Jack Straw says 'soz'... f*ck him.

but instead to the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands who've been slaughtered in slaughtered in Iraq and surrounding nations thanks to the domino effect.

The hundreds and thousands who died as a result of ethnic tensions and religious tensions? You'd be better laying the blame on Sykes and Picot.

Iraq/Syria/Libya and so on were more or less peaceful [It seems most of these dictatorships were damn jolly good thing!] before those swines in Downingstreet and Washington thought it would be marverlous to turn them all into failed states with hundreds dying daily more or less, the cities being bombed to pieces.

I'm sure you could consider Iraq peaceful if you ignore the Kurdish genocide which killed somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 Kurds. Then we also have the attempted genocide of the Marsh Arabs which led to about 100,000 Marsh Arabs fleeing to Iran and tens of thousands dead. Lets also not forget the uprisings against Saddam by the people of Iraq in 1991.

Syria wasn't exactly peaceful either. Throughout the 70's and 80's, the Muslim brotherhood tried to uprise, which the Assad family put down brutally killing tens of thousands of Sunni Muslim civilians.

My main point was more that there werent mass indiscrimiate bombings across the countries/civil war/arms proliferation/essentially no government/rise of oiks such s ISIL and so on. You used to be able to go to Baghdad Mosul and the like without a 90% chance of some little pig **** letting off a truck bomb.

as for Syria, lets be honest the MB are abhored throughout the world and last i checked thewyre classified as a terrorist group so if they decide to try and ignote a civil war they deserved the reap the whirlwind and civillians blood is on their hands no one elses.

either way i maintain my point ALL of these countries were stable until the west turned them into failed states;

shall i continue?

And things would somehow have been better if Saddam remained? If Saddam wasn't overthrown by America, he would have either been caught up in the Arab spring like Assad or possibly died of old age (he was already 69). Both of which would have opened Iraq up to instability.I can't see how things could have turned out better under Saddam.

Regardless of any of that, it did not justify the indiscriminate killing of Sunni civilians which only helped to encourage Sunni resentment towards the minority Shia government. This provided the perfect breading ground from which groups like ISIS could take advantage of.

I don't see how a country engaged in genocide can be considered 'stable and peaceful'

The 100,000 civilians killed by the Iran and Iraq war
The invasion and occupation of Kuwait which resulted in thousands of deaths

Shall I continue?

Yes arguably a lot better.
The yanks bombed the country into the stoneage FOR NO REASON and then left? They did nothing but build a bonfire under the country and lit it when they left.

It's also very dubious that the Arab [im going to call it downfall instead of spring for obvious reasons] would have worked at all there. Iraq was an oil rich country with a massive and loyal armed forces.
Well lets strt with no civil war?

You mean whats been going on en-masse since he was illegally toppled? ISIS came thanks to the power vaccume.

Im pretty sure i told you just now? Genocide whilst might be evil but in a purely clinical look at it they were a tiny minority to the greater whole unlike now where its kill everyone.
I also assume you advocate the toppling of turkeys government by this logic then?

The iran-iraq more cannot be brought into this... that is a ridiculous arguement by that perverse reasoning parliament/reichstag,senate etc. should be bombed thanks to ww1/ww2/vietname etc.
war is a different matter.

Oh indeed it did... did you ever see the american massacre of defenseless people on the highway of death? they boxed them in by bombing the front and rear of the road and spent hours straffing and bombing those fleeing.
Oh and when they dropped a bunker buster bomb into a civllian shelter.