So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[flacaltenn]

See ---- now that's how lazy and hyssterical your convienient Zionist excuse has made you. Can't really think or observe rationally. Netanyahu did not tell Congress anything that the Saudis and the UAE and other Iranian foes have been thinking or outright admitted. MANY Arab partners are just as disturbed as Bibi about this senseless flirtation with Iran while they are interdicting ship traffic in the Straits,, funding insurrections with the proxies in Syria and Yemen.. That's why Saudi is thrreatening to to go nuclear.. ARE THE SAUDIS part of your Zionist excuse?

The thing was, the "Arab Partners" (really?) didn't get up in front of Congress and DEMAND a course of action like he owned the place. Your boy Bibi did that.

I would also put more faith in our allies Franch, Germany and the UK, who want this agreement, than the Zionists, who simply don't want Iran to be streamlined back into the community of nations.

I also ask youu if Kerry and Obama were part of the the Zionist conspiracy when they were within days of bombing the crap out of Syria over chemical weapons. Fortunately, a REAL strategist in Moscow saved their sorry hides from making that mistake. You never answered..

I'm sorry, did you ask that as a question. The thing you have to ask is WHY Kerry and Obama considered doing such a stupid thing. Because AIPAC was sending hundreds of lobbyists to twist arms and demand action. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, and for once, we said, "No" to the Zionists.

So ARE the SAUDIS also part of your twisted lazy reasoning? Obama?
For the record -- this aint a serious conversation Joe. Your "issue" is just so damn funny to me. It's entertainment really....

No, you aren't capable of a serious conversation on the issue. YOu are one of the guys who thinks our policy of sticking our hands in the middle east hornet's nest and complaining about getting stung is fine.

The Saudis are a large part of the problem, but they don't have anywhere near the influence the Zionists have and you know it.

pretty embarassing stuff there. Saudis have informed us of the same serious concerns. They just weren't running for office at the time. In fact, we now know they have been in joint security talks with Israel to face down the list of Iranian problems. Kerrey and Obama didn't think better of it -- nor did they arrive at brink because they are afraid of Zionists. Putin embarrass the shit out of those amateur posers by showing them how REAL diplomacy works.

In your conspiracy damaged world -- you are gonna get the background of every MidEast story wrong.. Can't even depend on the Zionist media to back you up this crappy laziness. Must mean you are right -- eh??

Never see your "explanations" in legitimate print anywhere??? Just part of the conspiracy.. I thought you were a smarter leftist than that Joe...

 

[Boss]

Boss 11618398

On the basis of the Hans Blix report to the UN.

If you are going to cite Blix as your source to declare the 2003 UN inspections a failure you will need to quote the Doctor declaring such. He didnt. You are fabricating your own reality again. Dr. Blix never reported any such conclusion that the inspections were failing. By Early March he was preparing to begin setting up the long term monitoring regime which was to begin as soon as the UN Inspection phase was complete. If inspections were failing he would have reported that to the Security Council to reconvene on what action was to be taken next.

Blix nor Al Beradai reported anything about inspection failure.

You don't have a direct quote to back your fairy tale up once again.

From Dr. Blix report on March 19, 2003 (day after evacuation):

May I add that in my last report I commented on information provided by Iraq on a number of unresolved issues. Since then, Iraq has sent several more letters on such issues. These efforts by Iraq should be acknowledged, but, as I noted in this Council on 7 March the value of the information thus provided must be soberly judged. Our experts have found so far that in substance only limited new information has been provided that will help to resolve remaining questions.

From Dr. Blix report on June 5, 2003 (post-invasion):

In paragraph 11, we note that the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for has not been shortened by inspections or Iraqi declarations, explanations or documentation. It was the task of the Iraqi side to present items unaccounted for, if they existed, or to present evidence – records, documents or other – convincing the inspectors that the items do not exist. If – for whatever reason – this is not done, the international community cannot have confidence that past programmes or any remaining parts of them have been terminated.
...

Although during the last month and a half of our inspections, the Iraqi side made considerable efforts to provide explanations, to begin inquiries and to undertake exploration and excavations, these efforts did not bring the answers needed before we withdrew. We did not have time to interview more than a handful of the large number of persons who were said by Iraq to have participated in the unilateral destruction of biological and chemical weapons in 1991. Such interviews might have helped towards the resolution of some outstanding issues, although one must be aware that the totalitarian regime in Iraq continued to cast a shadow on the credibility of all interviews.

