Iraq Wants the US Out - Our New Saigon Moment

[Missourian]

Regarding the weapons inspectors bing bpooted out by Saddam, what time frame are you addressing?
AP) U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war.

A plane carrying the inspectors took off from Saddam International Airport at 10:25 a.m. It landed an hour and a half later in Laranca, Cyprus where the inspectors have a base.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war.
Weapons Inspectors Leave Iraq - CBS News

And,,,,
During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President Bush asserted peaceful measures couldn't disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War.Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Missourian, when did Saddam kick out the weapons inspectors?
By the way,,,,thanks to you and Sallow for an interesting discussion.

From Wikipedia:

On September 12, 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush addressed the General Assembly and outlined a catalogue of complaints against the Iraqi government.[1] These included:

• "In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq supports terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."
• The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 found "extremely grave" human rights violations
• Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
• Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
• Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.

Following the speech, intensive negotiations began with other members of the Security Council. In particular, three permanent members (with veto power) of the Council were known to have misgivings about an invasion of Iraq: Russia, China, and France.


In the meantime, Iraq, while denying all charges, announced that it would permit the re-entry of United Nations arms inspectors into Iraq. The United States characterized this as a ploy by Iraq and continued to call for a Security Council resolution which would authorize the use of military force.
​

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

Thanks Missourian.
"Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So 1441 had a error or two.
But your answer doesn't nail down a time when Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors.

Now I'll admit I was against invading Iraq, in my mind we should have never taken our eyes off of bin Laden or Afghanistan. I'm curious what the state of Afghanistan would be like today had the US been as focused with troops, materials and intelligence on Afghanistan as it did in respects to Iraq.

A brief history of Iraq's noncompliance with UN Weapon Inspectors (UNSCOM) from Wikipedia:

Iraq disarmament timeline 1990?2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

I tried twice to condense the cited information into a post, but the totality is required as context. IMO Saddam and Iraq NEVER complied with the ceasefires inspection requirement.

Right up to the end Hans Blix, the head of the final inspection team stated to the UN that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation.

After the U.S. began to build up forces on the border, Blix stated that Iraqi cooperation improved...just like it did in 1998 when President Clinton approved an air strike after Saddam expelled UNSCOM from Iraq...suddenly, UNSCOM was allow to return and Saddam promised full cooperation.

It lasted 5 day.

Read the link, Over and over again, Saddam violated inspection terms of the ceasefire agreement, forcing the UN and US to put, almost literally, a gun to his head before he capitulated.

It's comparable to the boy who cried wolf...it was inevitable Saddam would pull this stunt one time too many, and the trigger would be pulled.

 

[Sallow]

So what, Iraq is gone as it was known, the world is better off.

Which world? There has been a great deal of regional instability because of the American invasion.

Are you willing to take in Iraqi refugees? Millions of them have poured into Jordan and Syria.

Why do you cherish and support homicidal, genocidal, oppressive dictators?

WTF is wrong with you?

When you know what you are talking about..get back to me.

 

[Sallow]

So what, Iraq is gone as it was known, the world is better off.

Which world? There has been a great deal of regional instability because of the American invasion.

Are you willing to take in Iraqi refugees? Millions of them have poured into Jordan and Syria.

We have been taking in Iraqi refugees for years.

I thought the instability was because we are fighting with our hands tied behind our backs, I am all for destroying all the tyrants of the world, takes time though, especially the educating the society part.

Regional instability, the Iranian-Iraq war, was the regional stability or are you referring to the invasion of Kuwait as the time of regional stability, maybe you mean gassing of the Kurds as being when the region was stable. What about during the Yemen war or perhaps after Israel declared itself a nation and Iraq went to war against Israel. So your saying there was a bit of stability somewhere in here that Americans upset. I should go on with the Arab wars, much more than I mentioned, and we upset the peace?

Naive doesn't begin to explain this..

 

[High_Gravity]

From Wikipedia:

On September 12, 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush addressed the General Assembly and outlined a catalogue of complaints against the Iraqi government.[1] These included:

• "In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq supports terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."
• The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 found "extremely grave" human rights violations
• Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
• Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
• Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.

Following the speech, intensive negotiations began with other members of the Security Council. In particular, three permanent members (with veto power) of the Council were known to have misgivings about an invasion of Iraq: Russia, China, and France.


