Bush and Iraq
macgyver06
Posts: 2,500
did he actually say .. A self-Governing Iraq is a 'noble goal'
THEY WERE SELF GOVERNED BEFORE BUSH ORDERED THE REMOVAL OF THEIR LEADERS!
this is not a debate.
IRAQ WAS SOVERIGN...if you dont count the food for oil program WHICH THEY ABIDED BY....
THEY WERE SELF GOVERNED BEFORE BUSH ORDERED THE REMOVAL OF THEIR LEADERS!
this is not a debate.
IRAQ WAS SOVERIGN...if you dont count the food for oil program WHICH THEY ABIDED BY....
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Not that I'm defending the president, but Iraq was not self-governing. Saddam was a dictator and the people had no say in who they wanted to run the country.
and for the record.. Iraq had elections to... anyone can say hey...they werent fair...but the truth is people were free and i do know for a fact that they did vote for the invasion of kuwait and the war with iran before that.
but i think your missing the statement.
THEY WERE SELF-GOVERNED BEFORE!
they were a country, regardless of your opinions of saddam.
every country has this
In the context of Iraq, and the context of brutal dictators paranoid to a point of extreme violence, your very post proves you wrong.
oh and compared to other so called ''dictators'' he's not that vicious...and for the record Saddam never held prison camps.... our presidents have!
so true. it is the tool of every political party. "if you dont vote for us something bad will happen"
one that comes to mind was during the midterms and the republicans had that one with the ticking and osama.
in my country our politicians love to use illegal immigrants to scare us.
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
They where a soverign nation but that does not equate to a self governing nation. The peopleof Iraqhad no say in government and just becausethey had the option to go to the polls and vote for one candidate because no other candidate was allowed to run does not make them a self governing nation. Look Bush is an ass wipe but he is correct in saying that Iraq becoming a self governing nation is a noble cause I just disagree with the way he decided to go about doing it.
IRAQ WAS SELF-GOVERNED!!!!!!!!!
FACT!
So Iraq was sovereign because our president is bad? Gotcha.
Hehe...on what do you base that fact?
How were they self governed?
lol...bush gave a ''French'' (who he told us to hate for some reason??) company
what was it like a zillion dollars for bird-flu vaccinations...which no longer exist...and also the private stock holders of sofeui pasteur remain private under contesting.
this guy is going to prison..no doubt..its insane!
YOU OBVIOUSLY UNDERSTAND "SELF-GOVERNED!!!!!!!" DIFFERENTLY THAN MANY/MOST OF US.
FACT!
Why is it a fact because you said it was. Self governing means that the citizens of that country decide on who will run their government. They have options on who to elect and are not forced into supporting just one individual or one party. Saddam used torture, murder, and god knows what other vile method to supress any oppostion to his rule. Their was no choice in Iraq it was Saddam or a prison cell in Abu Graib or worse a dicth in the desert with a hole in your head. Soverignty does not equate freedom or selfgoverning.
with all respect...
this is not opinion you must understand that IRAQ was within the entity of themeselves, SELF GOVERNED.
they were soverign. unstable apparently, no War planes and the absense of an established military.
i think self governed means this
NO
look it up..
when you govern yourself...you govern yourself
Did you govern yourself to a few drinks this morning?
Governing yourself means that your will and your actions are linked. Far too often in Iraq, the will of the people was manifested in opposite actions.
No. Self Governing means thh country is Soverign.
you govern yourself...meaning...if you are a part of a country, no matter what the rule is at the time...you are a part of the collective 'yourself'
also, iraq technically wasn't a dictatorship, based on the fact
THEY HAD ELECTIONS!
Incidentally, how do you feel about the 2000/2004 US elections?
hehe...maybe like a 50/50 kinda thing...
where does this happen
Self Government
The object of the republican form of government and of the principles that are essential to that form, is to enable a people to govern themselves to the most practicable extent possible. Not every nation of people are capable of self-government, and many expected the experiment of the Founding Fathers to fail. But it did not fail, and the experiment proved that an educated and enlightened people are capable of self-government. The question remains, however, the extent to which government by the people themselves may be extended. - Thomas Jefferson
None of what Jefferson stated applies to the peopleof Iraq under Saddam.
Do you consider Fidel Castro a dictator? What about Augusto Pinochet, Francisco Franco, Hitler? All of these individuals held election while in power but no one else was allowed to oppose them.Holding elections does not mean you are not a dictator when the results of the elections are already predetermined to favor those in power before a vote is even cast.
lf-gov·erned /ˌsɛlfˈgʌvərnd, ˈsɛlf-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[self-guhv-ernd, self-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. governed by itself or having self-government, as a state or community; independent.
2. self-regulating; self-determining.
3. exercising self-restraint or self-control.
[Origin: 1700–10]
—Related forms
self-gov·ern·ing, adjective
—Synonyms 1. autonomous.
—Antonyms 1. dependent.
It happens throughout this world, inversely relative to the enforcement of acceptable behavior by armed thugs. The United States, much of Europe, Australia, many South American nations, Canada......the list of places wherein people's actions are direct manifestations of their will is quite long.
im trying to avoid opinions in my posts.. i won't state how i feel about castro...nor do i think it has anything to do with the middle east
im not sure what this is
howeve i can understand you don't like saddam... either do I.
Let me give you an example. You live in Orlando, right? Florida? Part of the US? Assuming that's correct....
Let's say that you really hate George Bush. I mean, really hate him and you want to remove him from office. Now, let's say you go onto a public website and say something like "George Bush is a filthy douchebag, and let's remove his ass from office right now!" And now let's say that a bunch of people agree with you and take action via their representatives to remove him.
See what this is? You're putting your will into action. There's no disconnect between your will (a desire to remove George Bush from office) and your actions (public activism to do so).
Now, under your argument, people in Iraq were free to do this. Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein would disagree with you. The trail of the dead potential activists he left behind, killed for nothing more than their opposition to his rule, proves that, as well as the fear held by the living there of facing similar reprisals. The will of the Iraqi people was not linked to their actions.
I'm defending the rights of the Iraqi people to choose their course without fear of violent reprisal from others. Because of that, I reject both the previous leadership there as well as the current situation. I just happen to agree with George Bush on the original statement that a self-governing Iraq is a noble goal. Of course, George Bush has done little to accomplish that goal, but the goal is noble, nonetheless.