UNMOVIC - Selected Security Council Briefings

 

[Godboy]

Godboy 11520713

Do you think Saddam would have just stepped aside and not interfere while we waged a war on terror? Imagine the uphill battle we would have had with not only Iran interfering, but Iraq doing it too.

It is you contention that the US military should have been sent in to kill people in Iraq on the suspicion that SH might interfere with our combat and diplomatic mission in Afghanistan that was the direct result of the attacks on US soil in September 2001 while it was Bush and Cheney's watch and duty to defend our nation? Do you require evidence of 'interference' or just some kind of funny feeling in your stomach?

Iran in 2002 was not interfering with our military mission in Afghanistan. They set us up with the Northern Alliance that essentially helped us drive the Taliban out of Kabul and put them on the run.

Invading Iraq in 2003 was the ultimate interference with the war on terror. Our military got swept up in the Shiite Sunni quest for control of Iraq and ended up fighting for over five years in a war that had little to do with the 911 war on terror. It provided a part of the ME where those terrorists who wanted a chance to harm US troops could easily get in and out. It was a Obama called it a dumb war.

No, im saying that saddam still being alive would be a bad thing. He was a serious problem and people like you seem to be ignorant of that fact. We had plenty of reasons to go in and take out Saddam. Im happy they did it. Im even more happy that you arent happy about it. Your anger pleases me.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Boss.. There are PLENTY of things we HAVENT tried. We have this nasty historical habit of determining their govts and borders FOR them. Those cultures REQUIRES (most of them) strong man or semi-religious govts in order to keep secular violence down. We CLEARLY (in hind-sight) were conducting a 12 year illegal embargo of Iraq and should have left the govt INTACT (maybe without the Husseins) instead of making the Bathe party illegal and disbanding their military. PERHAPS with some support for the autonomy and safety of the Kurds who ARE a potential ally against all those you just want to kill...

Well the Ba'ath Party are Arab Socialists. Ba'athism calls for unification of the Arab world into a single state. This is clearly not in accordance with our official and legal US foreign policy from 1998. So you are suggesting we should have toppled Saddam and then allowed Pan-Arab socialists to control it?

The ones I want to kill are the radical religious nuts who think they have to kill us all to get their virgins in heaven. As I've said, I am close personal friends with several Iraqi people and they're on my side. They want a free and democratic Iraq where women are allowed to vote and get an education.

I don't think Pan-Arab Socialists are interested in giving rights to women... I could be wrong.

Strongmen leadership is USUALLY socialist of some bent. By definition, the leaders hold national interests for "the collective" and dole them out. That because they largely lack supporting infrastructure and economy for folks to participate in things like oil extraction or mining.

The label in that case doesn't bother this anti-socialist a bit. As for the role of women in their cultures --- it's DIFFERENT. Women are often the religious and economic leaders of the household. They HAVE a role. But they don't have the options YOU want to force on them. Perhaps you should ASK rather than force those types of things on their societies. Good thing that your Iraqi friends were fortunate enough to have a choice.

Lord knows if we are attacked by any kind of "islamic state" -- I'd be happier than the current situation. Because cruise missiles need GPS coordinates to work right. And a palace or a military HQ is a better use of that missile than a jeep...

Again, you are suggesting it would have been a cool idea to turn Iraq over to Pan-Arab Socialists after toppling Saddam. I don't get that and I don't think the Iraqi people would have been too thrilled about it. In fact, I can just imagine Bush's speech to the Iraqi people as we invaded...

Dear Iraqi's... We are about to launch a massive invasion in your country to topple your evil dictator. You can expect to endure months of power outages, the chance of death by inerrant bombs and a lot of your buildings being destroyed. Please forgive us for any inconvenience, we are doing this for you! Although it has been our official policy the past 10 years to promote democracy in Iraq, we fully intend to turn your fate over to Saddam's Ba'ath Party when we're done and letting chips fall where they may... we're sure you understand, we have to maintain an appearance of fairness to the Pan-Arab Socialists for political reasons... so, sorry we couldn't deliver on the democracy promise but we're confident you'll be in good hands with these guys instead. Freedom is overrated anyway, right?

This Democracy stuff doesn't WORK there. Most of the neo-cons are starting to realize that. There would be far less death and destruction there NOW -- if we had not attempted to forcefeed democracy on them.

