Replies

Work it out, Einstein. We had them on the run. Instead of taking prisoners of war, we murdered conscripts. Instead of overthrowing the dictator, something we could have done with contemptuous ease, we inflicted a embargo on the country, murdering civilians. Most of the victims have been children.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to answer your question for you. I want to know exactly how far we should have gone in overthrowing Saddam, all WITHOUT killing anyone, of course, not killing "conscripts" or civilians, just taking prisoners of war (and detaining them in what your ilk would immediately term "concentration camps"...) No, I want to hear you say HOW we should have overthrown Saddam. What would have been acceptable? No killing, no refugees obviously (considering your support of Palestinians), so also explain how we could have done that without his supporters (and yes he has plenty) immediately re-ensconcing him. I want to hear YOUR military strategy for the bloodless coup that America should have imposed upon a sovereign country. Come on. You're the "Architect." Let's see your blueprint. Can you do anything besides criticize?

I think your hate is starting to show through. Your rant is so pathetic that it is barely worth a reply. But let's look at some facts anyway.

1. The US could have moved in on Baghdad with contemptuous ease. We both know it.
2. There is a difference between a prisoner of war camp and a concentration camps. We both know it.
3. Even if they were the same, how does this justify the Nintendo murder of conscript troops? If we weren't going to continue on to Baghdad, what even was the point?
4. Taking Baghdad would undoubtedly have caused some refugees to flee. The difference between Palestinians and these hypothetical Iraqis is this, Einstein. The Palestinians were never allowed to go home. The racist Zionists couldn't let that happen, could they?
5. Hussein was not popular in Iraq in 1991. He just led the people into two disasterous wars. No one was going to back him up.