If a stable democracy prevails in Iraq, will you give Bush credit?

Question

If the people of Iraq choose a lasting peace under a liberal democratic rule, will that be a victory in your eyes and will you give Bush credit?

For future examples of blind and irrational hate, see below.

Answer 1

Gee, let's give someone credit for FORCING a change of government on people that were basically bombed into submission. Perhaps he should replace the Iraqi security forces with his Blackwater thugs. Then he could enforce whatever laws he desired.

:-(

Answer 2

No. The end doesn't justify the means. Even if Iraq were to become a successful democracy it doesn't change that the way to get there was based on lies, that there were interests involved that were purely mercantile, and that Bush has shown a blatant indifference to the fate of Iraqis anyway. (He speaks about democracy and freedom all the time, but that hasn't translated in his actions). So should Iraq ever become a stable democracy, it will be in spite of the Bush administration's destructive actions, not thanks to them.

Answer 3

Democracy cannot prevail in iraq, if we are actually foolish enough to think we know what is best for Iraq, than were idiots.

One thing we have to remember here, is that we dont understand the middle eastern culture. Our actions have led to hate for us. We've had troops on their holy land and have help supplied weapons that killed thousands of innocent people.
When ronald reagan was president, he sent about 2000 troops to lebanon to help bring order to some sort of demonstration(I forget the details) anyway, he thought it would go quick, but a suicide attack killed 200 marines and Reagan pulled out. In his diary, Reagan wrote that he could never understand the irrationality of middle eastern politics. He learned the lesson that we shouldnt be messing with the middle east and their culture and that we should live them alone. This is a lesson we desperatly need to learn ourselves.

Answer 4

Since the real motivation is create an unstable environment to promote infighting and break the land up into 3 divided territories, I would say that a unified democracy is the exact opposite of what GW bush is anticipating. So I would not give him any credit because that would be the opposite result of what he intended.

Answer 5

Is Bush building this democracy, or are the people of Iraq?
If Bush is building it, then he deserves credit.
But the only way a stable democracy will result, is if the people of Iraq are building to reflect their society.

Answer 6

No, it took us over a hundred years to achieve stable democracy (remember the civil war?), so with our history as precedent Bush will be but a figment of our memory when stable democracy occurs in Iraq.

Answer 7

No credit will be deserved. His war of hypocrisy was about finding nuclear bombs that turned out to only exist in his imagination. Thousands of lives have been lost or ruined. Democracy in that little country wouldnt be worth the cost in lives, blood, and money, so there is no credit to give.

Answer 8

No I would consider that a failure because he Americanized one of the oldest cultures in the history of man. Hell if things keep going at the rate they are going there will be a Walmart next to the pyramids of Geza

Answer 9

in 75 years or so, I doubt that he can or will be given credit, it might be a stable democracy in spite of outside interference

In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved." -
-- Franklin d. roosevelt

Answer 10

Yeah, sure, why not. What do I have to lose. Your fantasy is just that, and it'll never happen, no matter how many brave soldiers you cowards are willing to sacrifice. Aren't you stretching it a bit far when you say a "liberal democratic rule"? Thanks to a fascist? Oh well, like I said, FAT CHANCE!