Democracy in the USA means that about 49% of the electorate is severely pissed off til the next election.. Over there, it means the winners are free to dole out justice and jobs on a sectarian basis and the other sides continues to attempt to blow them up..

Did you ever believe that Democracy would spread in the Middle East?
Take your "letter to Iraqis" and just substitute "inept secular shills" for "Pan Arab secularism" and that's about what we brought about.

There is no more Iraq. We cant fight and hold territory for an imaginary "democratic Iraq".. Not gonna happen..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11530582

I think our "agenda" was the plan set forth by the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act which spelled out our foreign policy plan for Iraq. I see no reason to believe anything else. This was the plan to replace the dictatorial regime of Saddam with a functioning Arab democracy. There are several reasons we thought this would be the best plan and Congress passed it as matter of public law.

Show us the language in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act where the plan was to replace the Baathist regime with a functioning Arab democracy by means of a war of aggression initiated by the United States. Where is the plan in 1998 calling for massing a couple hundred thousand invasion troops and hitting the people of Iraq with 'SHOCK and AWE' followed up by a ground invasion and then an occupation without enough troops to stabilize 20 million people that has just had its government removed. And was the plan to let foreign terrorists come into Iraq to escalate the destabilization process.

Its not in there is it? Your imagination has run amok on this thread.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No, im saying that saddam still being alive would be a bad thing. He was a serious problem and people like you seem to be ignorant of that fact.

What sort of 'serious problem' was Hussein and his regime in March 2003 with 200 UN Inspectors moving about the country? What problem was it when he offered in December 2002 to let thousands of US Military, CIA and FBI come into Iraq peacefully and search alongside UN inspectors to find the WMD that the US and UK was alleging was being hidden there. I am not the one being ignorant on Iraq. You have not defined an intelligent or serious explanation of what the 'serious problem' actually was when Bush decided to invade. He was not a serious problem on March 7, 2003 when Bush and Blair sent a draft resolution to the UNSC that would allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power if the UN inspectors were able to finish the inspections within ten days from that date. Bush could not have had an intelligence source that Iraq was hiding WMD on March 7, 2003 because he would not have made that offer. He was obligated to give all intelligence on WMD in Iraq to the UNSC. But ten days later after the UNSC rejected that draft resolution Bush suddenly had intelligence supposedly that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from the inspectors. It is ignorant to ignore that clue on what Bush had regarding intelligence on the status of Iraq's WMDs.

I also found it strange that regime change to Bush was not necessary in October 2002 when Bush decided to give Iraq a final opportunity to comply and avoid war. That was when there were no UN inspectors in Iraq at all. So SH was not a threat necessitating war in October 2002 and November when UNSC Res 1441 was passed as Bush requested. But after the inspectors were in and getting up to full speed when Bush decided apparently sometime after March 7 2003 that Sadddam was such a 'serious problem' that he sent the invasion force in.... trading 4484 US lives to see Saddam dead is 'ignorance' to me.

 

[Godboy]

No, im saying that saddam still being alive would be a bad thing. He was a serious problem and people like you seem to be ignorant of that fact.

What sort of 'serious problem' was Hussein and his regime in March 2003 with 200 UN Inspectors moving about the country? What problem was it when he offered in December 2002 to let thousands of US Military, CIA and FBI come into Iraq peacefully and search alongside UN inspectors to find the WMD that the US and UK was alleging was being hidden there. I am not the one being ignorant on Iraq. You have not defined an intelligent or serious explanation of what the 'serious problem' actually was when Bush decided to invade. He was not a serious problem on March 7, 2003 when Bush and Blair sent a draft resolution to the UNSC that would allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power if the UN inspectors were able to finish the inspections within ten days from that date. Bush could not have had an intelligence source that Iraq was hiding WMD on March 7, 2003 because he would not have made that offer. He was obligated to give all intelligence on WMD in Iraq to the UNSC. But ten days later after the UNSC rejected that draft resolution Bush suddenly had intelligence supposedly that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from the inspectors. It is ignorant to ignore that clue on what Bush had regarding intelligence on the status of Iraq's WMDs.

I also found it strange that regime change to Bush was not necessary in October 2002 when Bush decided to give Iraq a final opportunity to comply and avoid war. That was when there were no UN inspectors in Iraq at all. So SH was not a threat necessitating war in October 2002 and November when UNSC Res 1441 was passed as Bush requested. But after the inspectors were in and getting up to full speed when Bush decided apparently sometime after March 7 2003 that Sadddam was such a 'serious problem' that he sent the invasion force in.... trading 4484 US lives to see Saddam dead is 'ignorance' to me.

