ok I will ask the British when I see them about why they been so naughty, and misled US, meanwhile try not to be misled again like you been misled in Iraqi war, as I remember it was about weapons of mass destruction, then it became suddenly "liberty for Iraqi people" after no weapons been found, and then after Iraqi people showed they are against this foreign existence on their soil, it became to "fight them over there before they fight us over here" and now to help building a democracy, after hundreds of thousands been killed and millions left the country for a safe place, about 1 million Iraqi in Jordan alone. for Iraq democracy, since it came by force it's no longer a democracy, I m for a transfer of power to Iraqi people, and I am for real free elections, but this won't be possible as long as there are foreign troops on their lands.
1. Everyone thought Saddam had weapons. Why? Because he wanted them to. Would you want to live next door to a hostile Iran unless they thought you had underground warehouses full of new and improved ultra mega whipass? 2. I make a list a pros and cons when deciding to go to mcdonalds. How complex do you think the calculus was that led to going into Iraq? There were a lot of reasons and justifications to go and many reasons not to. It was a complicated decision and I'm sure it wasn't taken lightly. Unfortunately Bush(even if he could speak well) did not have the luxury of laying out all of the complexities of why we should go to Iraq. It's sad but these days you have to dumb down your speech into groups of words that make good sound bites. But there were a lot of good reasons to invade Iraq. 2a. They invaded their neighbors on more than one occassion and brutally murdered and tortured thousands if not millions of their own people. 2b. After one of the invasions they threw much of the world into war against them they refused to carry out their obligations to transparently rid themselves of weapons and weapons programs. Whether he actually had the programs is irrelevant, he had an obligation to be transparent and let the process proceed, even if it meant his own people and his neighbors stopped fearing him. 2c. Dictatorships have a very tenuous stability. They may appear stable while the dictator is strong and at the top of his game, but it is still very brittle and could crumble at any time. Having an Iraq that is mostly shiia and a hostile and ambitious Iran next door is not a good situation. Anything happens to Saddam, things could get much worse not only for the Iraqi people and those in the region, but for the world. I personally shudder at the idea of Iran controlling 35% of the world's oil supply and an dominance in the region to exercise control of the flow of 40% of the world's oil supply through the straight of hormuz. 2d. The Arab middle east needs a powerful democratic state. Nobody likes having to deal with these autocratic idiots. If Iraq works out as it appears to be doing then millions of people around the middle east are going to have something serious to think about, like do they want what they have in Iraq. The dictators in the region are also going to have more pressure about opening up their governments to the wants of their people. Democracy in Iraq is a big step towards broader democracy in the region. It's either do something drastic like this to bring about change to bring the region in step with the rest of the world or wait for them to change completely on their own, which may be never, and continue to deal with the dictators in the meantime so you can criticize us for it. It's not only possible but it's happened four times. Democracy is coming to the arab middle east, and it's wearing a skirt.
WMD was just one reason to go after Saddam. Remember that the US did not have a peace treaty with Iraq ending the 1991 Gulf War. Also, Iraq was still under economic sanctions aimed at the demilitarisation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Saddam brought on his own destruction for abusing the Oil-for-Food Programme.
I m not sure, why you troubled yourself with this lengthy post, are you trying to convince me or somebody that Iraq war was justified? if so then you would do better to convince Americans, your people first, before you try to convince others, for elections, I do not think Iraq wants such a type of democracy where it is forced on them by jets, tanks, war, we will call the elections free, when the country is free, I do not think they want that type of elections either that brought Bush to power twice, using cheat in some cases, master these things in your own country, then you can start to "export" them, by being an example, not with this bad reputation worldwide.
WMD's was not any of the reasons, it was only used for American local consumption, but if you check more in this you will find that this war was planned even before Bush reach power.
Because it's a complicated subject that warrants thoughtfulness. A "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" type of simplistic thinking will not do. The world isn't that simple. They didn't want what they had with Saddam either. They were happy we were there before the sectarian violence broke out and warring islamic factions started murdering each other and before al qaeda came in to agitate the situation. I believe they will be happy over the long run when the scars of war have faded. It's either export democracy or let the influence of dictators and religious extremists in the region export their way of life to the rest of the world. The globe is a small place and growing ever smaller. We all have a stake in what happens in the middle east and in their systems of government and how they treat their people. What happens there effects us all whether we admit it or bury our heads in the sand and deny it. The countless terrorist attacks in the world show this. The needless wars for oil in the region show this(Saddam attacking Iran and then Kuwait). The religious extremism in Hamas shows this, who's official charter embraces debunked conspiracy theories about the jews and also makes negotiation impossible by stating that a jewish state cannot exist. And we've been a pretty good example of democracy in the world. For over 200 years we've been free and we've chosen our leaders through peaceful democratic means. We're not perfect but we're about as good as it gets. This doesn't matter. The idiots in the middle east aren't going to look at examples of democracy and civilized behavior in other parts of the world, decide they want it and start singing kumbaya. If the crux of your argument against the US is that we've supported dictators then you should be happy that we are trying to spread democracy in a part of the world that sorely needs it and hope that our efforts succeed so that maybe it will spread in a more organic way to the rest of the region. Really the only way I can see democracy spreading amongst the arab world is to forcefully plant a seed and hope it takes hold and spreads on its own from there on.
the simplistic thinking, is when you think you can bring democracy by wars and killing. We can't generalize, some wanted Saddam, some did not want him at all, and some wanted Saddam but did not want the conditions that they reached, simplistic thinking is when you say they did not want Saddam and understanding it as they wanted US to remove him. you can't give what you do not own, and I do not think Bush was democratically elected, and I also do not think that the system in which elections is done there can bring whom people want to power, with simplistic thinking it may. The globe is not small, and it can't be seen from one angle, what worked in US, even if by using some cheating, does not mean it will work everywhere. freedom, civilized, and so on, are such flexible words, it's also of simplistic thinking to set a one definition for each then try to force it on others, it's also of simplistic and I can say stupid thinking to say "the idiots in the Middle East" are not looking just because you do not know them or see them, they been looking and know about the other sometimes more than the other know about himself, and in many cases they found things that are worth to be learned, and they also found lot's of garbage.
