# Democracy in Iraq



## deltex1 (Aug 14, 2014)

Fox says Maliki will step down and concede peacefully to his successor.

Man that W was a genius...


Check your local listings.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 14, 2014)

> Pressure is building on Iraq Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to leave office hours after he said he would only exit his post if forced by a court decision.



Pressure Mounts On Iraq's Maliki To Step Down


----------



## Siete (Aug 14, 2014)

deltex1 said:


> Fox says Maliki will step down and concede peacefully to his successor.
> 
> Man that W was a genius...
> 
> ...




Genius ... 140$ BILLION DOLLARS FOR A PURPLE THUMB AND THE ABILITY FOR CITIZENS TO VOTE AND THE GUY IS STEPPING DOWN PEACEFULLY ?

BRILLIANT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Aug 14, 2014)

Democracy in Iraq?  Almost as dumb an idea as democracy anywhere else in the Middle East...


----------



## deltex1 (Aug 14, 2014)

Siete said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > Fox says Maliki will step down and concede peacefully to his successor.
> ...



It's a start Pedro,  be patient...and Bush did it....didn't he.......LMBBFFAO.


----------



## deltex1 (Aug 14, 2014)

"We're Leaving Behind a Sovereign, Stable, and Self-Reliant Iraq"


Thank you W...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2014)

deltex1 said:


> Fox says Maliki will step down and concede peacefully to his successor.



TinyDancer and EconChick and the rest of the Obama trashers are going to freakout for finding out that Obama's diplomatic position and strategy (The USAF cannot be seen as Maliki's personal Air Force) appears to be working out. 

Great News Hoo. Obama was correct to respect the sovereignty of Iraq and the brilliant SOFA that Bush went kicking and screaming against the deadline for withdrawing US troops but he signed it. 

And Obama gives Bush credit for the SOFA and did you hear the piss fest about that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2014)

deltex1 said:


> "We're Leaving Behind a Sovereign, Stable, and Self-Reliant Iraq"
> 
> 
> Thank you W...



Thank Lil Dubya for fuckin' up. Thank the men and women who serve for salvaging something out of it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2014)

So Hoo, how is Fox News spinning great foreign policy news that happened on Obama's watch?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2014)

deltex1 said:


> "We're Leaving Behind a Sovereign, Stable, and Self-Reliant Iraq".



Also no more will an Iraqi Prime Minister like Maliki be pushing the US President and Commander in Chief around, as he did to Bush from 2006 through 2008. Fox News reported this in 2006;



> Al-Suneid said Bush accepted Iraq's position that a renewal of the U.N. mandate for the U.S.-led military force was conditional on swift action to hand full control of the Iraqi army to the Baghdad government and the withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraqi cities and towns when the army is ready to take control.



Pathetic Lil Dubya. Maliki had him by the gonads the whole time.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Nov 30, 2014)

deltex1 said:


> "We're Leaving Behind a Sovereign, Stable, and Self-Reliant Iraq"




Why is Spare_Change making the case that Dubya didn't leave a Stable, and Self-Reliant Iraq behind?


----------



## rdean (Dec 21, 2014)

deltex1 said:


> "We're Leaving Behind a Sovereign, Stable, and Self-Reliant Iraq"
> 
> 
> Thank you W...


I can't figure out if this is someone brainwashed, a determined ignorance or satire.  Anyone?


----------



## longknife (Dec 21, 2014)

There can *never *be Democracy in a Muslim-oriented nation!!!! Anyone who thinks different is delusional.


----------



## deltex1 (Dec 21, 2014)

rdean said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > "We're Leaving Behind a Sovereign, Stable, and Self-Reliant Iraq"
> ...


It's a quote from your hero...you twit....I thought you worshiped his every word....


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Dec 22, 2014)

deltex1 said:


> It's a quote from your hero...you twit....I thought you worshiped his every word....



Wrong Delbert. 

Its an *incomplete* quote by Obama from you addressing the troops at Fort Bragg in December 2011. 


Here's what you willfully left out:

*"Now, Iraq is not a perfect place.  It has many challenges ahead*.  But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people."

