"i believe the keyword here is develop means that it wasn't going until he came on the scene"

Saddam prevented the fighting by force. When we deposed him and his government and did not have a level of force to stop the factions that hated each other from organizing and fighting each other the Civil War Began. If Bush had listened to the Generals and sent a force level capable of controlling the factions and prevent them from arming and organizing we would not be seeing g the level of violence we see today. If we could have prevented foreign terrorists from coming into Iraq after Saddam fell we would not have the al Qaeda operations in Iraq. Thus it was Bush first by deposing Saddam who
kept control and then by not sending a force level capable of controlling the factions in Iraq that has caused the Civil War that exists today!

they had been trying to shoot down American aircraft sense the end of the first gulf war in which part of the agreement for us not to take Baghdad was the no flight zones

so that we could protect the Kurds and the shii from air attacks from Saddam

xaddam broke the treaty in the first or second month of it by trying to shoot down American fighters and he continued to do so until the second war

just before we invaded the GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ threatened to use their non existent chemical weapons on us. so it wasn't just us that thought Iraq had these weapons so did the Iraqi government.

NONE of these things posed a danger to the U.S. The sanctions and the no Fly zones were keeping Saddam under control. We had the UN Inspectors back into Iraq and if Bush had allowed them to complete their job we would have learned what we KNOW TODAY-- Saddam did not have WMD or and sort of a nuclear program!

Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Monday, April 30, 2007
First the objective was to establish a stable democracy in Iraq.


Not true as usual. YOU BETTER LOOK AT WHAT BUSH SAID> HIS objective was to provide a democratic Iraq that would spread thought the region and reduce the violence. Are you calling bush a liar?

you mean those people who answered to the ones taking bribes from saddam

That is BS. There was no reason to attack Saddam in March 2003. He was no threat, the weapons inspectors were back in Iraq and the military Assessment was that Saddam had NO capability to attack ANYONE!!! Bush did not want the UN Inspectors to complete their work because he feared they would expose the lies he and Cheney told us about the
Saddam Weapons program! We know that the CIA Intel DID NOT support much of what Bush and Cheney claimed about the danger from Saddam!

pay close attention. The quote is yours not mine, so you are arguing with yourself.

That is what Bush said but guess what that is NOT what has resulted from our invasion of Iraq! Thus what Reid said is correct. WE are NOT achieving the objective Bush said was the reason to invade Iraq. Saddam was not a threat and NO we did not establish a democracy that was to spread peace in the region!

you mean after that year of disclosers from the un that the sun of sec. general's son was taking bribes that it was how did you put it



and have you heard or read the news today the iraqi people not the iraqi military or the government is now starting to take on al quida claiming to have taken out the new top man

a true democracy is where the people of the country stand up for themselves

it doesn't matter what the government or other leaders say

the people will stand up for themselves

You keep repeating this lie over and over to the point that you think you believe it yourself. The lie you have told over and over has been refuted over and over to the point that no one even cares. You are a liar and I am tired of refuting it.



We also know that the intelligence from France, Great Briton, Germany, and Spain did not support what we know to be true now. Unfortunately you can’t get into a way back machine and change the past. It happened because we were attacked, we as a nation was scared, the information we had was given to us by trusted sources and action was required. The Congress was given all of this information and they voted for war. We went to war and now we want to stop the war because some politicians are trying to get a political victory in November.

You mean those people who answered to the ones taking bribes from Saddam


You mean after that year of disclosers from the UN that the sun of sec. general's son was taking bribes that it was how you put it

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A DANGER TO THE U>S>

And have you heard or read the news today the Iraqi people not the Iraqi military or the government is now starting to take on al Qaeda claiming to have taken out the new top man

Until the violence is brought under control, NOITHING else in Iraq can take place. April 2007 four years after Mission Accomplished was one of the MOST violent in 4 years.


We went to war and now we want to stop the war because some politicians are trying to get a political victory in November. NO the American People and the majority of the Congress want this war to END. In a democracy that is what needs to happen. Dictator Bush needs to be put in his place-- IN JAIL!

Yes, and in every case there was a person or two on the saddam pad. You learned that from me.



What about it?



Sure it does. You are just too feebleminded to see it, or too dishonest to admit it.



For ten years Detroit was murder capital of the world. You could get killed for no reason at all. New York held that title for a few years. Foolish col. Gene, we lose more people in motor car accidents in one year than we have lost in the total war on terror including 9/11. I don’t see you screaming that we are losing and should ban cars. The death toll keeps rising because more people are driving. Our deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are going up because we are putting our people in more dangerous places with less cover.




If that were true then the Congress would have a veto proof bill to end the war. Where is it?

Paladin77

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A DANGER TO THE U>S>


Sure it does. You are just too feebleminded to see it, or too dishonest to admit it. If you are saying that warranted 3,300 dead, 25,000 injured and a Trillion dollars you are an IDIOT!

What is going on in Iraq has NO relevance to Detroit. You show your total ignorance with every post you make.


It does not require a Veto Proof Congress to know the Will of Congress is to end this war. The polls all show that about 1/3 of Americans support Bush and 2/3 want this war to end. We have an arrogant and stubborn man in the White House who has lied to the military, Congress and the American People. He is not supported by the VAST MAJORITY and all those GOP members of Congress that are up for re-election in November 2008 and support Bush had better look for another vocation.

actually think that number should be 1/3 support bush and 3/3 want this war to end

i know i want the war to end but i also support bush

the house represents the people
the senate represents the states
the president represents the nation

it is the president that negotiates with other nation
it is the senate that passes treaties

it is the house that pays the troops
it is the president that controls the troops

now someone is over stepping their bounds tell me who it is

It is the house that pays the troops ( The Congress pays the military)
It is the president that controls the troops

Now someone is over stepping their bounds tell me who it is BUSH

Congress passes the budget which includes the term under which it can be spent. Congress is the one to approve War. This Congress having been elected in 2006 has said this war should end.



the house represents the people
the senate represents the states
the president represents the nation HERE is the Problem !

What Bush is doing DOES NOT REPRESENT WHAT THE NATION WANTS!!

i know i want the war to end but i also support bush YOU HAVE A PROBLEM You will need to pick one or the other.