In the meantime, Iraq, while denying all charges, announced that it would permit the re-entry of United Nations arms inspectors into Iraq. The United States characterized this as a ploy by Iraq and continued to call for a Security Council resolution which would authorize the use of military force.
​

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

Thanks Missourian.
"Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So 1441 had a error or two.
But your answer doesn't nail down a time when Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors.

Now I'll admit I was against invading Iraq, in my mind we should have never taken our eyes off of bin Laden or Afghanistan. I'm curious what the state of Afghanistan would be like today had the US been as focused with troops, materials and intelligence on Afghanistan as it did in respects to Iraq.

A brief history of Iraq's noncompliance with UN Weapon Inspectors (UNSCOM) from Wikipedia:

Iraq disarmament timeline 1990?2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

I tried twice to condense the cited information into a post, but the totality is required as context. IMO Saddam and Iraq NEVER complied with the ceasefires inspection requirement.

Right up to the end Hans Blix, the head of the final inspection team stated to the UN that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation.

After the U.S. began to build up forces on the border, Blix stated that Iraqi cooperation improved...just like it did in 1998 when President Clinton approved an air strike after Saddam expelled UNSCOM from Iraq...suddenly, UNSCOM was allow to return and Saddam promised full cooperation.

It lasted 5 day.

Read the link, Over and over again, Saddam violated inspection terms of the ceasefire agreement, forcing the UN and US to put almost literally put a gun to his head before he capitulated.

It's comparable to the boy who cried wolf...it was inevitable Saddam would pull this stunt one time too many, and the trigger would be pulled.

The oil for food program and the sanctions on Iraq was a joke, Saddam never took those seriously anyways.

 

[Sallow]

Thanks Missourian.
"Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So 1441 had a error or two.
But your answer doesn't nail down a time when Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors.

Now I'll admit I was against invading Iraq, in my mind we should have never taken our eyes off of bin Laden or Afghanistan. I'm curious what the state of Afghanistan would be like today had the US been as focused with troops, materials and intelligence on Afghanistan as it did in respects to Iraq.

A brief history of Iraq's noncompliance with UN Weapon Inspectors (UNSCOM) from Wikipedia:

Iraq disarmament timeline 1990?2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

I tried twice to condense the cited information into a post, but the totality is required as context. IMO Saddam and Iraq NEVER complied with the ceasefires inspection requirement.

Right up to the end Hans Blix, the head of the final inspection team stated to the UN that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation.

After the U.S. began to build up forces on the border, Blix stated that Iraqi cooperation improved...just like it did in 1998 when President Clinton approved an air strike after Saddam expelled UNSCOM from Iraq...suddenly, UNSCOM was allow to return and Saddam promised full cooperation.

It lasted 5 day.

Read the link, Over and over again, Saddam violated inspection terms of the ceasefire agreement, forcing the UN and US to put almost literally put a gun to his head before he capitulated.

It's comparable to the boy who cried wolf...it was inevitable Saddam would pull this stunt one time too many, and the trigger would be pulled.

The oil for food program and the sanctions on Iraq was a joke, Saddam never took those seriously anyways.

Joke?

Over 100k people died as a result of the Sanctions. The Hussien regime begged for the oil for food program.

 

[Modbert]

Not sure how a country could want us out now when a majority never wanted us there in the first place.

2006:

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show - washingtonpost.com

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country.

The stark assessments, among the most negative attitudes toward U.S.-led forces since they invaded Iraq in 2003, contrast sharply with views expressed by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

April 2004: USATODAY.com - Poll: Iraqis out of patience

BAGHDAD — Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers."

 

[High_Gravity]

A brief history of Iraq's noncompliance with UN Weapon Inspectors (UNSCOM) from Wikipedia:

Iraq disarmament timeline 1990?2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

I tried twice to condense the cited information into a post, but the totality is required as context. IMO Saddam and Iraq NEVER complied with the ceasefires inspection requirement.

Right up to the end Hans Blix, the head of the final inspection team stated to the UN that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation.

After the U.S. began to build up forces on the border, Blix stated that Iraqi cooperation improved...just like it did in 1998 when President Clinton approved an air strike after Saddam expelled UNSCOM from Iraq...suddenly, UNSCOM was allow to return and Saddam promised full cooperation.

It lasted 5 day.

Read the link, Over and over again, Saddam violated inspection terms of the ceasefire agreement, forcing the UN and US to put almost literally put a gun to his head before he capitulated.

It's comparable to the boy who cried wolf...it was inevitable Saddam would pull this stunt one time too many, and the trigger would be pulled.