You even left the word "but" out dishonest person that you are.


ISIS is a challenge but a soveriegn Iraq is meeting it and turning them back with Americans not needing to die in the mess. 

 Its a difference you should appreciate.


----------



## deltex1 (Dec 22, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a quote from your hero...you twit....I thought you worshiped his every word....
> ...


What I left out is Obabbles standard caveat he uses to cover his ass on all his problems he claims to have a solution to.  "We have come a long way....but there is still much work to be done".  It gives him an out to blame others when the work to be done is ignored and never gets done.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Dec 22, 2014)

deltex1 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > deltex1 said:
> ...



We know what you did. And now you blame your victim for your lying about what he said.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 22, 2014)

Excuse me-----when was that era of  STABLE SELF RELIANT 
IRAQ???


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Dec 23, 2014)

Iros 10396136 





irosie91 said:


> Excuse me-----when was that era of  STABLE SELF RELIANT
> IRAQ???



Compared to the Bush induced unstable days from 2003 through
2008 Iraq was 'imperfectly' stable with challenges ahead when Obama said what he said.

Self-reliant was true at the time too, and Iraq self reliance has been put to the test so they asked for help when it was needed.

In actual direct combat on the ground Iraq against an entrenched invading enemy Iraq has not asked any foreigners to do their fighting for them.

They asked for trainers and airstrikes - which the latter came to Iraq when certain conditions were met.

Iraq's Air Force turned out to be not self reliant as of yet.  The army was not up to the standard that was thought to be true at the time Obama spoke because it had not faced a major threat such as the ISIS assault last June.

Do you think Deltex's dishonest miss-quote is ok or something? What is wrong with you people?


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Dec 25, 2014)

longknife said:


> There can *never *be Democracy in a Muslim-oriented nation!!!! Anyone who thinks different is delusional.




 and in the case of places like Iraq where half of all marriages are between close family members, the degree of incestuous relationships is too overwhelming on its own to ever create an atmosphere conducive to democracy even if the jackboot of Islam did not prevail. .

It's like the Hatfields and McCoys on steroids.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Dec 26, 2014)

longknife said:


> There can *never *be Democracy in a Muslim-oriented nation!!!! Anyone who thinks different is delusional.



Which makes me wonder why GW Bush got so many Iraqis and Americans wounded and killed in Iraq in order to try to force a democracy there after finding out that Iraq had no WMD?


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 26, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > There can *never *be Democracy in a Muslim-oriented nation!!!! Anyone who thinks different is delusional.
> ...




stop wondering-----the agenda was getting rid of the sociopathic pig hero that you worship----Saddaam Hussein and his minions of murderous dogs


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Dec 26, 2014)

Iros 10419995 





irosie91 said:


> ----the agenda was getting rid of the sociopathic pig hero that you worship----Saddaam Hussein and his minions of murderous dogs



I worship the facts and there is a record of fact that refutes your claim that the agenda was getting rid of Saddam Hussein. According to documents Bush and Blair provided to the UNSC between March 7 and March 10 2003 he was willing to accept Saddam Hussein staying in power if the UN inspectors would declare Iraq in full compliance with its disarmament obligations with the UN within ten days. The inspectors said they needed a few months. Bush pulled the draft resolution because he could not get enough UNSC members to vote for it.  But the record shows it was not about simply removing SH from power -it was about the alleged possession of WMD being hidden from the inspectors in March 2003.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 26, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Iros 10419995
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am not impressed by a single document.    I have no idea what was on the MIND of Bush regarding that issue----had his demand been fulfilled-----Iraq would have had to submit
to  EXTENSIVE AND INCESSANT scrutiny----a fact which
would defang any aggressive intentions Sadaam had and put him under a constant microscope  regarding all the miserable crap in which he was involved.    Anyone knowing
anything about Saddam to that point----would know that
he would refuse a DIGITAL EXAM  up his ass


----------



## Judicial review (Dec 26, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> So Hoo, how is Fox News spinning great foreign policy news that happened on Obama's watch?



