PDA

View Full Version : Iraq Timeline



DolFan31
06-10-2004, 01:19 PM
Here's a site that has a timeline of the events of Iraq. It even has stuff from pre-Gulf War I.

http://www.iraqtimeline.com

Here's a sampling:


1980
Osama bin Laden provides help for the Afghan Mujaheddin and the CIA. Iran-Iraq War. The GOP's "October Surprise" leads to the election of Ronald Reagan as president.

1981
Hostages released. Reagan shot. Egypt's Anwar Sadat assassinated.

1982
US covert support of Iraq in its war with Iran. Sun Myung Moon becomes a media mogul and an ally of the GOP. Arbusto Oil and Spectrum 7.

1983
Promis/Inslaw scandal. 241 Marines die in Lebanon. Reagan envoy Donald Rumsfeld meets with Hussein to shore up US-Iraqi relations.

1984
Rumsfeld gives US approval for Iraqi chemical warfare. Osama bin Laden peddles arms and opium with CIA approval. Iran-Contra scandal brewing.

1985
CIA recruits radical Muslims to fight in Afghanistan. US swaps arms to Iran for hostages.

1986
The Clintons extricate themselves from Whitewater. Reagan illegally funds Nicaraguan Contras. Chernobyl. Harken Oil. Iran-Contra scandal breaks; Dick Cheney protects Vice President Bush. Reagan administration successfully blunts Iran-Contra investigation.

1987
Reagan admits involvement in Iran-Contra. USS Stark attacked by Iraq; US blames Iran. Robert Bork blocked from US Supreme Court, raising ire of conservatives.

1988
Rush Limbaugh begins broadcasting nationally. Operation Anfal in Iraq kills thousands of Kurds. Iran-Contra indictments. Halabjah massacre. Soviets begin withdrawing from Afghanistan. US directly attacks Iranian forces. Echelon launched. Al-Qaeda founded. Iran-Iraq war ends. Pan Am plane bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Islamic terrorists. George H.W. Bush becomes President.

1989
Prescott Bush ties with Japanese crime lords. Bush escalates secret support of Iraq. BCCI investigation. George W. Bush buys into Texas Rangers. Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing. Newt Gingrich successfully forces Jim Wright out of power. Berlin Wall falls. Noriega regime in Panama overthrown by US.

Im ready for the NeoCons to come on here and flame the site. :calm:

Fin_Fanatic
06-10-2004, 05:21 PM
cant believe everything the liberal media feeds you..... its amazing, i must have missed all the POSITIVE things happening over in iraq, either that or they forgot to mention them. i'm guessing the latter occured. and incurable bacteria infections?? sounds like chemical warfare to me.... the same thing happened after the Gulf War except more people lived, they just had to deal with the effect of the weapons on their nervous systems.

DolFan31
06-10-2004, 05:38 PM
cant believe everything the liberal media feeds you..... its amazing, i must have missed all the POSITIVE things happening over in iraq, either that or they forgot to mention them. i'm guessing the latter occured. and incurable bacteria infections?? sounds like chemical warfare to me.... the same thing happened after the Gulf War except more people lived, they just had to deal with the effect of the weapons on their nervous systems.

Look man, Im sure theyre are positive things happening in Iraq, but unfourtantely the negatives outweigh the positives, in short and long term. And I didnt get that website through the "liberal" media, which was by the way, pro-war. How liberal.

Fin_Fanatic
06-10-2004, 05:47 PM
Look man, Im sure theyre are positive things happening in Iraq, but unfourtantely the negatives outweigh the positives, in short and long term. And I didnt get that website through the "liberal" media, which was by the way, pro-war. How liberal.
thats my point. no matter what we do over there that helps or could be seen by the world as the US accomplishing something, it will never make the news. and while i agree the negatives are bad, and i'm talking about the loss of our soldiers, i think they would rather have something in the news about what they accomplish not how they died.

ohall
06-10-2004, 05:54 PM
Look man, Im sure theyre are positive things happening in Iraq, but unfourtantely the negatives outweigh the positives, in short and long term. And I didnt get that website through the "liberal" media, which was by the way, pro-war. How liberal.

No they don't. Only ppl who have an agenda would think freeing 25 million ppl from a madman would say the negatives out weigh the positives!

The liberal press was only pro war pre-invasion because the public was for the the war and no soldiers had died and they knew in time they would have enough deaths to push their agenda.

