'The City That Bush Built'

[JoeB131]

Okay...first off, it's hacky to say that Saddam was a stabalizing force.

Of course he was. that's why the Arab allies INSISTED that we didn't topple him in 1991 and weren't keen to go along with us to topple him in 2003, because they KNEW it was a bad idea.

Second off, Kurds do comprise some of the territories you mention. However, that is due to geo-national politics. They are centered and largely into Northern Iraq. An independent Kurdistan is a good thing. As it is, they're autonomous in Norther Iraq and have been.

Actually, Turkey and Iran have larger Kurdish populations than Iraq has.

Turkey 11–15 million
15.7–20%[1][2][3]

Iran 6.5–7.9 million
7–10%[1][2]

Iraq 6.2–6.5 million
15–23%[1][2]

Syria 2.2–3 million
9–15%[2][4][5][6]

Azerbaijan 150,000–180,000[7]

Armenia 37,470[8]

Georgia 20,843[9]

Kurds - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No, an independent Kurdistan is NOT a good thing.

 

[High_Gravity]

These people deserve their own country.

 

[JoeB131]

These people deserve their own country.

As long as we aren't the ones paying for it, I'm fine with that.

Seems kind of stupid to be building Iraq when our own infrastructure is crumbling, doncha think?

 

[High_Gravity]

These people deserve their own country.

As long as we aren't the ones paying for it, I'm fine with that.

Seems kind of stupid to be building Iraq when our own infrastructure is crumbling, doncha think?

Kurdistan is sitting on top of vast oil reserves, they could finance themselves if they were their own country.

 

[BlindBoo]

Okay...first off, it's hacky to say that Saddam was a stabalizing force.

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

From

"Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"

George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft
Time (2 March 1998)

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq

 

[rdean]

Bush and the GOP did nothing to protect the 1.5 MILLION Christians living in Iraq during their reign of terror. When Christians were being slaughtered and their Churches burned during the Bush years, did Republicans "snicker"?

 

[JoeB131]

Kurdistan is sitting on top of vast oil reserves, they could finance themselves if they were their own country.

So why do they keep shaking down us for money?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Okay...first off, it's hacky to say that Saddam was a stabalizing force.

Of course he was. that's why the Arab allies INSISTED that we didn't topple him in 1991 and weren't keen to go along with us to topple him in 2003, because they KNEW it was a bad idea.

Second off, Kurds do comprise some of the territories you mention. However, that is due to geo-national politics. They are centered and largely into Northern Iraq. An independent Kurdistan is a good thing. As it is, they're autonomous in Norther Iraq and have been.

Actually, Turkey and Iran have larger Kurdish populations than Iraq has.

Turkey 11–15 million
15.7–20%[1][2][3]

Iran 6.5–7.9 million
7–10%[1][2]

Iraq 6.2–6.5 million
15–23%[1][2]

Syria 2.2–3 million
9–15%[2][4][5][6]

Azerbaijan 150,000–180,000[7]

Armenia 37,470[8]

Georgia 20,843[9]

Kurds - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No, an independent Kurdistan is NOT a good thing.

1. Oh, a bunch of dictators wanted one of their fellow dictators to keep the people in line, and you call that stability? Give me a ******* break.

2. The Iraq numbers are based upon all of Iraq and not just Northern Iraq which is primarily Kurdis; so, FAIL.

 

[JoeB131]

1. Oh, a bunch of dictators wanted one of their fellow dictators to keep the people in line, and you call that stability? Give me a ******* break.

2. The Iraq numbers are based upon all of Iraq and not just Northern Iraq which is primarily Kurdis; so, FAIL.

1. All of those "Dictators" (even though Turkey, where most Kurds live, is a democracy) are countries the US has dealt with and supported in their efforts to keep the Kurds under the heel of a boot.

2. No, there are STILL more Kurds living in Turkey. There are still more Kurds living in Iran.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Okay...first off, it's hacky to say that Saddam was a stabalizing force.

