>>>Are are saying that the US military deliberately targets civilians? And tehy do it to for money?
>>
>>They dont have too much regard with who or what they target. The last time round the civilian water & electricity supplies were deliberately targeted.
>>
>>As far as I know, your professional soldiers get paid for doing their job.
>
>Amazing. You somehow equate the water and electricity supplies with targeting civilians.

Amazing that you can't see the linkage. Apart from the fact that targeting civilian water & electricity supplies being illegal under international law, it has a direct impact on civilian casualties, other than the civilians working in those facilities at the time. Lots of people die because hospitals have no electicity, there's no fresh water & the sanitation systems are destroyed. Maybe you are not counting these people as they are not killed by the bombs, but they die as a direct result of the bombing.

>
>>>1. Israel has not used its weapons of mass destruction as Saddam has:
>>
>>Good reason for the US not being allowed to have weapons of mass destruction then.
>
>Are you equating the US to Iraq?

Sorry, I thought prior use of WMD was your reason for not allowing Saddam Hussein to have them. The US has WMD & has previously used them, how can they be trusted not to use them again any more than Iraq. In that respect, I guess I must be equating the US to Iraq.

>
>>> a. Against Iran - a war he started, by the way
>>
>>The US manouevred Saddam Hussain into power solely to start a war against Iran.
>
>WHere do you get this mindless drivel?

Just read some history books - do a little research, instead of just believing the "mindless drivel" that is fed to you by your media. Maybe you'll see how the your various governments interfering in the area got Saddam Hussain into power & how the switching of support from Iran to Iraq maintained that power. Look hard enough & during the oppression of the Kurds (who were initially supported by the US & then that support was totally withdrawn) you'll find that much of the chemical weapons he deployed against them were knowingly supplied by your government (& some by mine, I wont keep us out of it). (As a CIA agent is reported as saying : "We know he's got the chemical weapons, we've got the receipts to prove it")


>
>>> b. Against his one people - the Kurds
>>
>>OK, I'll have to accept that one. But then the support for Turkey, who similarly want to destroy the Kurds. There is a lot of concern that if Turkey is used as a base for attack from the North, then the Turkish army will mount their own attack on the Northern Kurds in Iraq.
>
>Not going to happen.

Possibly because Turkey is still holding out against having US troops on its soild despite large bribes.

Another question is about the big fuss about France vetoing NATO troop build up in Turkey, when Turkey doesn't even want them there. Didn't your government think about asking Turkey if they wanted the troops there in the first place.

>
>>There's quite a few other dictators supported by your governments who have attacked their own people, with weapons supplied by yourselves.
>
>Who?

How about Suharto in Indonesia (US support until 1998)