And in the process killing perhaps hundreds of thousands more…

Due to the clever positioning of the Iraqi Military sites which were sited right in the middle of built up areas. Anyone who knows anything about explosives and bombs know that they all have a blast radius, which just happens to cover those very same residential areas. Also Smart Bombs are an oxymoron, like Military Intelligence and Bulletproof vests. Also Sadaam killed more of his own people.

“You’re welcome for fighting the terrorists who constantly try to overthrow your government.”

Who weren’t there before the invasion. Actually they were. It’s well known that Terrorist training camps were located in Iraq, however much like the WMD due to the American Policy of broadcasting their intentions months in advance giving the terrorists and the Iraqi military plenty of time to shift their gear before getting defeated by the Allies (Which of course they knew they would be)

“You’re welcome for us spending unimaginable billions of dollars and soldiers’ lives to bring stability to an ungrateful nation such as yours.”

Actually, Iraq was a lot more stable before we invaded. Nice try, though. Yes, but only through the deaths of thousands of Sadaams own people and through the brutality and oppression brought by Sadaam’s rule.

“You’re welcome for giving you a democratic govrnment.”

I think food, water, electricity, health care, etc. is much higher on most Iraqis’ lists of priorities right now, especially since they had that before the invasion. Actually if those demonstrations have taken place recently, then this shows that they are all hypocrites as they would never be allowed to do that in Sadaam’s time. They’d be lined up against a wall and shot. Also yes there may be few resources but that’s only because they are blown up by the terrorists who keep declaring that they were better off under Sadaam.

“You’re welcome for trying make your wretched existence better.”

Let’s review the history of the last 30 years or so. In the early 1980s we (the US) armed Saddam Hussein to fight the Iranians (while simultaneously arming Iran as a regional counterbalance during the Iran-Contra scandal), who then ended up using that same weaponry to destroy rivals and consolidate his power. Then we bombed the crap out of Iraq in 1991. Then we imposed an embargo in 1993 that left Iraq with one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. Then we invaded again in 2003 and have since occupied the country for six years. Perhaps we should stop “trying make [their] wretched existence better.” Actually Military sites were bombed in 1991 due to Iraq’s illegal invasion of Kuwait (or don’t you remember that!!) And the Embargo was enforced to try and stop Iraq forcing it’s way on the Kurds in the North and the Marsh Arabs in the South, and also to prevent Military build up.

“We’re already leaving, so why are you still protesting?”

How do you know this photo wasn’t taken several years ago? Oh, that’s right, you don’t. You’re just talking out of your ass.

This is the only point I actually agree with.

I think you make a good point-it’s just not something I’ve heard a whole lot about. People supporting the removal of Saddam usually focus more on his threat to the West or the stability of the area and not on the Iraqis…

But none of that matters, right? Because if the lights stay on and the trains run on time, who cares about liberty, or the price in blood? I’ll bet you loved Basra under the Mahdi Army, then. Douche.

Realistically, though, a small continuing presence in Iraq (“small” being along the lines of our presences in Germany and South Korea) would be the only way to withdraw the majority of our forces without leaving the Iraqi government completely swinging in the breeze. But no, it’s no surprise that “withdrawal” is yet another Obama promise with an expiration date.

But my original point still stands. If the photo was taken six months ago after he was first arrested, we weren’t exactly “already leaving” at the time.

Of course, Obama’s plan to “leave” will still “leave” tens of thousands of US soldiers in Iraq, so it’s also wrong to claim that we’re “already leaving” now.

(Personally, my money’s on Cuba’s getting turned into a formal Soviet satellite state.)

As near as I can tell, the “mission statement” of OIF was to remove the Hussein regime from power and promote a democratic replacement. While assassinating Saddam would certainly have gotten him out of the way, it’s very unlikely that his death would have ended the regime, so that’s where the full-scale invasion and the bombings come in.

I suspect this reflects the fact that the leaders make the rules…

Granted, I haven’t really thought about the implications, but on first glance, I’d be *very* hesitant about handing that kind of power to the judiciary. It doesn’t seem like the right place for it.

I’ve offered to edit these people’s signs, but they never seem to have time to take me up on my offer.

sigh