--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And that's because the policy of the rest of the world was to > > support the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein ad infinitum???? > > Only if you share Bush's Manichean world-view. I don't. But we have > covered this ground earlier, before the invasion.
Ritu, it seems that you, Nick, and even Dan missed the point here. The proposition was made here that the US is responsible for all the deaths currently occuring in Iraq. While this was a reasonable proposition when the deaths in Iraq were occuring largely as a result of US military action, or else as a result of an anti-US insurgency in Iraq, that no longer seems to be the case. As the events of the past week have painfully demonstrated, the predominant form of violence in Iraq is of an inter-sectarian kind as the various Iraqi factions jockey for position in the post-Saddam order. In my mind, if one is to blame the US for these deaths, then the alternative would be to support the prolonged the perpetuation of Saddam Hussein or similar ad infinitum as a means of holding the country together. Alternatively, I suppose you could explain why you think that there would have been less sectarian violence in Iraq if the regime of Saddam Hussein (or similar) had only collapsed *without* 150,000+ US troops on the ground trying to help keep the peace... JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