The oil for food program and the sanctions on Iraq was a joke, Saddam never took those seriously anyways.

Joke?

Over 100k people died as a result of the Sanctions. The Hussien regime begged for the oil for food program.

Yes it was indeed a huge joke, that program was corrupt by UN officials and Iraqi officials alike.

UN Complicit in Corruption of Iraq's Oil-for-Food Program

 

[Foxfyre]

The oil for food program and the sanctions on Iraq was a joke, Saddam never took those seriously anyways.

Joke?

Over 100k people died as a result of the Sanctions. The Hussien regime begged for the oil for food program.

Yes it was indeed a huge joke, that program was corrupt by UN officials and Iraqi officials alike.

UN Complicit in Corruption of Iraq's Oil-for-Food Program

Yup. Those 12 years of sanctions killed or harmed far more innocent people than the war did. And most of the innocents who have been killed in the war were killed by their own countrymen or insurgents determined that Iraq should not be a free and secular nation that was not subject to some brutal clerical regime.

There are sins and righteousness to be said for all sides in this unfortunate conflict, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of Iraqis would not choose to go back to the way things were under Saddam. Of course there is war weariness as there always is when the stronger side pulls its punches for political correctness reasons and thereby prolongs the destruction, death, and misery.

War is probably the most insane and senseless activity of humankind and should never be seen as the best way to settle anything. But when it becomes mandatory, the only way to fight one is via overwhelming force with no quarter given and thereby reduce the time, expense, destruction, and misery. Then an honorable victor gives the vanquished every opportunity to put themselves back together and join a peaceful honorable family of nations and goes home.

Dragging it all out year after year after year until everybody forgets what it was all about in the first place, war weariness becomes intolerable, and finally everybody just stops makes it even more meaningless and indefensible and usually leaves things worse than they were to begin with.

 

[Sunni Man]

There are sins and righteousness to be said for all sides in this unfortunate conflict, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of Iraqis would not choose to go back to the way things were under Saddam.

Have you ever talked to any Iraqi citizens?

Saddam's Iraq had a secular government ran by the Baath Party.

The universities had almost 50% women students; the highest number in the ME.

The average Iraqi was able to safely walk the streets.

Iraqi's had full utilities; running water and electricity all day.

They were safe in their homes.

Now none of that is the case.

 

[BlindBoo]

My early preference was to stay and demand a democratic and stable nation there as we demanded of Germany and Japan, both of whom were our mortal enemies, and both of whom are now friends, allies, and strong assets rather than liabilities to the world.

Once we elected for maintenance rather than victory in Iraq, the war was lost. And once we announced a departure date, any chance we had to demand a stable and forward looking Iraq was also lost.

We might as well pack up and go home now and not expend any more of our blood and treasure for a cause we long ago abdicated.

Define that please.

Victory means one side wins, the other side loses. Victory means unconditional surrender after which the other nation is at the mercy of the victor. Victory means the vanquished can request but has no power to demand. The Victor calls the shots.

That is exactly what happened in both Germany and Japan. And I am quite sure both are profoundly pleased that it was England and the USA and like minded allies that were their conquerors and not Russia. We stayed for a number of years after unconditional surrender and helped rebuild them, set a few necessary conditions into place, and then set them free to assume their places among peaceful and prosperous nations of the world.

I don't buy that Germany nor Japan knew what was best for them before the Allied victory. I don't buy that Iraq knew what was best for them or knows what is best for them now.

I can agree with much of that, however the Russians did in fact conquered much of Germany along with eastern Europe. The Germans were not happy to be in the Russian sector either. They were happy to be in the US, France and/or the UK's.

 

[BlindBoo]

There are sins and righteousness to be said for all sides in this unfortunate conflict, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of Iraqis would not choose to go back to the way things were under Saddam.

Have you ever talked to any Iraqi citizens?

Saddam's Iraq had a secular government ran by the Baath Party.

The universities had almost 50% women students; the highest number in the ME.

The average Iraqi was able to safely walk the streets.

Iraqi's had full utilities; running water and electricity all day.

They were safe in their homes.

Now none of that is the case.

Iraq had all those things before Saddam brutally took power in 1979. It was all downhill from there.

 

[Sunni Man]

You are wrong.

 

[Marc39]

You are wrong.

Iraq was a nice Christian country before the barbaric Muhammadan invaded and trashed it, like the Muhammadan has trashed every shithole he inhabits.

Deport Iraqi Muslim trash and repopulate it with Christians

Alexis de Toqueville...

I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.