Oliver...

paul13
06-10-2004, 06:40 PM
Come on people how can you not say the positives in Iraq don’t out weigh the negatives we just freed millions of people from a abusive regime. Saddam has tortured these people and has threaten to kill most of there families if they rebel . I agree the price of the those dead American soldiers is a high price to pay but they gave there lives to better ensure theses oppressed people would have a brighter and more secure future.

DolFan31
06-10-2004, 09:36 PM
No they don't. Only ppl who have an agenda would think freeing 25 million ppl from a madman would say the negatives out weigh the positives!

The liberal press was only pro war pre-invasion because the public was for the the war and no soldiers had died and they knew in time they would have enough deaths to push their agenda.

Oliver...

That doesnt make the media liberal. You're saying what Ive been thinking for awhile now about the media. Perhaps the media doesnt have a bias, perhaps the media just goes by polls. For example: If a president has high approval rating, the press wont touch him. But as a soon as his rating drops, the press jumps all over it, no matter who it is. The press feeds of negativity, thats their life supply. If there's a negative story about a popular president, its likely it wont get reported. But if the president's popularity drops, the press is more likely to take a chance on it. Doesnt make the press liberal or conservative, just scumbags.

Make sense to you?

ohall
06-10-2004, 10:16 PM
That doesnt make the media liberal. You're saying what Ive been thinking for awhile now about the media. Perhaps the media doesnt have a bias, perhaps the media just goes by polls. For example: If a president has high approval rating, the press wont touch him. But as a soon as his rating drops, the press jumps all over it, no matter who it is. The press feeds of negativity, thats their life supply. If there's a negative story about a popular president, its likely it wont get reported. But if the president's popularity drops, the press is more likely to take a chance on it. Doesnt make the press liberal or conservative, just scumbags.

Make sense to you?

It's a fact the news media is majority liberal. I'm not surprised based on that you would feel the way you do about them. I agree with your assessment with most of the media out there They are scumbags.

Oliver...

finfan54
06-11-2004, 05:49 AM
Here's a site that has a timeline of the events of Iraq. It even has stuff from pre-Gulf War I.

http://www.iraqtimeline.com

Here's a sampling:


Im ready for the NeoCons to come on here and flame the site. :calm:


why did you stop at 1989? hmmmmmmmmmmmm. revisionist history.

finfan54
06-11-2004, 05:53 AM
Look man, Im sure theyre are positive things happening in Iraq, but unfourtantely the negatives outweigh the positives, in short and long term. And I didnt get that website through the "liberal" media, which was by the way, pro-war. How liberal.

you watch, Iraq is going to take over that region someday. and be on the good side. and it will be becuase goerge w bush had vision and was not afraid of losing some points in a poll over it. nlike slick willy who rules by the poll, unless of course it means his first legislation is "gays in the military". how lame.

ohall
06-11-2004, 11:00 AM
you watch, Iraq is going to take over that region someday. and be on the good side. and it will be becuase goerge w bush had vision and was not afraid of losing some points in a poll over it. nlike slick willy who rules by the poll, unless of course it means his first legislation is "gays in the military". how lame.

Yup just like most DEM's said Reagan was out of his mind because he thought we could beat Russia without firing one bullet. It would have been so much easier to just go after the specific ppl who did 9/11. But anyone that has any foresight understands that type of simplistic reply to terrorism will just enable and in time make those terrorist the winners in this struggle for freedom and democracy throughout the world.

Oliver...

DolFan31
06-11-2004, 11:18 AM
why did you stop at 1989? hmmmmmmmmmmmm. revisionist history.

Because its a sampling. Im not going to post the entire timeline.

Phinzone
06-11-2004, 11:49 AM
It's a fact the news media is majority liberal. I'm not surprised based on that you would feel the way you do about them. I agree with your assessment with most of the media out there They are scumbags.

Oliver...

Yeah, it's a deffinite fact that the Media is by a vast majority Liberal. It was funny, because this reporter for my local station did some digging. He found out that the unemployment rates at the lowest part of Clinton's term, and Bush's term were at almost the SAME level (bush actually had a TINY edge in employment).

But what he found, was that there were less than 20 article's written about how bad the job market was when Clinton was in office, and only THREE were negative.

In contrast, Bush who had a slightly higher employment rate was blasted by more than 70 articles, only THIRTEEN of them were POSITIVE.

