What would Obama do???

[healthmyths]

Let this continue?? Or go to the UN? Or just what would he do differently then what George W. Bush did...?

Source: The inhumane reign of Saddam Hussein: Pt. 5 - The London Times + (UK free press)

Ahmad was Uday's chief executioner. Last week, as Iraqis celebrated the death of his former boss and his equally savage younger brother Qusay, he nervously revealed a hideous story. His instructions that day in 1999 were to arrest the two 19-year-olds on the campus of Baghdad's Academy of Fine Arts and deliver them at Radwaniyah. On arrival at the sprawling compound, he was directed to a farm where he found a large cage. Inside, two lions waited. They belonged to Uday. Guards took the two young men from the car and opened the cage door. One of the victims collapsed in terror as they were dragged, screaming and shouting, to meet their fate. Ahmad watched as the students frantically looked for a way of escape. There was none. The lions pounced. 'I saw the head of the first student literally come off his body with the first bite and then had to stand and watch the animals devour the two young men. By the time they were finished there was little left but for the bones and bits and pieces of unwanted flesh,' he recalled last week."
-- Sunday Times, London, July 27, 2003


"Ali would then draw out a pair of pliers and a sharp knife. Gripping the tongue with pliers, he would slice it up with the knife, tossing severed pieces into the street. "'Those punished were too terrified to move, even though they knew I was about to chop off their tongue,' said Ali in his matter-of-fact voice. 'They would just stand there, often praying and calling out for Saddam and Allah to spare them. By then it was too late.

"'I would read them out the verdict and cut off their tongue without any form of anaesthetic. There was always a lot of blood. Some offenders passed out. Others screamed in pain. They would then be given basic medical assistance in an ambulance which would always come with us on such punishment runs. Then they would be thrown in jail.'"

-- Fedayeen Saddam member interviewed in The Sunday Times (London), April 20, 2003
Saddam has reduced his people to abject poverty. He wiped out families, villages, cities and cultures, and drove four million people into exile. He killed between 100,000 and 200,000 Kurds. He killed as many as 300,000 Shiites in the uprising after the Persian Gulf war. He killed or displaced 200,000 of the 250,000 marsh Arabs who had created a unique, centuries-old culture in the south. He drained the marshes, an environmental treasure, and turned them into a desert.

In a recent Frontline documentary, a woman who fled Iraq recounted how she and others had been forced to witness the public beheadings of 15 women who had been rounded up for prostitution and other crimes against the state. One of the women was a doctor who had been misreported as speaking against the regime. "They put her head in a trash can," she said.

In 1987, Mr. Jaiyashy and a thousand other inmates were transferred to an outdoor prison camp. There, they were allowed a visit with their relatives, so long as they said nothing of their lives in prison. Mr. Jaiyashy's parents came, hoping he might still be alive. He remembers the day all the families came. "There was so much crying. We called it the crying day."

 

[francoHFW]

Stupidest war EVER, dupe.

 

[Greenbeard]

October 2, 2002:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

 

[auditor0007]

Let this continue?? Or go to the UN? Or just what would he do differently then what George W. Bush did...?

Source: The inhumane reign of Saddam Hussein: Pt. 5 - The London Times + (UK free press)

Ahmad was Uday's chief executioner. Last week, as Iraqis celebrated the death of his former boss and his equally savage younger brother Qusay, he nervously revealed a hideous story. His instructions that day in 1999 were to arrest the two 19-year-olds on the campus of Baghdad's Academy of Fine Arts and deliver them at Radwaniyah. On arrival at the sprawling compound, he was directed to a farm where he found a large cage. Inside, two lions waited. They belonged to Uday. Guards took the two young men from the car and opened the cage door. One of the victims collapsed in terror as they were dragged, screaming and shouting, to meet their fate. Ahmad watched as the students frantically looked for a way of escape. There was none. The lions pounced. 'I saw the head of the first student literally come off his body with the first bite and then had to stand and watch the animals devour the two young men. By the time they were finished there was little left but for the bones and bits and pieces of unwanted flesh,' he recalled last week."
-- Sunday Times, London, July 27, 2003


"Ali would then draw out a pair of pliers and a sharp knife. Gripping the tongue with pliers, he would slice it up with the knife, tossing severed pieces into the street. "'Those punished were too terrified to move, even though they knew I was about to chop off their tongue,' said Ali in his matter-of-fact voice. 'They would just stand there, often praying and calling out for Saddam and Allah to spare them. By then it was too late.

