>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.

The obvious intent of targeting electical and water supplies is destory the enemies ability to fight, not to kill civilians. If the US really wanted to target civilians, why not take out hospitals and schools? And as long as your are criticizing, why don't you offer some alternatives? Or would you just rather toss in your hat with Neville Chamberlain?

>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.

Saddam used them on a country he started a war with, and used them on it's own people. The US used them in a war it did not start, nor wanted any part of. You are equating the 2?

>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enough & during the oppression of the Kurds (who were initially supported by the US & then that support was totally withdrawn) you'll find that much of the chemical weapons he deployed against them were knowingly supplied by your government (& some by mine, I wont keep us out of it).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")

I won't defend any help we gave to Saddam in the 1980's. You deal with the devil, you pay the price.

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

Turkey is upset because they feel we did not give them enough money in 1991 to handle the Kurdish refugees who fled Iraq into Turkey.

>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.

Turkey made the request to NATO.

>How about Suharto in Indonesia (US support until 1998)

Can't comment on that one.