Fucking retard.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Dec 27, 2014)

iros 10420967 





irosie91 said:


> I have no idea what was on the MIND of Bush regarding that issue--



Then why speculate and form your own hair-brained  opinion about an agenda that was behind the US invasion of Iraq. Bush told the world that the agenda was to deny the regime in Iraq of continued possession of the most lethal weapons ever devised. Removing Saddam and Sons alone would not achieve the military objective. The WMD (we were told) had to be separated and secured from the hands of the entire Sunni-run Baathist regime.


iros 10420967 





irosie91 said:


> I am not impressed by a single document.


 I realize most right-wingers  are not impressed with facts and official documents that are used by reasonable and intelligent people in order to determine the facts.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 27, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> iros 10420967
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I realize that most jerks work with brains that are limited to that which psychologists term  "concrete thinking"    Bush is a politician-----even more importantly he is a Texan.     He
was intelligent enough  (or maybe his wife told him)  to know
that saying    "SADAAM IS A BAATHIST MANIAC"    would
not be sufficient reason for   texas cowboys to support
fighting the pig


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Dec 27, 2014)

JR 10420977 





Judicial review said:


> Fucking retard.



No. Retarded would be a condition for anyone who believes "There were WMD in Iraq. End of story not up for debate. "

JR 9995129 





Judicial review said:


> Quite the semantics. Bush's general point remains. There were WMD in Iraq. End of story not up for debate. Are you one of those people that rationalize everything instead of answering a simple yes or no question with a yes or no?


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 27, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> JR 10420977
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Depends on how one defines  "weapons of mass destruction"   -----my sense is your fellow idiots
would define Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler and  Stalin as not
in possession of  weapons of mass destruction.   
Idi amin?        the turks in Armenia?       Sadaam
supported international terrorism in support of the
BAATHIST agenda     ----he did so financially


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Dec 27, 2014)

iros 10421918 





irosie91 said:


> I realize that most jerks work with brains that are limited to that which psychologists term "concrete thinking" Bush is a politician-----even more importantly he is a Texan.
> He was intelligent enough (or maybe his wife told him) to know
> that saying "SADAAM IS A BAATHIST MANIAC" would
> not be sufficient reason for texas cowboys to support fighting the pig



I won't argue against your belief that Bush was politically motivated being a politician first and Commander in Chief second to wage a war in Iraq but knowing full well he had to lie in public about his *hidden political agenda *in order to get Texas Cowboys to fight for it. That has a high probability of being true. But I will argue against your satisfaction and consent that doing that to start war so costly in lives and money was not ok.  

But the original question was "why GW Bush got so many Iraqis and Americans wounded and killed in Iraq in order to try to force a democracy there after finding out that Iraq had no WMD?"

Should Bush, having accomplished his hidden agenda of removing Saddam from power have packed up and left Iraq rather than try to build a democracy where right wingers are now claiming democracy is impossible to do?


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 27, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> iros 10421918
> 
> 
> 
> ...



because he is not entirely Brilliant-----he is almost as stupid as is  Carter.      I have spoken to Iraqis-----who told me
that  DEMOCRACY is impossible in Iraq-------(well---being
the honest person that I am----I have to admit that they were   Iraqi jews)      If anyone is surprised that 
BIG BAD BAGDADDY rose to power in Iraq----it is because he is as stupid as is Bush  (but could be smarter than Carter)


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Dec 27, 2014)

Iros 10421967 





irosie91 said:


> Depends on how one defines "weapons of mass destruction"



Now you want Bush's hidden agenda to be re-united with the public and the one and only official agenda which was to eliminate a perceived threat of WMD in Saddam Hussein's possession, either through the peaceful means of UN inspections, or by use of military force.

Are you going to make up your mind as to which it is going to be?

Some Posting History:

lokn 10390744 





longknife said:


> There can *never *be Democracy in a Muslim-oriented nation!!!! Anyone who thinks different is delusional.



NF 10419890 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Which makes me wonder why GW Bush got so many Iraqis and Americans wounded and killed in Iraq in order to try to force a democracy there after finding out that Iraq had no WMD?



