Ducky, im going to make this short and simple for ur liberal brain to understand. Democracy is key. Bush and congress sent troops in there to take out Saddam, we did. But we aren't done yet. Not until we kill all of their terrorist leaders. They will run out of steam. You are so influenced by the media, you believe everything they say. But you don't live in America, so how can you say that Bush was a terrible president? It's ignorance at its most extreme form.

"wait what? did you know pears are like apples, you just need to cut the tops off.
you still havent told me a reason why USA chose Iraq to invade rather then the countless other countries that could use with help."

This is actually a very complicated question and has a lot to do with UN politics.

Iraq had an Oil for Food program which many people knew was corrupt. Iraq also had the support of many UN countries within the UN because of how open and willing they were to be monitored by the UN.

When the UN tried to monitor the supposed chemical weapons that Iraq had, Iraq refused to let the inspectors move about freely. Eventually, this got to the point where the only thing the UN could say was, "let us inspect you, or we bomb you."

Saddam chose the option to be bombed instead of inspected.

Bush could not allow the UN to be just some meaningless organization, and felt the need to put teeth behind UN's resolutions that they agreed with. You can see that the same thing happened with North Korea, except in North Korea they just straight came out and said, yes we have weapons, we are evil, deal with it.

Saddam however said , "I have no weapons, wink wink, and I'll even show you that I don't have weapons, in this one particular room, and stop picking on me, I'm such a nice guy!"

tis bliss



democracy is key...

hamas was democratically elected
Iranian right winger hardline president was recently democratically elected over the more liberal "lets open up to the world" guy
hitler was democratically elected albeit with some force and encouragement...

democracy is nice, but when it disagrees with you, it disagrees with you, and USA is allowed double standards because democracy is key... wait a second...
my actual point is that those 3 words linked to nothing you said afterwards

if you wanted to kill terrorist leaders. go to afghanistan/use pakistan to clean out theirs. toppling Saddam let Al Qaeda into Iraq with promises of US troops stationed there far from home.
you cannot dispute this. i dare you to try.

yes, i am influenced by the media, not that much mainstream stuff though. i prefer the internets and reading the news. or better yet, fark.com <- puts a spin on news around the world hilarious
as for you... im surprised you even have the news with your shallow thinking.

i can say bush is a bad president just like you can say hitler was a bad person. no, neither of us lived under his ruling, yes, we can see his policies and his doctrines and his dogma and most importantly, what he left. he left europe on fire with million dead. he commited genocide to millions of jews. bush made some bad policies, therefore i may call bush a bad president. a poll stated he was worse then NIXON. i can use outside sources and statistics. i can poke at his policies without feeling the effects of such.

you want to pull the xenophobic card again or will you submit to DUCKAIIII!!!!

unlike you apollo, dasperewfenf brought forth something... will read later and respond later. for now... THE SNOW!!

the worst media of all is the internetz. People put so much "spin" on it. It's not even the real story any more. And Reagen and Bush (Sr and Jr) all had the same policy:"Any foreign nation that is found to harboring terrorists, we will find you." So did we originally belong in Iraq? No. But if al queida (or however they spell it :3) never loacted itself in Iraq, and if Saddam hadnt leaked info that he had WMD's we wouldve left them alone after Saddam fell. We have troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq. We are chasing down terrorist leaders in all countries that they are suspected to be in.

Al Qaeda.
they were located in USA for a while.

saddam made it clear with his foreing policy that Al Qaeda wasnt to be accepted. if USA's intelligence couldnt see that or see through his bluff then WTF IS THE CIA DOING? water boarding randoms until they confess that turkey has nukes?

please. define terrorist in your own words, now use the definition USA law uses.

now remove the part that says USA terrorist efforts arent terrorism if they are made legal by congress

i say, remove that part of the law and hunt down ALL terrorists... ALL :3

silly liberal thinking

i can just look at the bush administration from the outside, and how people look at him here, and in the contry i live in (norway) there might be 1% (or less) suporting bush, and suporting he's war.

and i can understand why the iraq people fight back against the americans, if america had invaded my contry i would fight, and others too, a outside threat gather the people to fight together, and this is exactly what bush won he's election on, that he would keep on hunting terrorists and keep the contry safe.

what he might not realise is him interfering everywhere create more hate towards america and more people to go against him calling it terrorist actions as long as there is a contry in the middle east doing the acts and not the western contrys.

This is interesting, because the people of Iraq never fought back against the Americans. The people of Iraq fought against other people of Iraq, and Americans were there trying to sort it out. In fact they are still fighting against each other even after America has left!

not fighting the americans?
then how do u sugest the american troops died then after saddam got captured and killed, they all fell and hit their head?
and there have to have been some one killing those 150000 american soldiers, and i bet it were not only Al Qaida but also the iraq army fighting them(i can understand them fighting back), and if the iraq people hated him so much why didn't the militery turn on saddam and help the americans and UN

Lets look at the facts please:
3,463 American soldiers were killed in combat since the start of the war.
2,830 of those died After the united states gave control to the new Iraqi government in 2004.

7,313 Iraqi security force members were killed in that same time. I.e. Iraqis whom we consider on "our side". These 7,313 where killed by suicide bombers, road side bombs, and combat situations.

During that time, 45,581 civilians were killed (mostly through internal ethnic violence)

This is not counting any of the 19,000+ enemies that died (1,300 + which were suicide bombers) , or the 25,000+ enemies that were detained.

So no, the people of Iraq are not fighting the Americans, they are fighting against terrorists and extremists who don't want Iraq to have a democratic country.

To address the "WMD Bluff" point: Do not glorify the American Intelligence Services. These idiots missed thousands of our troops about to invade Afghanistan.

Yes, spread democracy! Sure. People need democracy, even though they are dying and have nothing to eat. Being able to elect a government that does things only to benefit themselves is much more important than eating or living. Sure. I agree with you.

When did it become "spreading democracy". First it was "WMDs", then it became "Revenge for 9/11" after the WMDs were proven to be non-existent(take into fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that Al-Qaeda cells infiltrated Iraq only after the invasion" and now it's "spreading democracy" using bombs?


Edit: "Terrorists"? These people don't want to "stop democracy in iraq", they want Americans to get out of their country.



Why doesn't America spread democracy to countries that need it? Iraqis had food and were alive without democracy, and now they are dead. Without democracy they had security, they had their homes, their families and their lives. Now no one has security, half don't have homes, most lost many members of their families and over a million civilians are dead.

Good job, America, way to spread Freedom.