"'I would read them out the verdict and cut off their tongue without any form of anaesthetic. There was always a lot of blood. Some offenders passed out. Others screamed in pain. They would then be given basic medical assistance in an ambulance which would always come with us on such punishment runs. Then they would be thrown in jail.'"

-- Fedayeen Saddam member interviewed in The Sunday Times (London), April 20, 2003
Saddam has reduced his people to abject poverty. He wiped out families, villages, cities and cultures, and drove four million people into exile. He killed between 100,000 and 200,000 Kurds. He killed as many as 300,000 Shiites in the uprising after the Persian Gulf war. He killed or displaced 200,000 of the 250,000 marsh Arabs who had created a unique, centuries-old culture in the south. He drained the marshes, an environmental treasure, and turned them into a desert.

In a recent Frontline documentary, a woman who fled Iraq recounted how she and others had been forced to witness the public beheadings of 15 women who had been rounded up for prostitution and other crimes against the state. One of the women was a doctor who had been misreported as speaking against the regime. "They put her head in a trash can," she said.

In 1987, Mr. Jaiyashy and a thousand other inmates were transferred to an outdoor prison camp. There, they were allowed a visit with their relatives, so long as they said nothing of their lives in prison. Mr. Jaiyashy's parents came, hoping he might still be alive. He remembers the day all the families came. "There was so much crying. We called it the crying day."

The best thing to come out of our going into Iraq was seeing those two monsters killed, but that does not in any way justify the war itself.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Stupidest war EVER, dupe.

pub crap

 

[Missourian]

He would ignore it, and if there was a public outcry, he would say:

"I just found out about this along with the rest of you, on the nightly news."

 

[buckeye45_73]

he would say if I had a son, he would look like Travyon, smoking da weed and getting all tatted up!

 

[Interpol]

According to how he's been performing his job as President, it appears that Obama would have listened to the Secretary of State's report on the pros and cons of sending the military into Iraq. He would have at least read it, which we now know was not read by Bush and the neo-cons.

The report went into detail about what to secure in Iraq, how to secure it, how to involve the Iraqi military and keep it together and on the payroll, and more. But the Bush people wanted nothing to do with reading, so they just went into Iraq using sentiment as their game plan instead of an actual game plan.

It appears doubtful from everything he said at the time that he would have rushed into a major war in a country as troubled as Iraq.

Obama would have gone into Afghanistan and stayed there, and he would not have dropped the ball by completely shifting focus and starting a second simultaneous war in the region.

 

[Decus]

Pol Pot killed off a quarter of his country's population and the world stood by and did nothing. Shouldn't there be a limit for human pain and suffering? The conflict in the Balkans never attained the millions of dead in Cambodia, but intervention was decided to protect human life. Did the Persians, Kurds and Arabs deserve less?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

What would Obama do???

Let this continue?? Or go to the UN? Or just what would he do differently then what George W. Bush did...?


[anecdotal nonsense deleted]

One hopes Obama would say something like, "Mr Hussein is a very, very bad man. Was there some US business to discuss?" then move on with his day.

It is one of the mysteries of this age how anyone, let alone the highest ranking people in US government, could be criminally degenerate enough to start a land war in Asia without 100% active support (combat troops, money, full partnership) of Europe and neighboring nations.

The UN position has never wavered: the US invasion of Iraq was illegal.

"I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From the UN point of view, from the UN charter point of view, [the US invasion of Iraq] was illegal."​

There was no popular support for the war among other nations. Fact is the US browbeat nations into a corrupt "coalition of the willing" with England being the only meaningful participant; no other nation sent more than token numbers of troops. Further, the war was so horrifically mismanaged that by July 2004 CBS reported its poll showing just 45% of Americans believed the US invasion of a sovereign nation was justified.

It just tickles the hell out of me that war led to this. Re-electing that halfwit scum and his pals was the most despicable act by a democracy in the history of western civilization. Those people are no good. Outside the military who take an oath to follow orders that are legal under US law, the degenerate scum who supported the United States' illegal invasion of a sovereign nation deserve every bit of bad fortune that can possibly come their way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All of you who still insist it was necessary for us to intervene militarily in Iraq,

why didn't any of you think it was necessary for us to intervene militarily in the Congo, where from 1998 to 2008 somewhere from 1 to 5 million died, depending on whose estimate you use.

Were there no 'bad men' slaughtering their own people there?

How did you reach that conclusion about the Congo, but the opposite about Iraq?

 

[healthmyths]

All of you who still insist it was necessary for us to intervene militarily in Iraq,

why didn't any of you think it was necessary for us to intervene militarily in the Congo, where from 1998 to 2008 somewhere from 1 to 5 million died, depending on whose estimate you use.

Were there no 'bad men' slaughtering their own people there?

How did you reach that conclusion about the Congo, but the opposite about Iraq?

So it was George Bush alone who decided to Liberate Iraq?

These democrats had nothing to do with it right?

32 democrat quotes indicate even before GWB that Saddam was a threat!

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ...
And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ....
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

ah but they then flipped flopped right?

Some of these same war hawks said this about our troops and as a result the liberation that took only 6 weeks was drawn out 6 years because people like the below
cared more about political power then American lives!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

The liberation was done in 6 weeks... traitors like the above encouraged,cheered, applauded the terrorists in murdering 3,000 more Americans costing $600 billion !

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

All of you who still insist it was necessary for us to intervene militarily in Iraq,

why didn't any of you think it was necessary for us to intervene militarily in the Congo, where from 1998 to 2008 somewhere from 1 to 5 million died, depending on whose estimate you use.

Were there no 'bad men' slaughtering their own people there?

How did you reach that conclusion about the Congo, but the opposite about Iraq?

So it was George Bush alone who decided to Liberate Iraq?

[whining bullshit deleted]

Where does the buck stop in NutbalLand?

 

[OODA_Loop]

There was no popular support for the war among other nations.

Coalition forces:

Kuwait

United States

United Kingdom

Saudi Arabia

France

Canada

Egypt

Syria

Qatar

United Arab Emirates

Argentina

Australia

Bangladesh

Belgium

China

Czechoslovakia

Denmark

India

Oman

Spain

Vietnam

Thailand

Pakistan

New Zealand

Niger

Netherlands

Philippines

Poland

Greece

Mongolia

Mexico

Hungary

Senegal

Sierra Leone

South Korea

Soviet Union

Guatemala

Iraqi Kurdistan Peshmerga

 

[J.E.D]

The Iraq apologist continues. Healthmyths, how much is the Bush family paying you to post this crap day after day? Can I get in on it?

 

[FA_Q2]

When was ‘Saddam is a bad guy’ the justification for the war? Seems to me that Bush looked at that and completely ignored it, as he should have. We do not and cannot right all the ills of the world. We went to war because of failed intelligence on a WMD (one of the most horribly distorted terms in recent memory IMHO) program.

What Obama would have done BTW is also irrelevant. He was not in charge and owns none of starting Iraq. The only claims to that debacle that are his are the ones after he took the reins.

Lastly, our response to this ‘bad guy’ cased thousands to be vaporized in bombs, people burned to death, limbs blown off, bled to death in the streets, children brutally killed by gunfire and families with missing members. Thousands more had homes destroyed or chased out of them for lack of basic necessities. The lion story is no more horrible than those deaths were, or less brutal. War is disgusting. Terrible. One of the worst things imaginable. You can sit there behind your computer screen like the rest of us and debate about the ‘merits’ of disposing Saddam all you want but the reality is that war is so damn ugly that it should never be sought but in the most dire and horrible circumstances. You seem to think that war has brought some sort good thing to Iraq and in the future you may be right. They might end up in a better situation but no war should ever be fought by a foreign nation for the ‘good of the people.’ That idea is wholly absurd.

Further, the war was so horrifically mismanaged that by July 2004 CBS reported its poll showing just 45% of Americans believed the US invasion of a sovereign nation was justified.

The rest of your post I really don’t have a problem with but I feel the need to point out that public opinion on war and how to fight it is absolutely meaningless. The public is almost always ready to get into a war that we have no business being in and never has the will to finish the job once we are there. War is a disgusting business and the public at large seems unable to grasp even the faintest wisp of that reality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All of you who still insist it was necessary for us to intervene militarily in Iraq,

why didn't any of you think it was necessary for us to intervene militarily in the Congo, where from 1998 to 2008 somewhere from 1 to 5 million died, depending on whose estimate you use.

Were there no 'bad men' slaughtering their own people there?

How did you reach that conclusion about the Congo, but the opposite about Iraq?

So it was George Bush alone who decided to Liberate Iraq?

These democrats had nothing to do with it right?

32 democrat quotes indicate even before GWB that Saddam was a threat!

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ...
And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ....
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

ah but they then flipped flopped right?

Some of these same war hawks said this about our troops and as a result the liberation that took only 6 weeks was drawn out 6 years because people like the below
cared more about political power then American lives!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

The liberation was done in 6 weeks... traitors like the above encouraged,cheered, applauded the terrorists in murdering 3,000 more Americans costing $600 billion !

Does anyone else here hate it when posters respond with something that has nothing to do with what you posted? What brand of stupidity is that?

I'm asking you why you aren't attacking Bush for not intervening militarily in the Congo.

So answer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There was no popular support for the war among other nations.

Coalition forces:

Kuwait

United States

United Kingdom

Saudi Arabia

France

Canada

Egypt

Syria

Qatar

United Arab Emirates

Argentina

Australia

Bangladesh

Belgium

China

Czechoslovakia

Denmark

India

Oman

Spain

Vietnam

Thailand

Pakistan

New Zealand

Niger

Netherlands

Philippines

Poland

Greece

Mongolia

Mexico

Hungary

Senegal

Sierra Leone

South Korea

Soviet Union

Guatemala

Iraqi Kurdistan Peshmerga

Uh, retard. The Soviet Union broke up before the Iraq war began. Please stop annoying us with your mental condition.

 

[healthmyths]

All of you who still insist it was necessary for us to intervene militarily in Iraq,

why didn't any of you think it was necessary for us to intervene militarily in the Congo, where from 1998 to 2008 somewhere from 1 to 5 million died, depending on whose estimate you use.

Were there no 'bad men' slaughtering their own people there?

How did you reach that conclusion about the Congo, but the opposite about Iraq?

So it was George Bush alone who decided to Liberate Iraq?

These democrats had nothing to do with it right?

32 democrat quotes indicate even before GWB that Saddam was a threat!

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ...
And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ....
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

ah but they then flipped flopped right?

Some of these same war hawks said this about our troops and as a result the liberation that took only 6 weeks was drawn out 6 years because people like the below
cared more about political power then American lives!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

The liberation was done in 6 weeks... traitors like the above encouraged,cheered, applauded the terrorists in murdering 3,000 more Americans costing $600 billion !

Does anyone else here hate it when posters respond with something that has nothing to do with what you posted? What brand of stupidity is that?

I'm asking you why you aren't attacking Bush for not intervening militarily in the Congo.

So answer.

You are right about Bush not intervening in the Congo and for very very good reasons!

A) The USA just had an attack on it's own soil from the sources that trained in Iraq!
B) Iraq already had invaded Kuwait in 1991 and Iraq signed the 1991 Cease Fire... NOTE CEASE FIRE meaning NOT over but no more firing UNLESS SOME breaks the agreement!
C) Iraq/Saddam let it be known THEY WERE MAKING WMDs.. (Not too many WMDs coming from the Congo I must remind you...) and THESE people agreed:

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

So there were plenty of good legal reasons to remove the dictator that was starving 50,000 people a year! Remove a dictator that already had invaded Kuwait.

Where were the Congolese invaders of other countries?

But regarding AFRICA in general... Bush is loved and here are a couple of DEMOCRATS that attest to that and the FACT BUSH saved millions of African lives...


I'll let Jimmy Carter's OWN words answer the questions about Africa in general...
Carter began the speech by noting that he asked Bush to focus on the civil conflict in Sudan in the opening days of his presidency.
He noted that Bush made good on his word to focus on securing peace in that conflict.

Carter turned to Bush’s focus on reducing poverty and combating disease in the developing world during his tenure in the White House.

“He increased the development insistence to Africa, from the time he went in office until he left, from 1.4 billion dollars to more than 9 billion dollars,”
Carter said. “He established the PEPFAR program – there were 50,000 HIV sufferers in Africa being treated when he came in office. When he left office, for a year, 2 million.”
“Let me say that I’m filled with admiration for you and deep gratitude for you about the great contributions you’ve made to the most needy people on earth,” Carter concluded.

Jimmy Carter To George W. Bush: ?I?m Filled With Admiration For You? For Your Help To ?Most Needy? | Mediaite

Or this liberal Democrat's point of view of GWB... Elaine Ratner
George W. Bush, not Barack Obama, is the real American hero in Africa.
Take it from me, a liberal Democrat who voted for Obama twice. I know a little about Africa: I have been to the continent 17 times over the last 32 years.


Read more: George W. Bush has saved more lives than any American president | Fox News
In fact, South Sudanese today are thinking more about another U.S. president: that would be Obama’s predecessor, Bush 43. As a liberal Democrat and Obama supporter, I was particularly struck by this. Yes, Bush is a hero in Africa, and Americans, too, should know why.
No American president, before or since, has had Bush’s vision and determination to save so many millions of lives.
For Africans, that vision traces back to the early years of his presidency. In his 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush introduced the "President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief" (PEPFAR.)
And that proposal had real meat: $15 billion over five years, as well as a serious look at African health problems, beyond HIV/AIDS.
Bush proposed it, and his proposal wasn’t just a few throw-away lines in a speech; even as the Iraq war raged, Bush spent precious political capital to get PEPFAR enacted.
The result was the largest upfront contribution ever made by any country to fight HIV. And the numbers are staggering.
Five million children, women and men have received antiretroviral treatment under PEPFAR. In 2010 alone, 600,000 pregnant mothers received treatment so their newborn children would not be infected.
Yes, millions of people live productive, healthy lives due to Bush 43
Read more: George W. Bush has saved more lives than any American president | Fox News

 

[healthmyths]

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities.
Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism.
The question of Iraq’s link to terrorism grew more urgent with Saddam’s suspected determination to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD),
which Bush administration officials feared he might share with terrorists who could launch devastating attacks against the United States.

Was Saddam involved in the September 11 attacks?
There is no hard evidence linking Saddam to the attacks, and Iraq denies involvement. Many commentators have noted that Baghdad failed to express sympathy for the United States after the attacks.

What type of terrorist groups did Iraq support under Saddam Hussein’s regime?

Primarily groups that could hurt Saddam’s regional foes. Saddam has aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahadeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (known by its Turkish initials, PKK), a separatist group fighting the Turkish government. Moreover, Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel , including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader, Abu Nidal, was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Iraq has also supported the Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. A secular dictator, however, Saddam tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamist ones such as al-Qaeda, experts say.


The Clinton administration sought to contain Saddam with a combination of sanctions and arms inspections, but ultimately concluded that Saddam had to go. Bush administration officials took up the anti-Saddam cause, especially after September 11. Officials characterized Saddam’s regime as an immediate threat to America—because of its history of attacking its neighbors, using chemical weapons, supporting terrorist groups, defying UN Security Council resolutions, and seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. In his first State of the Union address after September 11, President Bush said Iraq belonged to an “axis of evil.”

Has Iraq ever used weapons of mass destruction?
Yes. In the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, Iraqi troops repeatedly used poison gas, including mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin, against Iranian soldiers. Iranian officials have also accused Iraq of dropping mustard-gas bombs on Iranian villages. Human Rights Watch reports that Iraq frequently used nerve agents and mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds living in the country’s north. In March 1988, Saddam’s forces reportedly killed thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the town of Halabja with chemical weapons.

Terrorism Havens: Iraq - Council on Foreign Relations