevitably be major loss of lives,the argument for not intervening in Iraq(that is costs lives)would effectively mean that the US should never intervene anywhere unless "midget"-states like Liberia and Haiti because any such intervention,particularly in Mu-slim nations,will inevitably lead to a bloodbath.

@ 4Play

I am not contradicting myself, I am showing the inconsistency in American actions - why go guns blazing into Iraq and not into Sudan? Granted they are providing aid, but why not the same altruistic intent that was used in Iraq? Did China and Russia and France not all oppose Iraq? Did the US not go ahead there?

South Sudan and Darfur are two completely separate issues as you well know, lets not mix them up. The loss of lives is not the only metric for saying the intervention in Iraq was wrong - the gung-ho we are going to be all victorious approach led to the problems on the ground being under estimated. Unilateral incursions into other territories should not be engaged in unless a direct threat to you is evident - The US should never 'intervene' anywhere all on its own if not attacked, if not others will take it as a precedent and do the same.

Are you now saying that this present cost of lives was completely unavoidable? That the whole thing could not have been better handled if not for the hawks of war so intent on going to Iraq and achieving a lightning victory that has never materialized? The ones that thought all Iraqis would welcome them in and democracy would be restored overnight and all that? I'm not claiming to have some hifalutin plan, but still I think a better approach was indeed possible.

Asking why the US isn't invading Sudan would be engaging in pointless permutation.It is akin to asking why Sunderland haven't signed Ronaldinho,the US doesn't have the troop strength to engage in another large scale operation while occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

You are virtually asking why the US hasn't done the impossible.The question of consistency here is rendered irrelevant because it will be impractical,in any case,for the US to mount an operation in Sudan.

As for the US going in "unilaterally",there were more non-US troops in Iraq than there were for the Afghanistan,Kosovo,or Bosnia campaign.If a country goes to war alongside 30+ other nations,that hardly sounds "unilateral" to me unless the meaning of unilateral has changed.

I have been calling on you to suggest how Saddam could have been removed without the current bloodshed.Criticism is easy,suggesting viable alternatives is what is more important.

@4play

It is one thing being virulently pro-western, but it is another defending the present carnage

by juxtaposing it with what obtained before.

doyin13:

@4play

It is one thing being virulently pro-western, but it is another defending the present carnage

by juxtaposing it with what obtained before.

Bush 4cked up. Simple

and?

Kobojunkie:

and?

and. . . . hopefully Hollywood will not engage in any revisionist activities declaring otherwise

doyin13:

and. . . . hopefully Hollywood will not engage in any revisionist activities declaring otherwise

Chances of that happening is almost next to Impossible,   Is that all??ROFLMAO!!!

doyin13:

and. . . . hopefully Hollywood will not engage in any revisionist activities declaring otherwise

A leftist Hollywood revising history in the Right's favor? No chance. . . .there are many in Hollywood who still think US military mobilization against the Soviets was foolhardy.

Viable alternatives?

The no fly zones were already bringing dividends for the Kurds - the Shias were also slowly gaining some freedoms as well. Proper monitoring of the oil for food program and other UN initiatives would have yielded improved social development throughout Iraq, with proper verification of the disarmament leaving Iraqi's free to decide on their own who will rule their country. This 'benevolence' of the US is obviously tainted and I do not think it was necessary or even that beneficial. The Maliki who has been installed has been using Shia death squads within the Army to kill innocent Sunnis, using Iraqi troops to defeat Sunni strongholds so that he remains the only one in power, and lessening the impact of other power blocks. He is in essence not much different to Saddam in my view, save for his pro-Western stance right now.

Now I don't claim all that would have solved the problems, but the US intervention was/is unnecessary.