Iros 10419995 





irosie91 said:


> stop wondering-----the agenda was getting rid of the sociopathic pig hero that you worship----Saddaam Hussein and his minions of murderous dogs



It can't be "regime change" Irosie, because one of the two options available to remove the perceived threat of WMD in Iraq, was to disarm Iraq peacefully through UN inspections. UN inspections did not require regime change.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 27, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Iros 10421967
> 
> 
> 
> ...




UN inspectors would have put a glitch into Saddam's
machinations-------it would have defanged him.    He was
not a nice guy.    He was something like   ASSAD ---is.    
I see no "secret" in the Bush plan-----just a bit of politic
manipulation----a not to the naïve among us


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Dec 27, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> UN inspectors would have put a glitch into Saddam's
> machinations-------it would have defanged him.



That is true. Why didn't Bush allow the inspections to continue like 6 of 10 Americans wanted him to do in the few weeks prior to the decision to invade?  You know 'exhaust all peaceful means' that Bush claims (falsely) to this day that he had done.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 27, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > UN inspectors would have put a glitch into Saddam's
> ...



I believe that he was swayed by the invasion into Kuwait.
I got some insight into that issue from a very nice---young
Pakistani physician------a kinda typical brainwashed kid-----
he told me that  SADDAM is really well -intentioned-----He
invaded Kuwait because the  KUWAITIS are selfish-----they have lots of oil money but do not use it for  ISLAMIC 
PURPOSES --------at that time the fact that saddam financed international terrorism was a well established fact----He was the guy who paid the families of  muslimah sluts
who served allah by tying bombs to their asses   -----but according to my  young  candid informant---NOT ENOUGH.
Saddam wanted Kuwait money to use for  ISLAMIC
causes-----so now you know what I learned way back then


----------



## longknife (Dec 27, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Which makes me wonder why GW Bush got so many Iraqis and Americans wounded and killed in Iraq in order to try to force a democracy there after finding out that Iraq had no WMD?



You really have to fall back on that, ":Why did GW Bush ...?" don't you?

Time after time, reports have shown that most of the MDWs were shifted to Syria before the Alliance could come in to find them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Dec 27, 2014)

> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > UN inspectors would have put a glitch into Saddam's
> ...





irosie91 said:


> I believe that he was swayed by the invasion into Kuwait.



You are saying that you believe Bush could not 'exhaust all peaceful means to avoid war' because he was swayed by SH's invasion of Kuwait over a decade earlier.

Is that correct?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Dec 27, 2014)

longknife said:


> Time after time, reports have shown that most of the (WMDs) were shifted to Syria before the Alliance could come in to find them.



Why has George W. Bush not been made aware of what you claim to know about the whereabouts of Iraq's stockpiles of WMDs?


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 27, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> > irosie91 said:
> >
> >
> > > UN inspectors would have put a glitch into Saddam's
> ...



yes----it was a significant contributing factor


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Dec 31, 2014)

iros 10423553 





irosie91 said:


> yes----it was a significant contributing factor



Didn't Bush know that Iraq invaded Kuwait when he asked that the UN do everything it could do to disarm Iraq peacefully and that he would support those peaceful efforts and avoid war.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 31, 2014)

NotfooledbyW said:


> iros 10423553
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you made no point----Iraq did invade Kuwait and was not disarmed


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jan 3, 2015)

irosie91 said:


> you made no point----Iraq did invade Kuwait and was not disarmed




I don't make the point that Iraq did not invade Kuwait. The problem is with your argument that Bush invaded Iraq in part because Iraq invaded Kuwait over a decade beforehand. But Bush went to the UN and said he preferred to disarm Iraq peacefully. 

So I am wondering if Bush didn't know about the invasion by Iraq into Kuwait when he went to the UN telling them he wanted them to disarm Iraq peacefully.

The 1990 invasion into Kuwait would have absolutely no bearing on whether the UN in 2003 could've disarmed Iraq peacefully as Bush43 wanted them to do.


----------