That's all the proof I can offer off the top of my head, other than watching the election coverage during the "chad" incident. The media focues a hell of a lot more on Jeb being governor and how it just might skew the recount, than they did on Democrats handing out cigarettes to homeless people in return for votes in New York, and the Democratic recount official caught with a ballot punching machine in her car. :shakeno: now...had that been a Republican with a ballot puncher in her car during a recount, you can take it to the bank that that would have been the headline for weeks, as they worked to create some cockamaney network of deceit.

DeDolfan
06-11-2004, 03:06 PM
Well........................ a big case for going to war was because Sadaam was killing so many of his own people. OK, fine, but WHEN was it he started killing them? Was it since he invaded Kuwait???????? Hmmmmmmmm

The_Philster
06-11-2004, 05:10 PM
Well........................ a big case for going to war was because Sadaam was killing so many of his own people. OK, fine, but WHEN was it he started killing them? Was it since he invaded Kuwait???????? Hmmmmmmmm
I'm thinking it was long before that myself.

paul13
06-11-2004, 09:05 PM
Come-on killing all those people is on just wether it be yesterday or a decade a go.

DeDolfan
06-12-2004, 10:54 AM
I'm thinking it was long before that myself.

B-I-N-G-O !!! Ya just won a cee-gar !!! ;) :lol:

DeDolfan
06-12-2004, 10:56 AM
Come-on killing all those people is on just wether it be yesterday or a decade a go.


Point i was making is that Sadaam was doing all those things while we were rubbing elbows with him in the 80s. ;) Thing is, it wasn't a case back then when we were buds with him cuz apparently there was another [more lucrative] agenda perhaps??

DolFan31
06-12-2004, 11:24 AM
Point i was making is that Sadaam was doing all those things while we were rubbing elbows with him in the 80s. ;) Thing is, it wasn't a case back then when we were buds with him cuz apparently there was another [more lucrative] agenda perhaps??

Like its not an issue how the Chinese and Saudi Arabians(who support terrorism) treat their people because their our buds. :shakeno:

The_Philster
06-12-2004, 12:37 PM
B-I-N-G-O !!! Ya just won a cee-gar !!! ;) :lol:
Could you make it a beer instead? I don't smoke. :tongue:

And technically speaking, we've been rubbing elbows with Saddam a lot longer than just the 80s...considering he was a hired assassin for the CIA back in 58 according to what I've heard.

DolFan31
06-12-2004, 01:38 PM
Could you make it a beer instead? I don't smoke. :tongue:

And technically speaking, we've been rubbing elbows with Saddam a lot longer than just the 80s...considering he was a hired assassin for the CIA back in 58 according to what I've heard.

Saddam hired to take out the old ruling party in Iraq pre-Baathist?

PhinPhan1227
06-13-2004, 12:46 PM
Like its not an issue how the Chinese and Saudi Arabians(who support terrorism) treat their people because their our buds. :shakeno:

Could you produce some evidence of the Saudi Government supporting terrorism? And if you want to bring up China we can always discuss Bill Clinton supplying them with missile technology.

DolFan31
06-13-2004, 12:58 PM
Could you produce some evidence of the Saudi Government supporting terrorism? And if you want to bring up China we can always discuss Bill Clinton supplying them with missile technology.

1. Most of the hijackers of the planes that hit 9/11 were Saudis.
2. Osama bin Laden himself is a Saudi.
3. bin Laden got most of his funding from Saudi Arabia.
4. The 9/11 Commission(the Senate not the new Congressional assembly) came up with a report on the disaster, with censored material that supposedly contained some sensitive information about our buds, the Saudis.

Wish I could provide hard evidence, but most of the evidence has been covered up.

About China, we can also talk about how Nixon was the one who became allies with them. By the way, how can we be friends with China and not Cuba?

PhinPhan1227
06-13-2004, 06:47 PM
1. Most of the hijackers of the planes that hit 9/11 were Saudis.
2. Osama bin Laden himself is a Saudi.
3. bin Laden got most of his funding from Saudi Arabia.
4. The 9/11 Commission(the Senate not the new Congressional assembly) came up with a report on the disaster, with censored material that supposedly contained some sensitive information about our buds, the Saudis.

Wish I could provide hard evidence, but most of the evidence has been covered up.

About China, we can also talk about how Nixon was the one who became allies with them. By the way, how can we be friends with China and not Cuba?