If Saddam didn't have WMDs, why did Clinton sanction him? The truth is Saddam got rid of his WMDS in secret because, he wanted Iran to be scared of him. He admitted this. His plan worked and no one knew they weren't there anymore. As a result, the CIA was seeing WMDS where they don't exist. They assumed they had to be there somewhere. Saddam dug his own grave when he decided to get rid of them secretly.

Your problem is you are judging things in hindsight without considering the realities of that time. Grow up.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11564946

And for the record, the Iraq War was probably one of the most considerate (from our perspective) of civilian populations of any war in history. It was the whole reason Bush put boots on the ground as opposed to bombing them into oblivion with cruise missiles. .

No. Consideration for saving civilians was not the reason Bush put boots on the ground in Iraq. Here is another false claim on your record. Bush told everyone who watched TV on March 17, 2003 that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Saddam's regime was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from the 2003 UN inspectors. When Bush claimed to have intelligence that left no doubt that WMD was being hidden, his intelligence source had to identify the quantity and type of the 'most lethal weapons ever devised' and the locations where they were supposedly being hidden. US Boots on the ground were sent in for two main reasons. A. to secure those weapons and keep them from being used or being handed off to terrorists. A d B. To defeat the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard swiftly. Bombing would not have been explainable if the war was about separating Saddam's Army from its stockpiles of WMD.

It turned out they did not know where any of the 'most lethal weapons ever devised' were located or what they had.

 

[Boss]

This Democracy stuff doesn't WORK there. Most of the neo-cons are starting to realize that. There would be far less death and destruction there NOW -- if we had not attempted to forcefeed democracy on them.

Democracy in the USA means that about 49% of the electorate is severely pissed off til the next election.. Over there, it means the winners are free to dole out justice and jobs on a sectarian basis and the other sides continues to attempt to blow them up..

Did you ever believe that Democracy would spread in the Middle East?
Take your "letter to Iraqis" and just substitute "inept secular shills" for "Pan Arab secularism" and that's about what we brought about.

There is no more Iraq. We cant fight and hold territory for an imaginary "democratic Iraq".. Not gonna happen..

*Sigh* You seem to be so bright sometimes, then you say something totally stupid. "Force feed democracy" is a liberal and radical terrorist MEME! Have you ever known a human being who did not want to be FREE from tyrannical rule? I find it difficult to believe ANY rational sane person would PREFER to be governed by a dictatorship as opposed to self-governing.

The ONLY people in Iraq who don't want democracy are radical terrorists and Pan-Arab Socialists... both of which we and the Iraqis need to kill and be done with. Yes, democracy takes a while to develop in a country that has never had it before... that's to be expected. They are going to have setbacks, the people are going to have to learn who they can trust and who has integrity to lead. Doesn't happen overnight, it takes years. It took us about 15 years to iron out our own democracy when we broke from Britain.

Again, the idea was debated back in 1998 under President Clinton and signed into law as the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. The thinking was, establishing a democracy will stabilize the region eventually... not instantly... not the next month or two... but eventually. We plant the seeds, we let them grow and nurture them... THEN, one day in the future... the radical elements in surrounding countries begin to realize how much better off the people of Iraq are with a democracy. They want to emulate that, and the whole radical Islamic house of cards begins to fall. You defeat an ideology with a better ideology because you cannot defeat the ideology with guns and bombs.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Godboy 11625000

If Saddam didn't have WMDs, why did Clinton sanction him? The truth is Saddam got rid of his WMDS in secret because, he wanted Iran to be scared of him. He admitted this. His plan worked and no one knew they weren't there anymore. As a result, the CIA was seeing WMDS where they don't exist. They assumed they had to be there somewhere. Saddam dug his own grave when he decided to get rid of them secretly.

I asked you this, You blew it off. So I"ll ask again.

What sort of 'serious problem' was Hussein and his regime in March 2003 with 200 UN Inspectors moving about the country? What problem was it when he offered in December 2002 to let thousands of US Military, CIA and FBI come into Iraq peacefully and search alongside UN inspectors to find the WMD that the US and UK was alleging was being hidden there.