No, it's not simplistic or assumption on my part. Reliable polls show that most Iraqis were happy after we overthrew Saddam. The unhappiness came as muslims started murdering each other and terrorist groups began wreaking havoc on the society and creating an obstacle towards a stable and free Iraq. I'm sure you're outraged at all the muslims that murdered each other in Iraq, who murdered innocents and who posed an obstacle to Iraq being a stable country. No offense, but it doesn't matter what you think. You think that the only way to peace is for Israel to not exist and you probably believe in the zionist conspiracy theories that Hamas references in their charter. That's the best argument for us not going to Iraq and a valid one. Just because we believe in democracy and freedom and because we cherish them doesn't mean that everyone wants it, will accept it and do what it takes to keep it. But it's got to be better than sitting back and letting a region of the world live as they did 2000 years in a day and age when you can fly anywhere in the world in less than a day, where trade is global and where the maintenance and progress of civilization as we know it relies on certain rules and standards of living being observed. You accuse us of supporting dictators. Are these people not idiots? Was Saddam not an idiot, who attacked two of his neighbors, killed his own people and refused to submit to certain conditions to ensure peace after he got his ass whooped? You showed a picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand, surely you weren't implying that Saddam was the middle eastern Mr. Rogers in order to prove how admirable the US's alliances are/were?
I am outraged at anybody who kill innocents be it Muslim or not, and be the victims Muslims or not, I hope you have seen how many innocents been killed in this unjustified war, and in many other wars launched by US ( to spread democracy?) it's like yeah, let's spread democracy and if they said no for our democracy let's kill them, there are many who did not want either Saddam, or US. you say again Iraqis been happy when Saddam been removed, this is inaccurate, many Iraqis been happy that he been removed, and many Iraqis been unhappy that he been remove, this is very basic and in every country, many for example been happy that Obama won, and many also been unhappy that he won, and of those Iraqi's who been happy that Saddam been removed, there are many also who were very unhappy with the invasion, if Iraqis been happy that Saddam been removed, why they fought each other? some saw on those who helped US to invade Iraq traitors, some of those who been put by US wanted to revenge from all Ba'ath party and remove them from any process ...etc and if it was true that Iraqis been happy as you said, after Saddam been removed, why then US did not withdraw? ok, Saddam gone now, Iraqis are so "happy" so would make logic that they withdraw after the "mission been accomplished" I am not offended, if I to be offended of what people post here then I would have not came since the beginning, even when they try to offend, You said this about me once and you got a direct reply, yet you repeat it again, what are you trying to say by repeating the same always? let me know if you need a link to that post when you said similar things.. The argument is not just "with us" or "against us" and it's not as you try to imply, nobody in the world like to live without freedom, if US led a war to destroy Iraq and Iraqi resisted, does not mean they hate freedom, or do not want democracy, this is a simplistic thinking again, and they have passed that point when they thought that US would bring freedom, or liberty, so, they fought, of course, it is normal for the aggressor to label everybody who say no, as an enemy of freedom and democracy when the fact is by even saying so then you limit Iraqi people freedom. when there is a transfer of power, withdrawal of foreign troops, then it will be the time for elections, and these elections must be watched by independent parties, then we can say, Iraq is free and democratic. US do support dictators, this is not accusation, this is a fact, I m not about to discuss Saddam and what he did, but Saddam is an example of the dictators that been supported by US, when Iraqis revolted in 1991 to remove him, US been there and did nothing to support them.
The first poll is from 2004, the second from 2006, even after much of the sectarian violence had been suffered. Question: Thinking about any hardships you may have suffered since the U.S./British invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not? Sources: http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/iraq_poll/flash.htm http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf The main ones who didn't think they were better after the invasion than before were the sunni, because they would no longer be the ruling minority. Yeah, overthrowing Saddam and then leaving immediately would have been smart, especially if you want Iran to take over.
Because of ousting of Sadam, Iran is now twice as strong. Nice work Bush&Cheney! Sadam knows how to deal with terrorist and had done a good job of it.
Yeah, way to go Iran. You have 150,000 troops of the world's finest fighting force next store protecting and helping to build a new democracy. You got them right where you want them, Iran!
I guess it is the same reason why no other Arab states help Palestine much - no one wants to be involved with fanatical terrorists.
Both Russia and Iran were twice as stong due to $150 barrel oil. Now they are only 1/3 as strong. The same is true for Hamas and Hezbollah.
I didn't know there are opposition in Egypt too and they are doing something ...But in Egypt arrested 56 people during protests in sympathy with the plight of Gaza Palestinians. The protesters marched demanding Egypt open its border with the Gaza Strip . Egypt Brotherhood: Arrests during Gaza march Maybe they were reading DP P&R and started that protest lol....