# Iraqi ambassador slams Obama, praises Bush



## Freewill (Jan 9, 2014)

Maybe as a relief from the left enjoying the destruction of another political opponent we could discuss Iraq which apparently Obama has forgotten about.

Iraqi diplomat wants Obama engagement in al Qaeda crisis - Washington Times

Iraqs ambassador to Washington says the Obama administration doesnt fully grasp the consequences of failing to more aggressively combat a surging al Qaeda threat inside his country, pointedly suggesting that President Obama has been less engaged with Baghdad than his predecessor.

Read more: Iraqi diplomat wants Obama engagement in al Qaeda crisis - Washington Times 
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter


----------



## zeke (Jan 9, 2014)

Fuck the Iraqi ambassador. Who the hell cares what he thinks. He is a Shiite and the Sunnis are kicking their asses and he wants to beg that we get a few hundred more troops killed and a few more billions kicked his way.

Fuck him. Obama should tell him he is sorry George Bush invaded his country without cause and that we are sorry we helped turn it into the hell hole it is today.

But we won't be going back. So sorry.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 9, 2014)

And the far left propaganda continues...

Based on what the far left has posted we need to apologize to Germany for invading their country without cause. 

Oh wait did Obama do that already? Didn't Obama go on an apology tour?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 9, 2014)

This is how we know that you're a fake freewill...You agree with a man that used air power to bomb entire buildings full of people with Bush but you whine because of your hatred of Obama for going after terrorist.

You're a snake.


----------



## zeke (Jan 9, 2014)

Kosh what was it Iraq did to us that caused us to invade?

And don't give me that bullshit about what a "bad" mad Saddam was. And how the "world is a better place with out him".

That is bullshit. There are bad men all over the world. We aren't invading them.

SO go ahead with your pea brain and tell me why the invasion of Iraq was justified. No one else has ever been able to do that. Even if you make shit up or you are going to point out how so many Dems hated Saddam.

Saddam had created many reasons to hate him. But not done a damn thing to us to cause us to invade.


----------



## jknowgood (Jan 9, 2014)

Lol,i thought we would be loved worldwide after obama got elected.


----------



## zeke (Jan 9, 2014)

Lets simplify this Kosh. It should take an act of war committed against us to cause us to invade a country.

What act of war did Iraq do to us?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 9, 2014)

jknowgood said:


> Lol,i thought we would be loved worldwide after obama got elected.



This is why outside of a healthy al Qaeda leader drone kill program we shouldn't have anything to do with the middle east. No matter how fucked the leaders of those countries are too their people. Those people get what they believe.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 9, 2014)

The drones have been sent out....


----------



## TooTall (Jan 9, 2014)

zeke said:


> Fuck the Iraqi ambassador. Who the hell cares what he thinks. He is a Shiite and the Sunnis are kicking their asses and he wants to beg that we get a few hundred more troops killed and a few more billions kicked his way.
> 
> Fuck him. Obama should tell him he is sorry George Bush invaded his country without cause and that we are sorry we helped turn it into the hell hole it is today.
> 
> But we won't be going back. So sorry.



Iraq would be so much better off if Saddam was still alive, don't you agree?


----------



## Jughead (Jan 9, 2014)

> Iraqi ambassador slams Obama, praises Bush


I don't blame the Iraqi Ambassador for praising former President Bush. No matter how you look at it, Bush brought democracy to Iraq. I understand there are currently issues in Iraq right now, however if the Iraqi population were asked which of the two they preferred, democracy or dictatorship, I am sure the vast majority would go with democracy.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jan 9, 2014)

To bad President Bush didn't read why his father left Saddam in power.

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,

Now the Civil War set in motion by the US Occupation is spreading.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 9, 2014)

BlindBoo said:


> To bad President Bush didn't read why his father left Saddam in power.


And you know this...how? That was pre-911. W said all along that 911 changed things, for him, and many others as well. Nice try though.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jan 9, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > To bad President Bush didn't read why his father left Saddam in power.
> ...



9-11 gave the Bush Administration a catastrophe that they then exploited to invade an oil rich Arab Nation that was not a threat to our national security and had not been involved in the attacks that day.  It is exactly what bin Laden wanted to propel and expand al Qaeda's influence.  Both Rice and Powell had stated earlier in 2001 that Saddam was no longer a threat and that he had not been able to rebuild either his army or his WMD programs.


----------



## Freewill (Jan 9, 2014)

zeke said:


> Kosh what was it Iraq did to us that caused us to invade?
> 
> And don't give me that bullshit about what a "bad" mad Saddam was. And how the "world is a better place with out him".
> 
> ...



Saddam invaded an country that was an friends of the US.  When he left he caused ecological damage.

Saddam gassed his own people.

Saddam gassed the Iranians.

Saddam's sons were psycopaths.

Saddam was a threat to the region.

Saddam threatened the life of a US president.

Yes there are evil people in the world.  We took out the leadership in Kosovo by bombing the Serbs into the stone age.  Iraq, because of Saddam, was already in the stone age.  We have also intervened in Libya and Syria.  So yes, we have taken out evil men in other countries.


----------



## Freewill (Jan 9, 2014)

BlindBoo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



No matter how many times liberals say that the war was over oil it has been shown to be not true.  Oil was suppose to pay for the war, never did.  The liberals said we were going to take their oil, never did.  Yes, invading Iran and Kuwait is a threat to our national security whether or not you wish to admit that fact.

