donttreadonred wrote:@english_jewel
That's a fair point. Some is a very ambiguous term. I won't sit here and pretend to quote you figures and rationals. The killing of civilians is never acceptable. However, for the sake of my argument, the intention was to describe the intended target of the actions. Bin Laden, Hussein and Gaddaffi's targets were civilian, intending to create fear to unsettle foreign powers and control domestic groups. Civilian casualties as a result of US and Nato attacks are collateral, meaning that they were not intended. The killing of civilians was never the goal of the attack. While the deaths of civilians is never irrelevant, my definition of "some" is.

Fair point

I guess its related.

The Chilcot report concluded today. And obviously they found out what most knew for the last decade. We went to Iraq based on flawed intelligence and false pretence and Tony Blair is responsible for deaths of thousands.

Summary of the Chilcot report


-UK went to war before peaceful options exhausted and military action was "not last resort", Chilcot report says

-Invasion in 2003 was based on “flawed intelligence and assessments” that went unchallenged
Threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were "presented with certainty that was not justified"

-Former PM Tony Blair says decision for action made "in good faith" and he takes "full responsibility for any mistakes"

-Families of Britons killed during Iraq War say conflict was "a fiasco" and do not rule out legal action

-PM David Cameron says "lessons must be learned" and announces two-day Commons debate next week

-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says war was "act of military aggression launched on a false pretence"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-36714717

---------------------

And of course they will keep harping on Benghazi and her emails.

If there's one thing I hate about Obama, it's playing nice with the republicans. He should've really given them the knockout blow with bush, but he's too nice