Iraqi's Should Be Thanking George Bush

Ten years since the War on Terror ... seems like yesterday .... with that being said ... it seems the Iraqi people should be thanking George Bush ... After all he did give them democracy and set them FREE.

+++

 

All the ones the war criminals didn't kill should, I suppose, be glad they're alive, since so many aren't. Those who survived Belsen were in much the same case!

 

free to have no sewage treatment, no electricity and to get blown up with car bombs!

 

Partially True. The Iraqi's who didn't have family or friends killed by the US probably should be thankful. I'm not thankful. Why did my cousin have to go over there and die so that Iraqi people's lives could improve a little?

 

You just posted in the other thread (http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/294580-bush-tampered-intel-report-saying-saddam-not-threat-2.html#post1062424041) where I stated that Iraq citizens are being slaughtered for being christian. They shouldn't be thanking him, we should be sending him over there so those folks can do the same thing to him as they did to Saddam.

 

I respectfully disagree. There were other motives behind the Second Iraq War, there was a lot of money that was promised to Bush by various defense contractors; the whole "freeing them" seemed superficial to me.

In addition, Iraq started trading its oil in Euros instead of US Dollars in 2000. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a major reason that the Bush administration felt it had to go to war with Iraq.

 

You still don't know? It was fully explained in 1998 and 2003.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it was more like

(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.
(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.
( On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.

 

The thing is that "appropriate action" is a very vague term. Could Bosnian civil war like air strikes have worked without landing a single troop in Iraq? Who knows?

 

At the end of the day, the Iraqis don't have to live with Saddam Hussein anymore.

 

No............Clinton's plan failed, Bush succeeded. But the fact remains the reasons for Saddam's removal were established in 1998, long before then Governor Bush even announced he was running for President.

It didn't start with Bush you know.

- - - Updated - - -

And neither do Iraq's neighbors, the regions or the rest of the world.

 

Which is on par with the typical liberal - Clintonian doctrine: "The buck never got here."

 

yeah, instead they have to live with Iraq in iran's camp!!

 

Thank you Obama.

 

yeah, Obama converted all those Iraqis to shiism!! lol

 

Which plan are you referring to? The Bosnian airstrikes? :/

 

By all means. Let's allow the Iraqi people to express their sincerest feelings up close and personal.

What better way than Dubya strutting through Sadr City to afford some dazzling photo-ops?

 

and over 4,000 families in America don't get to live with their loved ones anymore either. not a very good trade off if you love the United States Of America.

 

The Bush's two-trillion dollar, fraudulently-pretexted nation-building fiasco is acknowledged as a monumental policy disaster by most people, including most Americans, and the GOP affording him all the adulation they normally reserve for James K Polk at their party conventions is ample testimony to his achievement. But whether the Iraqi people get an opportunity to express their feelings is his decision. Such a cathartic outpouring would be quite the spectacle.

"Hey! Isn't that a colossal pyramid of Ducati Model 271 shoes that suddenly appeared on the parade itinerary?"

 

Good for them. I'd rather have the trillion dollars and 80,000 casualties the war cost us, not to mention the cost of paying for the veterans' bills for decades to come.

 

I think anybody who's not a hardened cynic should at least be able to acknowledge this on some level. Good post, OP.

 

I'm sure if some foreign power made up reasons to invade our country to change our government and in the process caused a million deaths (the proportional equivalent of the Iraqi population who died) and multiples more in injuries, Americans would be very grateful to that foreign power too.

 

Not only that, I've been hearing from my mother-in-laws family members, over in Iraq, that the going statements that they'd prefer him back. Why? Because at least with him in power, he kept the country in check. Yeah he was a vicious dictator, I don't think a soul would deny that. However, folks are being brutally massacred over there. Add to the fact of all of the money we spent, the amount of lives we lost, nothing about that mission was anything but a disaster.

Instead, it was more about oil. No one in the Bush Administration, or anyone other Presidential administration, cared about the folks of Iraq. They simply wanted to ensure the flow of oil continued and was at a price that was suitable for them. Money isn't everything...

 

The only level I will acknowledge this is that Saddam was a vicious dictator. To state the Iraq citizens are better off with him gone, I highly disagree with that statement.

If any other world government came to America, took down Obama and his administration, they withdraw their troops, and the predominate religion would begin killing off anyone that wasn't their religion, in the US. From there, those who weren't of the dominate religion couldn't find work and had to flee the country in order to find a safe haven for themselves, would you consider that a good thing?

If we were to help 'liberate' their country, how about we just look to open up our borders and allow those folks to come to our country? If it was such a messed up life for them, we should've fixed our horrible immigration process and allowed them to get into our country. Let those folks do what they want to do in their country. If those folks don't want to leave, it's their choice. Now because we completely destroyed their country, they have no choice. Bush only gave them one way, his way.

Don't try to patronize everyone into believing 'Iraq citizens should thank Bush for freeing them'. It's all a bunch of propaganda bs. I'd say let Bush go over to Iraq himself and let them thank him personally. I'm sure they've got a lot more shoes they would just 'die' to throw at him.

 

I honestly think the Iraq war was a mistake. Our armed forces were never meant for "nation building". I believe both Bush Sr and Bush Jr said as much when they were running for president. We would be better off spending defense money for "defense" than on jaunts through sovereign nations in bloody quests of our own inventions.

If people of a nation want freedom, they should take it upon themselves. I hate to be so brunt, but there's no need to gloss over mistakes made in hopes to render them any less than mistakes made.

Can you honestly say the world is a better place because we intervened in Iraq... or for that matter - Vietnam? Korea? Afghanistan?

I can't.

It is a different place but better? More bitter than better. Bitter at us for interfering. I don't think they have to like us but the fact is they can't even respect us because we don't respect them enough to let them police themselves, which allows them the self respect that we strip away when we overstep their sovereign boundaries.

At the very least, let the neighboring nations help, rather than us. We have no business in other nations' business.

 

Why would they be taking down the Obama administration? Does he have rape rooms that we don't know about? I'm a pretty hardcore conservative and there are a ton of things Obama is doing to mess up this country, but he's not torturing or raping or killing his people. So any comparisons to Saddam Hussein end with the name Hussein.

They're half a world away. Why should we bring them all here? That doesn't make any sense. The American immigration process could probably be cleaned up a bit, I agree. But that's an entirely different topic.

So because it didn't pan out perfectly, we should throw the baby out with the bath water? That's ridiculous. I'm not saying it was a perfectly executed plan. But most people are just knee-jerk cynics when it comes to Iraq. Reacting in a reflexively hostile anti-Bush manner for no other reason than because they've been condiditioned to. Context is important. And no matter how you slice it, the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in it.