As to why Clinton sanctioned SH and actually bombed Iraq in 1998 - Its because SH didn't cooperate and obstructed the UN inspectors from finishing their work. The inspectors decided they could not do their work so they left. Clinton did not force them to leave so he could bomb Iraq. Clinton reacted to the fact that SH was violating his disarmament agreement from 1991 after the First Gulf War. Not so after November 2002 when the UN passed Resolution 1441 at Bush's request.

How does the CIA see WMD's where they don't exist? Saddam offered in December 2002 to let the CIA come in and 'see if their intelligence was verifiable. Bush refused to let them go in. Why?

You support sending Americans into Iraq to kill and be killed based upon 'assumptions'. Grownups don't start wars based upon assumptions.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11564946

And for the record, the Iraq War was probably one of the most considerate (from our perspective) of civilian populations of any war in history. It was the whole reason Bush put boots on the ground as opposed to bombing them into oblivion with cruise missiles. .

No. Consideration for saving civilians was not the reason Bush put boots on the ground in Iraq. Here is another false claim on your record. Bush told everyone who watched TV on March 17, 2003 that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Saddam's regime was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from the 2003 UN inspectors. When Bush claimed to have intelligence that left no doubt that WMD was being hidden, his intelligence source had to identify the quantity and type of the 'most lethal weapons ever devised' and the locations where they were supposedly being hidden. US Boots on the ground were sent in for two main reasons. A. to secure those weapons and keep them from being used or being handed off to terrorists. A d B. To defeat the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard swiftly. Bombing would not have been explainable if the war was about separating Saddam's Army from its stockpiles of WMD.

It turned out they did not know where any of the 'most lethal weapons ever devised' were located or what they had.

No, you are wrong. Boots on the ground meant we could surgically remove the bad guys without killing a lot of innocent Iraqis. You see, drones and cruise missiles can't discriminate between good and bad people, they just kill everyone. So there was no way to do this without killing many innocent Iraqis unless we put boots on the ground.

Now, as I said, in retrospect, it didn't do Bush a damn bit of good. He may as well have bombed the entire country to the stone age and not worried about who got killed. That would have been worse for the innocent Iraqis who were caught up in the bombing but so what? Would our enemies and liberals had MORE of a cow over Iraq? I can't imagine it.

 

[flacaltenn]

No, im saying that saddam still being alive would be a bad thing. He was a serious problem and people like you seem to be ignorant of that fact.

What sort of 'serious problem' was Hussein and his regime in March 2003 with 200 UN Inspectors moving about the country? What problem was it when he offered in December 2002 to let thousands of US Military, CIA and FBI come into Iraq peacefully and search alongside UN inspectors to find the WMD that the US and UK was alleging was being hidden there. I am not the one being ignorant on Iraq. You have not defined an intelligent or serious explanation of what the 'serious problem' actually was when Bush decided to invade. He was not a serious problem on March 7, 2003 when Bush and Blair sent a draft resolution to the UNSC that would allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power if the UN inspectors were able to finish the inspections within ten days from that date. Bush could not have had an intelligence source that Iraq was hiding WMD on March 7, 2003 because he would not have made that offer. He was obligated to give all intelligence on WMD in Iraq to the UNSC. But ten days later after the UNSC rejected that draft resolution Bush suddenly had intelligence supposedly that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from the inspectors. It is ignorant to ignore that clue on what Bush had regarding intelligence on the status of Iraq's WMDs.

I also found it strange that regime change to Bush was not necessary in October 2002 when Bush decided to give Iraq a final opportunity to comply and avoid war. That was when there were no UN inspectors in Iraq at all. So SH was not a threat necessitating war in October 2002 and November when UNSC Res 1441 was passed as Bush requested. But after the inspectors were in and getting up to full speed when Bush decided apparently sometime after March 7 2003 that Sadddam was such a 'serious problem' that he sent the invasion force in.... trading 4484 US lives to see Saddam dead is 'ignorance' to me.

All you say is probably correct. But let's be honest. How many dems at that time would have lifted the failed sanctions and allowed Saddam to remain??? Would YOU????? Would have been the right thing to do, as our Euro buds were already there. But hardly a US politician had the balls to make that call. And the SANCTIONS and CONTAINMENT were worse policy than the invasion.. Especially since you just made the case that it was illegal anyway...

