- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Maybe I was rash, but think about it. A significant portion of Iraqis wanted us to invade and throw out Saddam. Our aerial attacks were far less careless in “collateral damage.” We didn’t have a confined, starving population where we used woman and children and the Red Cross for shooting practice. True the end result was far more devasting in Iraq and the Middle East. For true senseless savagery, the Israelis top the Busheviks. Maybe I hate them equally and my congress for supporting them.
I'm not so sure we were less careless or just better and suppressing the results of our bombing to the US audience. Iraqis may not have been confined, but many were starving...courtesy of US sanctions, which were in place longer than the post occupation Gaza blockade. Not to mention the destruction of much of the basic Iraqi infrastructure. Remember the highway to hell at the end of Gulf War 1.0? Hard to say if I prefer my savagery senseless or in support of Iraqi Freedom. Did a significant number want us to invade, or did we slyly conflate anti-Saddamm sentiment for pro-US invasion sentiment