Winston Churchill...

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/River-War-Sir-Winston-Churchill/dp/1598184253/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1288411221&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: The River War (9781598184259): Sir Winston S. Churchill: Books[/ame]

 

[Marc39]

There are sins and righteousness to be said for all sides in this unfortunate conflict, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of Iraqis would not choose to go back to the way things were under Saddam.

Have you ever talked to any Iraqi citizens?

Saddam's Iraq had a secular government ran by the Baath Party.

The universities had almost 50% women students; the highest number in the ME.

The average Iraqi was able to safely walk the streets.

Iraqi's had full utilities; running water and electricity all day.

They were safe in their homes.

Now none of that is the case.

What about the hundreds of thousands of Kurds gased, jihadi?

And, the rape rooms?

And, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?

Are you insane or just clueless, Abu?

 

[Marc39]

There are sins and righteousness to be said for all sides in this unfortunate conflict, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of Iraqis would not choose to go back to the way things were under Saddam.

Have you ever talked to any Iraqi citizens?

Saddam's Iraq had a secular government ran by the Baath Party.

The totalitarian Baath Party fashioned after the Nazi Party, Abu?

Not much political dissent or criticism was tolerated either by the Baath or Nazi parties

How many democracies exist in the Islamic craphole world? Not one

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Which world? There has been a great deal of regional instability because of the American invasion.

Are you willing to take in Iraqi refugees? Millions of them have poured into Jordan and Syria.

Why do you cherish and support homicidal, genocidal, oppressive dictators?

WTF is wrong with you?

When you know what you are talking about..get back to me.

Since you're apparently too illiterate, and ignorant to read behind obvious lines. THIS is apparently what you support and coddle:

I can go on.......

 

[Sallow]

Why do you cherish and support homicidal, genocidal, oppressive dictators?

WTF is wrong with you?

When you know what you are talking about..get back to me.

Since you're apparently too illiterate, and ignorant to read behind obvious lines. THIS is apparently what you support and coddle:

I can go on.......

Sure please do.

And be aware all of that was fully supported by the United States..with my tax dollars.

I ain't so sure you pay taxes.

 

[High_Gravity]

There are sins and righteousness to be said for all sides in this unfortunate conflict, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of Iraqis would not choose to go back to the way things were under Saddam.

Have you ever talked to any Iraqi citizens?

Saddam's Iraq had a secular government ran by the Baath Party.

The universities had almost 50% women students; the highest number in the ME.

The average Iraqi was able to safely walk the streets.

Iraqi's had full utilities; running water and electricity all day.

They were safe in their homes.

Now none of that is the case.

Sunni do you know what Saddams regime did to the Shites, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iranians? it was not all peaches and cream under Saddam.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

When you know what you are talking about..get back to me.

Since you're apparently too illiterate, and ignorant to read behind obvious lines. THIS is apparently what you support and coddle:

I can go on.......

Sure please do.

And be aware all of that was fully supported by the United States..with my tax dollars.

I ain't so sure you pay taxes.

Sorry, but U.S. tax $ to Iraq to stop the far greater evil of Iran when we had little other choice does not U.S. support for genocide make.

When you show me a receipt from Saddam, from us, that says "this is for you to gas, and murder your own innocent people" THEN you may have an argument.

Ima ask again, why do you support and cherish genocidal, homicidal, dictators?

 

[Foxfyre]

There are sins and righteousness to be said for all sides in this unfortunate conflict, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of Iraqis would not choose to go back to the way things were under Saddam.

Have you ever talked to any Iraqi citizens?

Saddam's Iraq had a secular government ran by the Baath Party.

The universities had almost 50% women students; the highest number in the ME.

The average Iraqi was able to safely walk the streets.

Iraqi's had full utilities; running water and electricity all day.

They were safe in their homes.

Now none of that is the case.

Yes I have talked with Iraqi citizens. And I have also talked with those working in the rural areas shortly after Saddam's army was initially defeated in 2003 until now. If you lived in Baghdad or Falujah or other central cities, you did have some amenities--most specially in those areas Saddam or his henchmen liked to showcase as 'modern Iraq'. But there was no electricity or running water or sewers etc. in many of the outlying rural areas. And it was mostly in those areas that tens of thousands of Iraqis starved or died of medical neglect or malnutrition, many of those being children, during the twelve years of sanctions. The U.S. military (and others) are building that from scratch.

They were safe in their homes UNLESS they displeased somebody in power.

Just to keep the record straight.