 

[Godboy]

Godboy 11625000

If Saddam didn't have WMDs, why did Clinton sanction him? The truth is Saddam got rid of his WMDS in secret because, he wanted Iran to be scared of him. He admitted this. His plan worked and no one knew they weren't there anymore. As a result, the CIA was seeing WMDS where they don't exist. They assumed they had to be there somewhere. Saddam dug his own grave when he decided to get rid of them secretly.

I asked you this, You blew it off. So I"ll ask again.

What sort of 'serious problem' was Hussein and his regime in March 2003 with 200 UN Inspectors moving about the country? What problem was it when he offered in December 2002 to let thousands of US Military, CIA and FBI come into Iraq peacefully and search alongside UN inspectors to find the WMD that the US and UK was alleging was being hidden there.

As to why Clinton sanctioned SH and actually bombed Iraq in 1998 - Its because SH didn't cooperate and obstructed the UN inspectors from finishing their work. The inspectors decided they could not do their work so they left. Clinton did not force them to leave so he could bomb Iraq. Clinton reacted to the fact that SH was violating his disarmament agreement from 1991 after the First Gulf War. Not so after November 2002 when the UN passed Resolution 1441 at Bush's request.

How does the CIA see WMD's where they don't exist? Saddam offered in December 2002 to let the CIA come in and 'see if their intelligence was verifiable. Bush refused to let them go in. Why?

You support sending Americans into Iraq to kill and be killed based upon 'assumptions'. Grownups don't start wars based upon assumptions.

Saddam was playing a shell game with those inspectors. I dont know if you legitimately dont know this or if you are just playing dumb, either way, its dumb. As for who Saddam was torturing or killing in 2003, i wasnt following him around at that time so i cant tell you. Needless to say, he was still a mad man who shouldnt be allowed to subjugate an entire country. His depature from this world was a very good thing.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11530582

I think our "agenda" was the plan set forth by the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act which spelled out our foreign policy plan for Iraq. I see no reason to believe anything else. This was the plan to replace the dictatorial regime of Saddam with a functioning Arab democracy. There are several reasons we thought this would be the best plan and Congress passed it as matter of public law.

Show us the language in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act where the plan was to replace the Baathist regime with a functioning Arab democracy by means of a war of aggression initiated by the United States. Where is the plan in 1998 calling for massing a couple hundred thousand invasion troops and hitting the people of Iraq with 'SHOCK and AWE' followed up by a ground invasion and then an occupation without enough troops to stabilize 20 million people that has just had its government removed. And was the plan to let foreign terrorists come into Iraq to escalate the destabilization process.

Its not in there is it? Your imagination has run amok on this thread.

The point about the 1998 ILA was not that it called for an invasion... it didn't. At that time, we thought we could support anti-Saddam forces inside Iraq and topple Saddam that way. The point of the Act was to outline the plan for stable democracy in Iraq.

People keep saying it was "Bush's stupid idea to plant democracy" when it wasn't Bush's idea at all. It was official US foreign policy from 1998, two years before Bush became president. Your Democrat Congressman probably voted for it as it passed both houses by an overwhelming margin.

Yep... foreign terrorists came into Iraq and tried to destabilize the process. At the time, you liberals were screaming there were no terrorists in Iraq. You tried to claim these were pissed of Iraqis who were mad at Bush for invading their country. That is a lie, that's not who they were at all. I'm glad you finally realize that but it's too late now.. we threw up our hands and abandoned them. The radical terrorists have taken over now. So you're doing what liberals are notorious for... blaming Bush for your fucked up policies.

 

[flacaltenn]

This Democracy stuff doesn't WORK there. Most of the neo-cons are starting to realize that. There would be far less death and destruction there NOW -- if we had not attempted to forcefeed democracy on them.

Democracy in the USA means that about 49% of the electorate is severely pissed off til the next election.. Over there, it means the winners are free to dole out justice and jobs on a sectarian basis and the other sides continues to attempt to blow them up..

Did you ever believe that Democracy would spread in the Middle East?
Take your "letter to Iraqis" and just substitute "inept secular shills" for "Pan Arab secularism" and that's about what we brought about.

There is no more Iraq. We cant fight and hold territory for an imaginary "democratic Iraq".. Not gonna happen..

*Sigh* You seem to be so bright sometimes, then you say something totally stupid. "Force feed democracy" is a liberal and radical terrorist MEME! Have you ever known a human being who did not want to be FREE from tyrannical rule? I find it difficult to believe ANY rational sane person would PREFER to be governed by a dictatorship as opposed to self-governing.

