Re-thought.

You introduced the words "randomly and flagrantly", not I. But don't fool yourself into thinking that tactics such as "Shock and Awe" only killed the bad people. No, it indiscriminately killed anyone who happened to be in the area. How many? We'll probably never know but I'll bet that number is larger than you imagine. Do you think that their families are ok with that because it was for a good cause? Perhaps that is why we have failed to be welcomed with open arms and flowers at our feet. And, we removed the country's infrastructure in the process. Something that we have yet to rebuild.

And by the way, how many terrorists and insurgents were blowing up Iraqis before we got there? Perhaps, if we really cared about the Iraqis, we would have taken measures from the get-go to ensure that an insurgency of this magnitude didn't materialize in the aftermath. Instead, our leaders were so convinced that this was going to be over in a few weeks that they never considered it might not go that way. And here were are.

So yes, there is plenty of blame to go around.

It's not proper message board ettiquette to post about who is on your ignore list. Let's have that be the last of it, please (both of you).

Not to put words in MBC's mouth, I think one could make the case that We (AKA the US Government) is at least partially responsible for the the kind of anarchy and chaos that has allowed the increased killing of innocents.

Saddam may have been an evil dictator who killed innocent people, but I imagine at least there one had some sort rules one could live by to prevent yourself from being a victim (i.e. shut up and join the Bath party). Yeah that flys in the face of our democratic dream, but I think you yourself are willing to trade some of your civil liberties for security. I suspect some Iraqies might feel the same way and see democracy as a system by which innocents are more randomly killed than by the other system.

I'm clueless as to the actual numbers, and not really interested in finding them out, but that's how I understand MBC's argument.

I'm not fooled into thinking attacks only killed "bad people"- are you fooled into thinking WE (as in the US) are the ones entirely responsible for the deaths of innocents there now?

Do you ever bother to look past what is fed you by the media that thrives on BLOOD and DEATH and seen any of the good things? The positive things?

The people in the military who keep going back- voluntarily- because they believe in what thay are doing?
The schools, hospitals and other things being rebuilt?
The progress?

No- all ignored.

I think it's been pretty well documented that our government had little to no concept of the shape of the conflict they would be sparking off. They were completely unprepared for the level of sectarian violence (despite decades, if not centuries, of precedent that some bare minimum amount of research would have pointed to). They just started dropping bombs and expected things to just kinda settle out for the best. Are "we" "responsible" for the violence there now? No, the people committing it are. Were "we" "irresponsible" for not anticipating the chaos that was inevitable and failing to conduct the operation in a way to minimize it in the aftermath? I'd be hard pressed to say no.

Duly noted.

It is shocking to me that people cast some kind of backward blame on the US- and have no harsh words at all for the insurgent bastards who plant the IED's or the car bombs.

How about blame for the people who do the killing.

What a novel idea.

Again, you introduced the word "entirely", which was not part of my argument.

Where, may I ask, are you getting your information from about all of the positive that is occurring?

You mean, like the ones that are having their tours extended indefinitely?

Violence is escalating there every day. You might call that progress, I cannot. Halliburton is sure making a killing however.

Yep, that is pretty much my argument in a nutshell.