Oh...so because the Klan is populated by Americans...their leaders are Americans...their funding comes from Americans...and they have been investigated by American agencies....our Government runs and supports the Klan. Damn...Collin Powell is going to be PISSED when he finds out!!!
Oh, and rather than worrying about China, lets talk about Vietnam. John Kerry almost single handedly got relations with Vietnam normalized after the war. Forget about the POW's still held there...forget about the human rights abuses the Vietnamese government still perpetrates. Kerry jumped into bed with them as soon as he got back home. And best of all, his brother in law won all the contracts to rebuild the country as part of the bargain.

DolFan31
06-13-2004, 09:15 PM
Oh...so because the Klan is populated by Americans...their leaders are Americans...their funding comes from Americans...and they have been investigated by American agencies....our Government runs and supports the Klan. Damn...Collin Powell is going to be PISSED when he finds out!!!
Oh, and rather than worrying about China, lets talk about Vietnam. John Kerry almost single handedly got relations with Vietnam normalized after the war. Forget about the POW's still held there...forget about the human rights abuses the Vietnamese government still perpetrates. Kerry jumped into bed with them as soon as he got back home. And best of all, his brother in law won all the contracts to rebuild the country as part of the bargain.

Well Ill use your own words against you here..

Can you show us some evidence?

PhinPhan1227
06-13-2004, 10:07 PM
Asked for and recieved.....


"In 1991, the United States Senate created the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs to examine the possibility that U.S. POW/MIAs might still be held by the Vietnamese.

As chairman of the Select Committee, Kerry proved himself to be a masterful chameleon portraying to the public at large what appeared to be an unbiased approach to resolving the POW/MIA issue.

But, in reality, no one in the United States Senate pushed harder to bury the POW/MIA issue, the last obstacle preventing normalization of relations with Hanoi, than John Forbes Kerry.

In fact, his first act as chairman was to travel to Southeast Asia, where during a stopover in Bangkok, Thailand, he lectured the U.S. Chamber of Commerce there on the importance of lifting the trade embargo and normalizing relations with Vietnam.

In December of 1992, not long after Kerry was quoted in the world press stating "President Bush should reward Vietnam within a month for its increased cooperation in accounting for American MIAs," Vietnam announced it had granted Boston, Massachusetts based Colliers International, a contract worth billions. Colliers International became exclusive real estate agent representing Vietnam.

That deal alone put Colliers in a position to make tens of millions of dollars on the rush to upgrade Vietnam's ports, railroads, highways, government buildings, etc.

Sydney H. Schanberg, associate editor and columnist for New York Newsday and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist veteran of the Indochina War whose book, The Death and Life of Dith Pran, became the subject of the Academy Award-winning film The Killing Fields, chronicled some of Kerry's more blatant pro-Hanoi biases in several of his columns. In a Nov. 21, 1993 column, Schanberg wrote, "Highly credible information has been surfacing in recent days which indicates that the headlines you have been reading about a 'breakthrough' in Hanoi's cooperation on the POW/MIA issue are part of a carefully scripted performance. The apparent purpose is to move toward normalization of relations with Hanoi.

"Sen. John F. Kerry, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, is one of the key figures pushing for normalization. Kerry is currently on a visit to Vietnam where he has been doing two things:
(1) praising the Vietnamese effusively for granting access to their war archives and
(2) telling the press that there's no believable evidence to back up the stories of live POWs still being held.
"Ironically, that very kind of live-POW evidence has been brought to Kerry's own committee on a regular basis over the past year, and he has repeatedly sought to impeach its value.

Moreover, Kerry and his allies on the committee - such as Sens. John McCain, Nancy Kassebaum and Tom Daschle - have worked to block much of this evidence from being made public."

In the Senate debate itself, Kerry, rather than embarass Vietnam by demanding the truth, launched a highly publicized diversionary investigation of the POW/MIA families and activists, who were demanding an honest accounting.

Kerry labeled them "professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime-store Rambos" who were only involved in the POW/MIA issue for money.

Pictured left, Sen. John Kerry in Hanoi seated under a bust of Communist Vietnam's deceased leader, Ho Chi Minh.

Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs January 1993 Final Report The Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs published in its January 1993 Final Report (page 6) that American servicemen were left behind alive and in captivity."


http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/page2.html

DolFan31
06-14-2004, 08:26 AM
Asked for and recieved.....


"In 1991, the United States Senate created the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs to examine the possibility that U.S. POW/MIAs might still be held by the Vietnamese.

As chairman of the Select Committee, Kerry proved himself to be a masterful chameleon portraying to the public at large what appeared to be an unbiased approach to resolving the POW/MIA issue.