The ONLY people in Iraq who don't want democracy are radical terrorists and Pan-Arab Socialists... both of which we and the Iraqis need to kill and be done with. Yes, democracy takes a while to develop in a country that has never had it before... that's to be expected. They are going to have setbacks, the people are going to have to learn who they can trust and who has integrity to lead. Doesn't happen overnight, it takes years. It took us about 15 years to iron out our own democracy when we broke from Britain.

Again, the idea was debated back in 1998 under President Clinton and signed into law as the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. The thinking was, establishing a democracy will stabilize the region eventually... not instantly... not the next month or two... but eventually. We plant the seeds, we let them grow and nurture them... THEN, one day in the future... the radical elements in surrounding countries begin to realize how much better off the people of Iraq are with a democracy. They want to emulate that, and the whole radical Islamic house of cards begins to fall. You defeat an ideology with a better ideology because you cannot defeat the ideology with guns and bombs.

Dictators that make the trains run on time, prevent daily car bombings and provide adequate jobs are really really popular. Just like Mussolini/Hitler were rock stars in some American media before the war..

This democracy thing is highly overrated when you DEPEND on the central govt for every need anyway.. (Let that be a warning for the US).
And that IS THE CASE in most of these strongman govts.

They don't want to have to innovate, invent, and commercialize their countries. They don't value commerce, industry and infrastructure like we do --- because it's all PROVIDED for them. THEY DIDN'T BUILD IT....

Sound familar???????? You Free Willy and all Willy does is try to flag down a boat home...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11625109

Boots on the ground meant we could surgically remove the bad guys without killing a lot of innocent Iraqis.

Surgically remove what "Bad Guys" .... we killed everybody in that restaurant in the Mansour District residential area which included severing a young woman's body in half and killing her father and two brothers. They were not 'bad guys' because we thought Saddam Hussein was there. Four Bunker Buster bombes were dropped on a residential area one month into the invasion.

But what are you talking about? Bush didn't send troops in to surgically remove bad guys. Who were the Bad Guys? Bush sent troops in to locate the WMD that he claimed the UN inspectors could not find. And to defeat any element of the Iraqi Army or Republican guard that decided to fight. Some did.

Bush didn't know where the WMD was let alone where specific highly mobile "bad guys' might be hiding.

We were to be greeted as liberators, so what Bad Guys.. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq when Bush invaded. The Shiites were not supposed to be the bad guys. The Badr Militia came in from Iraq right behind our blitzkrieg into Baghdad. Those weren't bad guys to Bush. Their political leader was invited to the White House to hold hands with Bush for a photo op. The Badr militia was involved in the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from their homes and business in Baghdad.

This guy holding hands with Bush came in with the invasion from Iran. The Badr Militia consisted of Iraqis born in Iran and trained and armed by Iranians. The Badr Brigades participated in ethnic cleansing which is where most civilians were killed.

President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq

President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, "I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country." White House photo by Eric Draper

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11625137 QUOTE="Boss, post: 11625137, member: 36773"]At the time, you liberals were screaming there were no terrorists in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

You are confused. When terrorists came into Iraq after the invasion and the power vacuum was created anybody with awareness of what was going on was quite certain that there were terrorists in Iraq. Quit arguing with 'liberals' that are not involved in the discussion here. I have asked you many things you won't respond to . No need binging your imaginary liberals into the discussion.

 

[Boss]

This Democracy stuff doesn't WORK there. Most of the neo-cons are starting to realize that. There would be far less death and destruction there NOW -- if we had not attempted to forcefeed democracy on them.

Democracy in the USA means that about 49% of the electorate is severely pissed off til the next election.. Over there, it means the winners are free to dole out justice and jobs on a sectarian basis and the other sides continues to attempt to blow them up..

Did you ever believe that Democracy would spread in the Middle East?
Take your "letter to Iraqis" and just substitute "inept secular shills" for "Pan Arab secularism" and that's about what we brought about.

There is no more Iraq. We cant fight and hold territory for an imaginary "democratic Iraq".. Not gonna happen..

*Sigh* You seem to be so bright sometimes, then you say something totally stupid. "Force feed democracy" is a liberal and radical terrorist MEME! Have you ever known a human being who did not want to be FREE from tyrannical rule? I find it difficult to believe ANY rational sane person would PREFER to be governed by a dictatorship as opposed to self-governing.