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

From

"Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"

George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft
Time (2 March 1998)

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq

I'm sorrry.....but did I ever say that GBI made the right call? Also, it's widely known that the concern was countries like Iran taking more land....He's not implying that Saddam was a stabilizing force. Nice try, hack.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm sorrry.....but did I ever say that GBI made the right call? Also, it's widely known that the concern was countries like Iran taking more land....He's not implying that Saddam was a stabilizing force. Nice try, hack.

No, the concern was "Punishing Iran for daring to throw out our puppet". We do a lot of that, punishing countries for picking governments we don't like, and we need to knock it the **** off.

We armed a monster to take revenge on the Iranians for throwing out the Shah. and then, like any good monster in a horror movie, Saddam turned on us.

And then suddenly, we became "all concerned" about the Kurds when we didn't give A **** about them when Saddam was our buddy and he was actually slaughtering their asses.

 

[TooTall]

WMD? Yoooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuu forgot!

You mean like some of the leaders in the poor African countries. Why don't we go there and kill their tribal leaders?
Explain what drove us to going to war in Iraq?

Why do people like you insist on trying to push the blame elsewhere?

I guess that is because Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who murdered and starved his own people and got exactly what he deserved.

Material breach of the cease fire as e

You mean like some of the leaders in the poor African countries. Why don't we go there and kill their tribal leaders?
Explain what drove us to going to war in Iraq?

Why do people like you insist on trying to push the blame elsewhere?

I guess that is because Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who murdered and starved his own people and got exactly what he deserved.

Material breach of the 1991 cease fire as established by UN resolutions as well as authorization by the US Congress.

I did forget what these two Democrats that ran for President said. My apologies.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. 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..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

Still ignoring the truth! Hiding behind the skirts of democrats.


George Saddam Hussein Has Weapons of Mass Destruction - YouTube

WMD? Yoooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuu forgot!

You mean like some of the leaders in the poor African countries. Why don't we go there and kill their tribal leaders?
Explain what drove us to going to war in Iraq?

I guess that is because Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who murdered and starved his own people and got exactly what he deserved.

Material breach of the cease fire as e

You mean like some of the leaders in the poor African countries. Why don't we go there and kill their tribal leaders?
Explain what drove us to going to war in Iraq?

I guess that is because Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who murdered and starved his own people and got exactly what he deserved.

Material breach of the 1991 cease fire as established by UN resolutions as well as authorization by the US Congress.

I did forget what these two Democrats that ran for President said. My apologies.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. 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..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

Bush merely quoted Kerry and Clinton in that youtube video.

 

[BlindBoo]

Okay...first off, it's hacky to say that Saddam was a stabalizing force.

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

From

"Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"

George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft
Time (2 March 1998)

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq

I'm sorrry.....but did I ever say that GBI made the right call? Also, it's widely known that the concern was countries like Iran taking more land....He's not implying that Saddam was a stabilizing force. Nice try, hack.

Of course he was. That's quite a cough you have.

 

[BlindBoo]

We armed a monster to take revenge on the Iranians for throwing out the Shah. and then, like any good monster in a horror movie, Saddam turned on us.

Well a case can be made that we turned on Saddam. The crisis with Kuwait had been building up over several months and Saddam asked the US Ambassador about the US position. Had president Bush told Saddam in no uncertain terms that we would defend Kuwait as if we had mutual defense treaty with them, I'm sure Saddam would not have invaded the tiny Kingdom.

 

[g5000]

Irbil (Erbil, Arbil), Kurdistan (Northern Iraq) is a city in Northern Iraq that is thriving now that Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is over. Of course, this is something that the anti-Christian, pro-Obama media does not want to tell you.

The only bigotry around here and in the hack media is toward Muslims.

Kurds are mostly Sunni Muslim, by the way, followed by Shia Muslim. Christians are a minority.

Kurdistan is a multicultural entity. Something deeply frowned upon by the faux right wingers here.

 

[boilermaker55]

Because someone is getting rich off tax payers money from the USA.

Kurdistan is sitting on top of vast oil reserves, they could finance themselves if they were their own country.

So why do they keep shaking down us for money?

