People In America Have No Healthcare But....

Iraq, previously, was ruled ny a dictator that wanted very badly to stay in power.

He saw WMD's as a means to those ends.

Much as the Iranian Mullahs do now. They don't wish to see their power usurped.

Iraq now, has a democratic government . . .

Israel would not be a threat to a democratic country and would only use it's military in self defense, therefore would be no threat to Iraq.

Iraq, as a democratic nation would have the US looking out for it's intrests for a long time to come, much as Europe did in the post WW2 era. They will be concentrating on economic reforms and bettering the lives of it's citizens, not developing WMD's.

As long as the present constitution of Iraq stays in place, Iraq will not become a Shi'ite state, but an Iraqi state.

McGentrix wrote:

Iraq, previously, was ruled ny a dictator that wanted very badly to stay in power.

Iraq was ruled by the Ba'aht Arab Socialist Party, who which Hussein was then the leader. Had there been no invasion, but Hussein was seen as unacceptably kowtowing to the West, he'd have quickly be relegated to teh trash heap of history.

Quote:

He saw WMD's as a means to those ends.

If that were so, why didn't he have womd? None were found, and there is therefore no reason to assume he possessed them. Do you have an explanation which materially differs from fairy tales which can explain how the possession of womd assured that Hussein would remain in power?

Quote:

Much as the Iranian Mullahs do now. They don't wish to see their power usurped.

As with this preceious bit of nonsense you were attempting to retail about Hussein, you have provided no credible explanation of how the possession of womd assures that one remains in power. In fact, the Mullahs of Persia formed a corporation in early 1981, into which all the nationalized assets of the revolution were placed. The Mullahs of Persia have a death-grip on power because they have the entire economic system by the balls.

You shouldn't make sh!t up just because you have a political agenda you want to make plausible. You aren't, apparently, very good at weaving a convincing tissue of cause and effect,.

How does the possession of womd assure that anyone remains in power?

Quote:

Iraq now, has a democratic government . . .

This is an unwarranted statement. Were that so, the political power of the Sunnis and the Kurds would be negligible to non-existant. In fact, what Iraq currently "has" is a government handed down to them from on high by the Americans, which entails a very lopsided and unstable coalition republic. The advent of true democracy in Iraq assures a Shi'ite state--the Shi'ites greatly outnumber the Sunnis and the Kurds combined.

Quote:

. . . that is not ruled by a single dictator that wishes to expand his territory through violent means.

And you are confident that this will never be true on what basis?

Quote:

Israel would not be a threat to a democratic country and would only use it's military in self defense, therefore would be no threat to Iraq.

This is also a series of unwarranted statements. The invasion of southern Lebanon, which eventually resulted in a fifteen year civil war only finally ended by the invasion and occupation of the nation by the Syrian army--is that an example of acting in self-defense? One might readily see why Muslims living in the middle east would not know whether to laugh or cry when reading horsie poop of such a complexion.

Quote:

Iraq, as a democratic nation would have the US looking out for it's intrests for a long time to come, much as Europe did in the post WW2 era. They will be concentrating on economic reforms and bettering the lives of it's citizens, not developing WMD's.

Yes, i am familiary with the PNAC fairy tale to justify the creation of permanent military bases in southwest asia, a goal which they have publicly announced since at least 1998. However, you cannot reasonably expect those who don't have their head up some neo-cons ass to immediately swallow this "and they all lived happily ever after, the end" kind of story. What authorizes you to decide that the United States maintains a military presence in Iraq for the next sixty years--which is what we've done in Europe?

Actaully, though, you are just underlining the point i made. The only way to assure the fairy tale is a permanent American presence.

Quote:

As long as the present constitution of Iraq stays in place, Iraq will not become a Shi'ite state, but an Iraqi state.

And so long as that is true, Iraq is no democracy. Democracies get to change their constitutions, you know, if that's what the people want.

...They have a president representing each major sect ...

Yet another topic overtaken by perennial windbags.