- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,251
- Reaction score
- 10,565
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
no, actually it wasn't. In the initial US invasion, the city was nearly untouched, it was not leveled by the US with max attempts to kill any and all civilians. The city was first damaged by looters, then NEARLY A YEAR LATER the city became a battleground after insurgents moved in and began attacking US troops. Again, this is absurd to argue what we are witnessing in Mariupol is equal to Fallujah .You don't remember Falluja? That was Bush's Mariupol in Iraq.
Wow, nothing like comparing years of occupation to a few weeks.Bush's invasion of Iraq was more egregious than what Putin has done, and took far more lives.
You have me mistaken for a PNAC neocon, I'm not.....as a matter of fact I got into a personal direct argument with Laurie Mylroie when she was in San Diego during the war. You have no idea what I am.Remember, America doesn't even have a border with Iraq. There are no vital interests there. No rival foreign powers had been creating problems for America in there, that would have provoked a US desire to invade. Bush simply invaded because he didn't like the fact that Saddam was still in power while his dad was defeated in elections at home. His Neo-Con allies were upset at the Palestinian Intifada which followed the failed Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" led by Clinton, who had defeated Bush's dad.
Last edited: