Democracy in Iraq

[NotfooledbyW]

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

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

 

[irosie91]

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

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

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

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Iros 10419995

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

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

 

[irosie91]

Iros 10419995

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

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

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

 

[Judicial review]

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

Fucking retard.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

iros 10420967

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

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


iros 10420967

I am not impressed by a single document.

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

 

[irosie91]

iros 10420967

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

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


iros 10420967

I am not impressed by a single document.

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

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

 

[NotfooledbyW]

JR 10420977

Fucking retard.

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

JR 9995129

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

 

[irosie91]

JR 10420977

Fucking retard.

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

JR 9995129

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

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

 

[NotfooledbyW]

iros 10421918

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

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

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

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

 

[irosie91]

iros 10421918

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

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

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

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

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

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Iros 10421967

Depends on how one defines "weapons of mass destruction"

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

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

Some Posting History:

lokn 10390744

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

NF 10419890

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

Iros 10419995

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

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

 

[irosie91]

Iros 10421967

Depends on how one defines "weapons of mass destruction"

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

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

Some Posting History:

lokn 10390744

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

NF 10419890

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

Iros 10419995

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

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

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

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

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

 

[irosie91]

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

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

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

 

[longknife]

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

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

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

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

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

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

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

Is that correct?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

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

 

[irosie91]

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

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

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

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

Is that correct?

yes----it was a significant contributing factor

 

[NotfooledbyW]

iros 10423553

yes----it was a significant contributing factor

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