As for Powell an Rice.  I assuming that once again that the liberal left doesn't think blacks can think for themselves.  Here is the conclusion of Powell's address to the UN in 2003.

Part 10: Conclusion 

As I said at the outset, none of this should come as a surprise to any of us. Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name. And this support continues. The nexus of poisons and terror is new. The nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal. 

With this track record, Iraqi denials of supporting terrorism take the place alongside the other Iraqi denials of weapons of mass destruction. It is all a web of lies. 

When we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction and provides haven and active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past, we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting an even more frightening future. 

My friends, this has been a long and a detailed presentation. 

And I thank you for your patience. But there is one more subject that I would like to touch on briefly. And it should be a subject of deep and continuing concern to this council, Saddam Hussein's violations of human rights. 

Underlying all that I have said, underlying all the facts and the patterns of behavior that I have identified as Saddam Hussein's contempt for the will of this council, his contempt for the truth and most damning of all, his utter contempt for human life. Saddam Hussein's use of mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds in 1988 was one of the 20th century's most horrible atrocities; 5,000 men, women and children died. 

His campaign against the Kurds from 1987 to '89 included mass summary executions, disappearances, arbitrary jailing, ethnic cleansing and the destruction of some 2,000 villages. He has also conducted ethnic cleansing against the Shiite Iraqis and the Marsh Arabs whose culture has flourished for more than a millennium. Saddam Hussein's police state ruthlessly eliminates anyone who dares to dissent. Iraq has more forced disappearance cases than any other country, tens of thousands of people reported missing in the past decade. 

Nothing points more clearly to Saddam Hussein's dangerous intentions and the threat he poses to all of us than his calculated cruelty to his own citizens and to his neighbors. Clearly, Saddam Hussein and his regime will stop at nothing until something stops him. 

For more than 20 years, by word and by deed Saddam Hussein has pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East using the only means he knows, intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way. For Saddam Hussein, possession of the world's most deadly weapons is the ultimate trump card, the one he most hold to fulfill his ambition. 

*We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond? *
*The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world. *

*My colleagues, over three months ago this council recognized that Iraq continued to pose a threat to international peace and security, and that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its disarmament obligations. Today Iraq still poses a threat and Iraq still remains in material breach. *
Indeed, by its failure to seize on its one last opportunity to come clean and disarm, Iraq has put itself in deeper material breach and closer to the day when it will face serious consequences for its continued defiance of this council. 

My colleagues, we have an obligation to our citizens, we have an obligation to this body to see that our resolutions are complied with. We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war, we wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance. Iraq is not so far taking that one last chance. 

We must not shrink from whatever is ahead of us. We must not fail in our duty and our responsibility to the citizens of the countries that are represented by this body. 

Thank you, Mr. President

CNN.com - Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation - Feb. 6, 2003


----------



## Kosh (Jan 9, 2014)

zeke said:


> Kosh what was it Iraq did to us that caused us to invade?
> 
> And don't give me that bullshit about what a "bad" mad Saddam was. And how the "world is a better place with out him".
> 
> ...



What was it that caused us to invade Germany?

Did Germany attack the US?

Why was the Germany Invasion justified by killing millions of Germans in bombing campaigns?

The far left does not understand the false argument on Iraq as they believe Iraq had no history before 2003.

Far left propaganda is used to justify their stance on Iraq and not facts.

The far left wants Iraq to be a failure just like they did Vietnam even though it was the (D)'s JFK and JBJ that got the ball rolling.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jan 10, 2014)

Freewill said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Our entire foreign policy in the ME is about one thing.  Oil and keeping the spigot open.  We were buying Iraq oil before and after the war.  It's not about the citizens or consumers, it's about which multinational company has the contracts to do business. 

There are clips of both Powell and Rice making those very statements in 2001.  Race has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 10, 2014)

Freewill said:


> Maybe as a relief from the left enjoying the destruction of another political opponent we could discuss Iraq which apparently Obama has forgotten about.
> 
> Iraqi diplomat wants Obama engagement in al Qaeda crisis - Washington Times
> 
> ...



Ain't it a bitch when you have to slaughter that cash cow?


----------



## BlindBoo (Jan 10, 2014)

Kosh said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh what was it Iraq did to us that caused us to invade?
> ...



Germany declared war on the US.

Yes.

2003 Iraq was not 1941 Germany.

The Vietnam war was started at the end of WWII when France decided it wanted it's colony back.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 13, 2014)

BlindBoo said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



Iraq didn't have to be 1941 Germany in 2003, plus the United States and Iraq were already technically at war and had been since the 1991 Gulf War, with the United States bombing Iraq every year in between 1991 and 2003 for Saddam's continued violations of the 1991 Gulf War ceacefire agreement.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 13, 2014)

BlindBoo said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Powell made statements in early 2001 that had been true in the early 1990s but were no longer technically true by 2001. In addition, Powell never said that Iraq was no longer a threat in any capacity at all and that the United States no longer needed to continue its annual limited military action against Iraq as well as try to maintain sanctions and embargo against Saddam which by that time were crumbling.

Ultimately, it was the crumbling of the key means of containment of Saddam, sanctions and the embargo, which made regime change a necessity. Waiting longer to remove Saddam when only lead to a more costly invasion and occupation. The United States did the right thing and removed Saddam at the right time.


----------

