The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort.
2006-06-29 06:15:16 · 10 answers · asked by 3rd parties for REAL CHANGE 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Thanks for the answers guys, now lets sit back and wait for the left trying to justify this and their anti-war setiment in the same argument. This will be entertaining!!!
2006-06-29 06:19:25 · update #1
9/11 and Iraq are connected by one thing RADICAL ISLAM!!!! you just don't get it.
2006-06-29 06:24:44 · update #2
BILLY "SLICK WILLIE" Clintoon!!!
2006-06-29 06:17:32 · answer #1 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bill Clinton...so? At least he was smart enough and cared enough about human life not to lie and get us into an unnecessary war.
You won't find anyone that disputes the fact that Hussein was a threat to the security of the world. He just wasn't, at the time, posing an immediate threat. Sometimes diplomacy can work a lot better than a bomb. At least through diplomacy, you can save lives, maintain relationships with countries, and basically look like a better person. I know when I see someone resort to violence, I have a pretty negative opinion about them.
"Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort." Exactly...time! The current administration went in all gung ho and tried to get it changed in no time. They had no plan on what to do after the old Iraqi government was torn down. They had no idea that it would take this much work. This whole war has been completely botched (administration wise) from the beginning.
And I like how the Republicans are taking the Democrats ideas of troop withdrawl and making them their own. Good strategy for the upcoming mid-terms.
2006-06-29 06:27:24 · answer #2 · answered by bluejacket8j 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Considering that George Daddy Bush had much to do with Saddam becoming Iraq's dictator, that George Daddy's GOP CIA armed and trained Saddam's men (it's all true) and set him up in office...
Considering that Clinton was wise enough to know that the secret agreements George and Saddam were turning sour...
(BY the way: People don't 'make quotes.' People make statements. A quote becomes a quote only after someone repeats your original statement.)
2006-06-29 06:38:55 · answer #3 · answered by Doc Watson 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes that was Clinton, but it does not change the fact that Bush did not have the right to invade a sovereign nation that has not done a thing to us.
don't give me any crap about 9-11 our own government has admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with it.
2006-06-29 06:23:16 · answer #4 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your argument falls totally apart on the basis that Saddam wasn't a radical Islamic leader... he was just a two-bit dictator...
he used religon when it suited his needs, from time to time, but he was far from a radical islamic leader...
too bad you can't tell the difference...
Iran, Saudi Arabia are radical Islamic states... MUCH MORE THAN IRAQ EVER DREAMED TO BE...
2006-06-29 06:43:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bill Clinton.
2006-06-29 06:17:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This one is easy. The answer is Bill Clinton.
2006-06-29 06:20:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the fearless leader bill clintion (hahaha)
2006-06-29 06:21:01 · answer #8 · answered by matt S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
libs are peter puffers
2006-06-29 06:36:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
WAS IT A RETARDED HIPPY LIB???
2006-06-29 06:26:10 · answer #10 · answered by MR. RETARDO JR. 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