But, in reality, no one in the United States Senate pushed harder to bury the POW/MIA issue, the last obstacle preventing normalization of relations with Hanoi, than John Forbes Kerry.

In fact, his first act as chairman was to travel to Southeast Asia, where during a stopover in Bangkok, Thailand, he lectured the U.S. Chamber of Commerce there on the importance of lifting the trade embargo and normalizing relations with Vietnam.

In December of 1992, not long after Kerry was quoted in the world press stating "President Bush should reward Vietnam within a month for its increased cooperation in accounting for American MIAs," Vietnam announced it had granted Boston, Massachusetts based Colliers International, a contract worth billions. Colliers International became exclusive real estate agent representing Vietnam.

That deal alone put Colliers in a position to make tens of millions of dollars on the rush to upgrade Vietnam's ports, railroads, highways, government buildings, etc.

Sydney H. Schanberg, associate editor and columnist for New York Newsday and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist veteran of the Indochina War whose book, The Death and Life of Dith Pran, became the subject of the Academy Award-winning film The Killing Fields, chronicled some of Kerry's more blatant pro-Hanoi biases in several of his columns. In a Nov. 21, 1993 column, Schanberg wrote, "Highly credible information has been surfacing in recent days which indicates that the headlines you have been reading about a 'breakthrough' in Hanoi's cooperation on the POW/MIA issue are part of a carefully scripted performance. The apparent purpose is to move toward normalization of relations with Hanoi.

"Sen. John F. Kerry, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, is one of the key figures pushing for normalization. Kerry is currently on a visit to Vietnam where he has been doing two things:
(1) praising the Vietnamese effusively for granting access to their war archives and
(2) telling the press that there's no believable evidence to back up the stories of live POWs still being held.
"Ironically, that very kind of live-POW evidence has been brought to Kerry's own committee on a regular basis over the past year, and he has repeatedly sought to impeach its value.

Moreover, Kerry and his allies on the committee - such as Sens. John McCain, Nancy Kassebaum and Tom Daschle - have worked to block much of this evidence from being made public."

In the Senate debate itself, Kerry, rather than embarass Vietnam by demanding the truth, launched a highly publicized diversionary investigation of the POW/MIA families and activists, who were demanding an honest accounting.

Kerry labeled them "professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime-store Rambos" who were only involved in the POW/MIA issue for money.

Pictured left, Sen. John Kerry in Hanoi seated under a bust of Communist Vietnam's deceased leader, Ho Chi Minh.

Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs January 1993 Final Report The Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs published in its January 1993 Final Report (page 6) that American servicemen were left behind alive and in captivity."


http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/page2.html

Could you use a source other than a site that was created against john kerry?

PhinPhan1227
06-14-2004, 10:21 AM
If it were posting editorial opinions, sure...but these are facts. Kerry WAS the chairman of that committee(it's on his bio on his website). That Committee's findings are on public record, as is Kerry's cousin winning those real estate rights. And the fact that the Committee itself was one of the key factors in normalizing relations with Vietnam is on public record as well. Again, I don't expect anyone to pay any credence to opinions presented from an obviously partisan website...but facts are facts, regardless of who links them.

DolFan31
06-14-2004, 06:19 PM
If it were posting editorial opinions, sure...but these are facts. Kerry WAS the chairman of that committee(it's on his bio on his website). That Committee's findings are on public record, as is Kerry's cousin winning those real estate rights. And the fact that the Committee itself was one of the key factors in normalizing relations with Vietnam is on public record as well. Again, I don't expect anyone to pay any credence to opinions presented from an obviously partisan website...but facts are facts, regardless of who links them.

Yes but facts can be twisted and spun in favor of a cannidate, admistration, politician, political party/ideology, ect. so true hard facts sometimes can be very hard to come by. Know what Im saying?

DolFan31
06-14-2004, 06:23 PM
Well........................ a big case for going to war was because Sadaam was killing so many of his own people. OK, fine, but WHEN was it he started killing them? Was it since he invaded Kuwait???????? Hmmmmmmmm

And ok, if thats the case, why dont we invade all the other countries that abuse their own people? How about someone invade us for executing our own people, as we are one of few countries that have the death penalty. Other countries consider that cruel and unusual punishment. Sorry for going a bit off topic here.. But if that is the case for invading Iraq, IMO its a very weak one, because I can assure you that Saddam was not the only bad guy with power of his country.

