I know it wasn't.

Does that mean you agree with me?

I still don't know how he came to that conclusion.

Let me be clear: I was against the Iraq invasion and am against the current US occupation of Iraq.

Same here.

America went to Iraq to throw out Saddam.
When he was gone, they knew that it would happen all over again if they couldn't stand up for themselves.
Now they can, so it's time to focus on the other threats.

Yes, I'm sure it started with noble intentions. I still think events like the Sieges of Fallujah could have been avoided.

Exactly.

Why do so many Americans think killing Saddam was a bad thing?

Maybe they aren't? Maybe they are angry because their country invaded a sovereign nation promising democracy but staying for a coupla' years leading to needless deaths due to an insurgency that would have been a minor thing if the troops moved out before the locals started feeling that US enacted policies and occupation was no different from Saddam.

Do you know why the insurgents hate us?
It's got nothing to do with us being there.
They believe that western ideals are against their religion, and will hate America unless they were somehow magically convinced that they were interpreting everything wrong and their preachers are liars.

Don't forget, many Middle Easterns literally live for religion.

i know alot about the muslum religion, and i know for a fact that Middle eastern people dont hate america because of sinnish behavior, they just look down on them, and the fact that America is killing coutless of inocent people in between the war, and not giving a crap, gives them room to have a little more hate. Staying in Iraq to show supiriority is rediculous.

It has nothing to do with wether or not they're Muslim, either.
Leaders told them the West is evil, and try to block out all other opinions.
The people have nobody else to believe, so they join them.

Also, America did betray them during Desert Storm.
They had the people their side, and they could've killed Sadam, but they pulled out without finishing things. Not only did that create resentment, but Sadam went back to being a dictator.
Also, almost no civilians were killed by the U.s. Many were killed by the terrorists, though, which is why they went there.
In fact, after Sadam was defeated, the rest of the time went towards training an Iraqi military and rebuilding the country.

You guys are mixing up alot of countries here.
And if you know so much about the Muslim religion, why can't you even spell it properly?

This is veering faster in to flame bait category faster than you can say, zomg BUSH ROX! To any moderators, I will attempt to keep this under check as long as I can. If I get overwhelmed, do step in and lock this.


I would like to point out that view is rather one-sided, especially that generalisation you made about Middle Easterners living only for religion. I beg to differ.


The Gulf War, as I recall, that the US involvement in that conflict more towards defending an allied nation that outright an invasion of Iraq.

Sure, a lot of civilians are usually not killed by US Military personnel. I'll tell you who's killing civilians, its the Private Military Companies under US government payroll. Heard about Baghdad's Bloody Sunday? Now you're telling me the insurgency is mad because they hate the West. Obviously they would if the West started indiscriminately killing their countrymen.

Yea, but it's only America.
The British have pussied and pulled out, whereas the Australians have kept their oath and helped the Americans.
We don't kill innocents, though.

I didn't say everyone in the middle east did it, I was just making the point that it was a much bigger deal there.

Also, it's not as if we let it go when Pmc's kill innocents, it's murder and that's how they're charged.
When a leader brings up "DA COUNTLESS SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENTS MAKES THEM HATE US LAWL," It's a political move.
It doesn't happen nearly enough for the population to really hold a grudge over.
After all, their own government killed countless civilians.