2007-06-06 11:08:15 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
no bush only invaded iraq for oil and money
2007-06-06 11:10:20 · answer #1 · answered by Mike D 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Yes Iraq was a secular state under Saddam Hussein. He didn't seem all that interested in religion unless it suited his specific needs. In fact he was suspicious of Islamists. He abolished Sharia courts. His deputy prime minister was Catholic, remember?
But Iraq is not now an Islamic state.
(There is an argument that Islamic states don't exist and are actually not achievable because the military/politicians/state interests will always override religion when it comes to the crunch).
Iraq is in a mess for which Bush and Blair share much of the blame. We dismantled the army and police and government and expected what to happen exactly? There were no terrorists in Iraq while Saddam was in charge - is this a case of better the devil you know than the devil you don't?
2007-06-06 20:12:44 · answer #2 · answered by Jason King 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Secular Nation? Secular implies equal respect for all religions. It's basically not subject to the rules of a religious community. While technically your right that it was not Clerics making the descisions, similar to Iran, it involved one tyrant dictating what's legal and what's not. What's worse? We obviously know this is not the case, Kurds and even Shittes were killed for voicing their disaproval. It was more like a dictatorship- Ruled by a single leader who has not been elected and may use force to keep control. Usually, there is little or no attention to public opinion or individual rights.
Not to mention they are currently going for a government that represents the people, %shiites %sunnis %kurds. If they can't agree on religion how do you propose they are going to agree on setting up an Islamic State together? Secul
2007-06-06 18:13:56 · answer #3 · answered by jay k 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I and the people of Iraq would rather see it go from brutal secular dictatorship to Islamic state. Just because a nation is Islamic doesnt mean theyre our enemy. We offered them democracy, not theocracy. Its up to them to decide, we cant force them.
And BTW, dont thank Bush, thank democrats like Hiallry Clinton and John Kerry, parts of the congress that authorized use of force against Saddam the brutal dictator who I guess to people like you was a warm and fuzzy secular butcher.
2007-06-06 18:23:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't get why everyone thinks Bush is dumb. He had to send Iraq into a religious civil war. That gives us more time to install the secret pipe to suck all their oil out and into Kuwait. Plus God personally told him to do it what choice did he have.
2007-06-06 18:21:07 · answer #5 · answered by islandsigncompany 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He turned it from a secular nation into pure chaos.
Dio: Iraq was indeed secular. Saddam's laws were dictated by him alone--they were not dictated by Islam.
2007-06-06 18:12:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
I think a bigger fear should be "Is Bush trying to turn the US from a democratic nation to a theocratic state"?
2007-06-06 18:18:36 · answer #7 · answered by Adam G 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sure. One that will be in religious civil war for a long time.
But hey they have electricity now. No wait, it's still worse than before we attacked them.
2007-06-06 18:12:18 · answer #8 · answered by RU SRS? 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
While at it, why not thank him for destroying the only buffer in the region against Iran.
2007-06-06 18:39:47 · answer #9 · answered by Fred 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think "state" is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps I could suggest a better word.
Hmm... clusterfuck?
2007-06-06 18:10:37 · answer #10 · answered by WWTSD? 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