DeDolfan
06-14-2004, 08:15 PM
And ok, if thats the case, why dont we invade all the other countries that abuse their own people? How about someone invade us for executing our own people, as we are one of few countries that have the death penalty. Other countries consider that cruel and unusual punishment. Sorry for going a bit off topic here.. But if that is the case for invading Iraq, IMO its a very weak one, because I can assure you that Saddam was not the only bad guy with power of his country.


Oh, i agree 100%. That was my point. There's something other than other countries citzens' welfare! ;)

DolFan31
06-14-2004, 10:43 PM
Oh, i agree 100%. That was my point. There's something other than other countries citzens' welfare! ;)

I know, I was just adding on :D ;)

Section126
06-15-2004, 12:40 AM
German Timeline:

1900 to 1911 = Good Cheese, good white wine and Beer is made.

1911 to 1918 = Starts world war.

1931 to 1945 = Socialist Party takes over (Nazi's) starts War, loses war.

1945 to present day = Sorry I stopped the timeline at 1945.....:groucho:

PhinPhan1227
06-15-2004, 02:26 AM
And ok, if thats the case, why dont we invade all the other countries that abuse their own people? How about someone invade us for executing our own people, as we are one of few countries that have the death penalty. Other countries consider that cruel and unusual punishment. Sorry for going a bit off topic here.. But if that is the case for invading Iraq, IMO its a very weak one, because I can assure you that Saddam was not the only bad guy with power of his country.


We can't catch every murderer in America...so we shouldn't catch any?

DolFan31
06-15-2004, 07:40 PM
We can't catch every murderer in America...so we shouldn't catch any?

Way off analagy there.

PhinPhan1227
06-15-2004, 07:42 PM
Way off analagy there.


How so? We can't remove every oppresive regime overnight, so we shouldn't remive any? It's a direct analogy.

DolFan31
06-15-2004, 07:48 PM
How so? We can't remove every oppresive regime overnight, so we shouldn't remive any? It's a direct analogy.

But thats not the basis for us going to war. Iraq supposedly was an "imminent threat" but have we found any evidence. But oh ya supposedly Iraq was pursuing uranium in Africa. Remember that one? :lol:

We went to war to eleminate terrorism, not to go after brutal dictators.

paul13
06-15-2004, 11:22 PM
You have to be kidding me your suggesting that Iraq was not a imminent treat just tell Kuwait that if any thing else after war intelligent’s tells us Iraq was a country crumbling within itself and on the verge of civil war.

PhinPhan1227
06-16-2004, 01:30 AM
But thats not the basis for us going to war. Iraq supposedly was an "imminent threat" but have we found any evidence. But oh ya supposedly Iraq was pursuing uranium in Africa. Remember that one? :lol:

We went to war to eleminate terrorism, not to go after brutal dictators.


Bad PR on the Presidents part. There were several reasons for going into Iraq. One of which was to FINALLY end the Gulf War which is going on 14 years now. Another was to remove an oppressive regime and replace it with a stable democracy which could spread to neighboring countries...that's the terrorism aspect btw :tongue:

The_Philster
06-16-2004, 06:11 AM
Bad PR on the Presidents part. There were several reasons for going into Iraq. One of which was to FINALLY end the Gulf War which is going on 14 years now. Another was to remove an oppressive regime and replace it with a stable democracy which could spread to neighboring countries...that's the terrorism aspect btw :tongue:
Since when is it our call that every country should have a democracy? Shouldn't that be the call of the Iraqis? Besides, it's rather hypocritical when our nation really can't be called a true democracy. :shakeno:

Fin_Fanatic
06-16-2004, 07:46 AM
Since when is it our call that every country should have a democracy? Shouldn't that be the call of the Iraqis? Besides, it's rather hypocritical when our nation really can't be called a true democracy. :shakeno:
your right, we should have called for a vote...... How many Iraqi's do you think would have voted for having a tyrannical dictator in power???

PhinPhan1227
06-16-2004, 10:47 AM
Since when is it our call that every country should have a democracy? Shouldn't that be the call of the Iraqis? Besides, it's rather hypocritical when our nation really can't be called a true democracy. :shakeno:


Well...Representative Republic is just too darned bulky. And since it becomes our call when that countries current leader invades two of his neighbors and then violates the cease fire that kept him from being ousted. If a country wants to maintain a dictatorship and not be a menace to it's neighbors it is entitled to do so..like the Vatican.... :evil: