The US supported him throughout his highest peak of crimes, we don't care about that... so why did he really need to be removed? Things would be so much more stable if we just left him in power and stole the oil without engaging the entire region in a war.
The puppet government we are installing is full of war criminals just as murderous as Saddam.
So why?
2006-06-10 12:24:56 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Consider this. NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WAS FOUND.
Why woud a leader of his country tell his neighborhing enemies that he has NO WEAPONS AT ALL!!!!
Of course your going to lie!!! to PROTECT YOUR PEOPLE!!!!
And if Sadams crimes were so vulgar why dont the Iranians release him to the USA? They wont cause THEY DONT EVEN LIKE THE USA GOVERNMETN INVOLVED TOO MUCH
If you want the Iraqies to suffer like we americans do, give them Celion Dion and Britney spears!!!!
They'll think twice about being americanized
2006-06-10 12:30:33 · answer #1 · answered by stewart_pittman 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
In the end Iran will control Iraq. Iraqis prefer a Islamic republic form of Government, they hate Democracy.
Saddam was a very evil dictator, just like Bu$h we all will be far better off without both of them. The CIA could have killed Saddam anytime they wanted. We wanted control of the oil and the Republicans wanted the Defense contracts, that is why we invaded a country the size of Texas at a cost of $2 trillion to tax payers. After Desert Storm Iraq had no tanks, no planes and half it's Army had deserted. Iraq surrendered then we invaded after that agreement to put down their arms.
2006-06-10 12:48:27 · answer #2 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
On the day he became president, he had 3 of his congressmen who he felt opposed him removed from room & shoot by firing squad. Then asked if the others agreed.
President Clinton in 1998 announce Iraqi Liberation Act - called for change of leadership from Saddam. He announced Operation Desert Fox - a 3 day air strike on Iraqi
Saddam up the fee to $25,000 for every Palenstenian who died opposing Isreal.
Then President Bush got into the mess that Saddam had made by threatening his own people, Isreal, Iran, Kuwait, the USA & everyone else he is threaten.
Why did Hitler have to go? Oh yeah, we all know that from history - maybe we will learn this through history books too!!
2006-06-10 12:59:09 · answer #3 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We only supported him in the time of the Iran-Iraq war because if Iran won, they would have taken over Iraq and become a huge threat to the world. However, just because we supported him during certain times does not mean we were allies. And if this government is "just as murderous" as Saddam, maybe you and all your liberal buddies who blame America first should be next.
2006-06-10 12:29:34 · answer #4 · answered by nighthawk_842003 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Has anyone else who has responded to this question talked with the Iraqi people? Have you sat down with an Iraqi child who no longer lives in fear? Have you played soccer with a group of Iraqi children who are at a school that the US just built for them?
Have you walked through one of Saddam's old palaces where the torture chamber was? Have you seen the lions cage where he used to feed people to the lions? The answer is yes.
2006-06-10 14:02:42 · answer #5 · answered by AVD 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh enlightened one....did you not read the news this week about the history of Zarkawi? You know the al queda guy we just bombed who was part of "al queda" who hit America and was in Iraq before we we're. Sure we could have left Saddam in place like BJ Clinton did for 8 years and ignored his crimes and those of his sons, we could have continued to maintain the no fly zone for billions of dollars a year indefinitely, and "hoped" that al queda wouldn't gather weapons and training from him in the future.
2006-06-10 12:55:05 · answer #6 · answered by netjr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
During cold-war, US and USSR were competitors. At that time US was supported "Saddam" with a lot of high technologic and chemical weapons. "Saddam" used them in Iran-Iraq war and bombed even two cities for first time on the history by chemical bombs. First one was "Sardasht" in Iran and second was "Halabche" in Iraq.
At that time nobody, including US, Western European countries, etc. didn't protest him, even they supported him some more.
The world was bi-polar and US and USSR achieved out their benefits with supporting some dictators like "Saddam" in Iraq, "Pinoche' in Chile, Argentina, etc. because they didn't want to interfered in other countries directly, It could make some dangerous situation.
All of these I mentioned you was related to cold-war period.
Then USSR was wipe out and a lot of international matters were solved, so US was a superpower without any serious competitor.
US policy was changed, If you remember Bush (Father) told in his speeches: "Everyone who doesn't US follower is our enemy".
Actually, "Saddam" has a lot of chemical weapon (He used them in war and there is a lot of documentary films and papers, Also in Iran we have a lot of wounded by chemical weapon who are alive yet and they have some strongly illness) but after the first Persian Gulf battle he destroyed them under UN inspects and US knew these facts.
Nowadays, US try to take over the whole of world and the first step can be control over Oil and Gas as some important substances.
All of countries, including China, Japan, European countries, etc. need to oil for their economies. So if US can control this substance it can control other countries.
Thus US doesn't need to someone like "Saddam", US don't want to have any limitation for achieve out its benefits. Of course they found some excuses to invading Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. and accusing other independent coutries with some nonsense excuses.
In fact, nowadays even United Nation can't control US too.
2006-06-10 13:00:27 · answer #7 · answered by ±50% 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam gets 3 sq, a day, clean shirts, and bed to sleep on,, while still carrying on his tyrannous rants in the courtroom,,,, and US military are killing and dying daily,,, he couldn't be happier,,,, Bush is his Buddie
2006-06-10 12:35:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
you just said so. If Saddam was one of them as you said so why to remove him. So he is not. And even if he was don't forget that he hit Israel ( The untouchable occupational country ) so he has to be removed
2006-06-10 12:36:26 · answer #9 · answered by Paulu 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he didn't have to go....
this war will go down in history as the worst decision every made by a president!!!
yes, conservatives, worse than bill's blow J O B!!!!!!
2006-06-10 12:39:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