saddam initiated the iraq-iran war, where 1 million people died. 100,000 of those were civilians. Another 180,000 or so wee also killed in the kurdish genocide.

I agree that the states' motives were wrong, but I still maintain that iraq is better off without saddam. He did more damage than the US has done, and wasn't about to stop any time soon.

You can't just go from one NATO intervention to another completely different one, man. Ya gotta differentiate. How was I supposed to know you were talking about another on of the various times NATO met to discuss an issue? :I

Even still, you should know very well that nothing in geopolitics is done out of good will and humanitarianism. The sweet talk is merely war propaganda, whereas elite interests always lie behind the scenes.

close to 1 million died in the iraq war started by saddam. He also was targeting civilians (killing 5000 with chemical warfare in one town at one point) and didn't show any signs of stopping his bullshit. Then there's the people that died due to his invasion of kuwait.

another thing, keep in mind how relentless and cruel chemical weapons are. It's a torturous death.

That 5000 death toll you mentioned is related to the Iraq-Iran war. It's interesting to note that the US supported Saddam in that war. Later, of course, everything changed.

>close to 1 million died in the iraq war started by saddam.
>started by saddam.
What?

And nobody is debating the moral side of chemical warfare. It's gruesome and atrocious however you look at it. I'm not a Saddam apologist, but the US intervention was the complete opposite of what it pretended to be. Even if US soldiers did not outright execute civilians, the actions of the West caused much more damage in the long run. (see sanctions' aftermath and region destabilization)

saddam initiated the iraq-iran war, where 1 million people died. 100,000 of those were civilians. Another 180,000 or so wee also killed in the kurdish genocide.

I agree that the states' motives were wrong, but I still maintain that iraq is better off without saddam. He did more damage than the US has done, and wasn't about to stop any time soon.

You seem to be forgetting the fucking Gulf war. Ya know, The one that started by Iraq Invading Kuwait. You think the U.N would just embargo an impoverished country for banking interests? Rather than ya know... the fact that the country was being ruled at the time by a tyrannical mass-murdering dictator?

You're brilliant. I'm so glad I got to see this new, obviously educated viewpoint.

I was talking about the intervention after 9/11, not the Gulf war. The intervention followed only after Saddam refused to trade oil in USD, which threatened to cripple the petrodollar system.
See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar

As for the sanctions, they lasted up to 2003 - long after the Gulf war.

You can't just go from one NATO intervention to another completely different one, man. Ya gotta differentiate. How was I supposed to know you were talking about another on of the various times NATO met to discuss an issue? :I

Even still, you should know very well that nothing in geopolitics is done out of good will and humanitarianism. The sweet talk is merely war propaganda, whereas elite interests always lie behind the scenes.

Blowjob.

"Would you like some head, Phones?"

Would you like some phones,head?

What now?
I'm afraid I don't understand.

huh.......
I knew it was toxic but I though people were overly paranoid about it.