The ONLY people in Iraq who don't want democracy are radical terrorists and Pan-Arab Socialists... both of which we and the Iraqis need to kill and be done with. Yes, democracy takes a while to develop in a country that has never had it before... that's to be expected. They are going to have setbacks, the people are going to have to learn who they can trust and who has integrity to lead. Doesn't happen overnight, it takes years. It took us about 15 years to iron out our own democracy when we broke from Britain.

Again, the idea was debated back in 1998 under President Clinton and signed into law as the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. The thinking was, establishing a democracy will stabilize the region eventually... not instantly... not the next month or two... but eventually. We plant the seeds, we let them grow and nurture them... THEN, one day in the future... the radical elements in surrounding countries begin to realize how much better off the people of Iraq are with a democracy. They want to emulate that, and the whole radical Islamic house of cards begins to fall. You defeat an ideology with a better ideology because you cannot defeat the ideology with guns and bombs.

Dictators that make the trains run on time, prevent daily car bombings and provide adequate jobs are really really popular. Just like Mussolini/Hitler were rock stars in some American media before the war..

This democracy thing is highly overrated when you DEPEND on the central govt for every need anyway.. (Let that be a warning for the US).
And that IS THE CASE in most of these strongman govts.

They don't want to have to innovate, invent, and commercialize their countries. They don't value commerce, industry and infrastructure like we do --- because it's all PROVIDED for them. THEY DIDN'T BUILD IT....

Sound familar???????? You Free Willy and all Willy does is try to flag down a boat home...

Again, I respectfully disagree with you. People fundamentally want freedom. You'll never convince me otherwise. Of course, people who were loyal to Saddam, his cronies and henchmen, had plenty of freedom under Saddam, they didn't want anything to mess up their arrangement so yeah, they were pissed about us coming in and toppling their golden goose. All the rest of Iraq was grateful we got rid of the "Butcher of Baghdad" and they let that be known at the time. When the first democratic elections were held, 80% of the country defied death threats to vote... doesn't sound like they were rebuking democracy to me!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

All you say is probably correct. But let's be honest. How many dems at that time would have lifted the failed sanctions and allowed Saddam to remain??? Would YOU????? Would have been the right thing to do, as our Euro buds were already there.

I supported HRC's vote in October to authorize war if Saddam did not let the inspectors in. I was at the time in complete harmony with all five permanent members on the UNSC and the ten other members who voted unanimously for UN RES 1441. I don't know what Euro buds you are thinking of .... but the 'on record' course of action preferred on Iraq and its violations of its disarmament responsibilities by most nations in the world was to try to disarm Iraq peacefully .... and then lift sanctions. Every Dem including HRC and Kerry except maybe Joe Lieberman did not need to vote or support lifting sanctions on Iraq. Dr. Blix and Dr El Baradei had the ability to lift sanctions when in their opinions Iraq was verified disarmed. That course of action could not be stopped by permanent members. Bush could not let the inspections work. Sanctions would have been lifted prior to his re-election to a second term. Hence I believe is what set the timing of the invasion. It was not a threat or a perceived threat.

So yes I would have been happy to see the inspections continue and ultimately see the sanctions on Iraq lifted.

 

[Boss]

You are confused. When terrorists came into Iraq after the invasion and the power vacuum was created anybody with awareness of what was going on was quite certain that there were terrorists in Iraq. Quit arguing with 'liberals' that are not involved in the discussion here. I have asked you many things you won't respond to . No need binging your imaginary liberals into the discussion.

I'm just repeating what the left-wing said at the time. For months they carried on about the insurgency as if it were pissed off Iraqi people who didn't want us there. They denied there were any terrorists in Iraq, even when presented with the evidence there clearly were terror elements all over the place.

Like I said before, I personally think it was a good thing if Bush somehow accidentally created a situation where our presence in Iraq created a magnet for radical terrorists... Hell, make a military contest out of who can shoot the most radical terrorists in a day or week and have fun! The more we kill the better!

Some will say, but you're not killing them faster than you're creating them... well okay, keep killing them until you drain their ball sacks from having kids to fuel their radicalism. Eventually they'll figure out that it's not going to work out for them and they'll stop. In the meantime, Omar is off in Iraq fighting our military as opposed to hijacking planes and flying them into our buildings.