 

[Misty]

The Kurds took measures for their independence and then a dictator gased innocent civilians. You're the only one shedding a tear for Saddam.

Where did I shed a tear for Saddam?

We didn't go to war because we gave a **** about the Kurds. We went to war because the Zionists wanted Saddam gone and the Oil Companies wanted access to that oil. I'm sorry if you are so ******* gullible that you really think ANYONE gave **** one about the Kurds.

I'm sorry if you really think the government gives a flying **** about you. All they care about is money and power and votes.

 

[Misty]

Do you remember this was a war conceived on lies and trumped up information.

Irbil (Erbil, Arbil), Kurdistan (Northern Iraq) is a city in Northern Iraq that is thriving now that Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is over. Of course, this is something that the anti-Christian, pro-Obama media does not want to tell you.



Here are some comments from YT users:

I live in Erbil and when I first moved to Erbil in 2007 it was really boring and like a desert but in the past 6 years Erbil improved really fast and now it's the most beautiful country I know and also I know that what I'm about to say right makes no deal with what I said first but the cafe and the supermarket is all in Royal Mall

I wish Erbil become the example of all middle east city, peace, loving and respectful no matter what or who you are, religion or race ... blessings to all Kurdistan, hope for the best.

Kurds throw off the chains of evil Islam which was forced on you by mohammeds killers, and truly become free!!

omfg ***** KURDISTAN isn't a MUSLIM COUNTRY

we kurdish dont even have the word racisim we dont bleive in that word we think everyone is equal

I think Erbil is a very safe and nice place to live in, people are helpful and not overbearing...shopping is decent, though more international brands are welcome!!

Kurdistan can be the newest, modern and democratic nation not to mention it is strategically located in the Middle East Region.

There is no discrimination or racisim in Kurdistan absolutely

Technically no, their is a region in northern Iraq where the kurds live. They want independence but currently geopolitics wont allow that. But they are independant in all but name, they have a government, an army and a rich culture.

Erbil is one of the friendliest cities I have ever been to. I would absolutely LOVE to go back!

Women are free to go anywhere within any part of Kurdistan. There are no restrictions and lack of women in certain regions is a precaution taken by the women themselves for respect and safety reasons.

LONG LIVE KURDISTAN!
from Israel

Israel support free Kurdistan - good luck, hope Gd protect you.

I'm kurdish from Arbil and in Kurdistan everybody love america and american peoples

You'll notice that the Kurds are enjoying great prosperity. Though, it is greatly threatened by the Obama sanctioned rise of Syrian Rebels and ISIS.

OP Title Note: Anyone that knows me knows that I'm not a partisan and would not try to truly paint GWB as a grand hero. I speak somewhat tongue n' cheek with the title. Though, it is a response to all the liberal propaganda that the Iraq War was a waste. IMO, had Bush really been interested in doing the right thing, Kurdistan would be its own country right now.

Would you trade 4000 lives for each city in the ME we could make a bit more pleasant?

You are one sick ****.

Listen i kind of like your intelegent liberal posts
But on this one you are so wrong, do you think 400,000 Americans death were in vain in world war II? You do know 72 million plus died in that war
WW2 Statistics

Yes those 4,000 deaths were worth it.

I don't remember the lies unless you are calling these people liars.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. 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..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. 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..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

They turn a blind eye to this and the fact that many dems, including Hillary, voted for military action.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Okay...first off, it's hacky to say that Saddam was a stabalizing force.

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

From

"Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"

George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft
Time (2 March 1998)

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq

I'm sorrry.....but did I ever say that GBI made the right call? Also, it's widely known that the concern was countries like Iran taking more land....He's not implying that Saddam was a stabilizing force. Nice try, hack.

Of course he was. That's quite a cough you have.

Tyrants are not stabilizing forces. But coming from a guy who supports Obama, I can see why you might think that.

 

[JoeB131]

Tyrants are not stabilizing forces. But coming from a guy who supports Obama, I can see why you might think that.

Of course they are. That's why the US supported Marcos, the Shah, Somoza, Pinochet, Mubato, Mubarek, Franco, and, yes, yes... wait for it... Saddam.