>><snip>
>>
>>>Now, to be fair, the majority of the deaths are not at the hands of the Americans (I'm referring to innocents) but mostly by factions, insurgents and other Arabs from other countries. You can argue that it would not be happening if the U.S. was not there, but then the insurgents and factions should only be targeting the U.S. if that is their sole issue and not the Iraqi people.
>>
>>This is, of course, an excellent point. Why are the two Islamic factions killing each other by the truck-load and why would that be the fault of the foriegn forces.
>
>In case you are not being facetious... While Saddam was a nasty piece of work, the three major factions were present under his rule but they weren't killing each other.
>It is possible, had the U.S. and Brits had the (estimated as needed) 500,000 troops on the ground there to keep order that the situation could have continued "calm" as it previously had been.
>The U.S. and the Brits went into Iraq knowing the prior history full well and they ought to have realized that suppressed factions were ready to let loose and would let loose if given the opportunity. It really was up to the U.S. and the Brits to plan for that eventuality and ensure that it couldn't happen.
>The situation wasn't helped, either, by firing all Baath Party governmental officials and disbanding the military as victory was declared. Idle hands do the devils work.
>That Iraqis are not killing each other is a direct result of how the invasion was executed.

I was not being facetious at all Jim. I think that Tracy makes a valid point which I had not thought about sufficiently. I see that a dictator could hold the opposing forces together with the rule of an iron fist. That rule is now gone due to the war but I still think the fighting islamic factions should also consider their own responsibilities in the death of so many civilians. You cannot put all that on at the feet of the US and Brits. Bottom line is that there is plenty of blame to go all around, sadly.