What could Sadam Hussain had done differently to Keep the US from Invading Iraqu?

Question

Doesn’t a Sovereign Nation have a right to defend itself? How could he produce WMD’s he didn’t have was War inevitable?

Are we no longer a peace loving nation as we never hear of Peace Talks or Cease fires?

Answer 1

Saddam Hussein was not an enemy of the U.S.A. - he was a personal enemy of the Bush dynasty. George W. Bush wanted to 'get even' with Hussein for humiliating his daddy during Desert Storm (George H.W. Bush) was criticized for not "finishing" the war at that time and blowing Hussein to Kingdom Come. Also, Dick Cheney wants all the OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands so he and his Halliburton buddies can get richer and richer and richer. Those are the only two reasons we invaded Iraq.

Prediction: There will be NO TROOP WITHDRAWALS from Iraq until Cheney has a rock-solid, iron-clad arrangement in place to take all of Iraq's OIL (with the full cooperation of the 'puppet' government Cheney helped to install there).

The Bush administration, in collusion with the most corrupt, evil U.S. Congress in history has:

1. Illegally and unconstitutionally invaded another sovereign country that did NOT threaten, provoke or attack the U.S.A.;
2. Massacred tens of thousands of Iraq citizens for no justifiable reason;
3. Tortured 'detainees' without regard to the rules of the Geneva Convention, and turned away when those prisoners were physically, emotionally, psychologically, verbally and sexually abused;
4. Implemented failed economic policies which will result in a severe depression right after Bush leaves office, and has put American taxpayers TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, which they will be paying off for generations to come;
5. Neglected the needs of America's poor, disadvantaged, sick, underprivileged, homeless, hungry, and disabled while playing 'Robin Hood in Reverse', stealing from the poor and giving to the rich who - in turn- make generous contributions to help keep the GOP in power;
6. Tarnished our reputation as a world leader and global peacekeeper;
7. Lied to the American public and leaked information to the press whenever it conveniently fit the Bush agenda;
8. Turned America into a police state wherein citizens are presumed guilty until prooven innocent;
9. Dismanteld environmental laws designed to protect and preserve the delicate ecological balance between human beings, plants and all other animals so that we may co-exist on this Earth for the mutual benefit and survival of all of nature's species (there is not one species on Earth that's dispensable);
10. Killed more than 2,500 U.S. soldiers (so far).

Bush and his cowboys believe that anything and everything can be solved with guns and ammo. So why not blow up human bodies instead of sitting in all those boring peace talks?

The U.S.A. is the world' 'evil empire' - a bully that other countries fear and no longer trust, thanks to the evil malfeasance of the Bush administration. Why else do Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and China think they need to defned themselves with nuclear weapons? -RKO- 07/07/06

Answer 2

nothing!!!this war was put into motion by Donald rumsfeld and dick Cheney.they are the ones who had the agenda.bush is just the figure head.watch front line on PBS and you might learn something that the news papers won't tell you.as far as the wmd's just found they were from the Iran -Iraq war not the war in 91 as was printed in the press.i was there in 91 and don't remember any sarin or mustard gas being shot at us.we have the same rounds in our arsenal. so who are we to judge?even if the shells were made during the war in 91 the shells were useless for there original purpose.

In the 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush stated that Iraq had 500 tons of sarin. This sarin was manufactured in 1990 or 1991. The shelf life of this sarin is approximately 2 months, according to Peter Zimmerman, former Chief Scientist of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He says that weapons inspectors and analysts confirmed this, and that there was no way the Bush administration could not know it. Bush spoke of 38,000 liters of anthrax. Anthrax has a shelf life of 3 years. According to Scott Ritter, the last known anthrax production in Iraq was 1991.

we are fed bits and pieces of the truth.it is bent to however the government wants us to believe.
a sovereign nation has the right to defend it's self however it sees fit.
a group of people also have that right i.e. palistinians...
there was no way around the war because iraq was seen as a threat to isreal..our only foothold in that region.when ever americas little brother cries help we come to the rescue.even though it might be made up and wrong.
piss on all of them either get out of there or take it over and run it.we are in an area that is based on religion and we don't agree with that religion.well our leaders don't anyway.
what ever happened to treating others the way we would want to be treated?

Answer 3

Uh, dude?

We went back in for the very reason that Saddam violated the cease-fire agreement which ended the Gulf War! Are you so honestly naive to believe that Saddam was not a madman?

Halabjah & Dujail is more than enough reason to remove the sleaze.

He also supported terrorism by paying stipends to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Salman Pak, an Iraqi military base trained terrorist groups.

We are peace-loving. Remember, we gave the UN almost two years and 17 useless resolutions to "remain seized of the matter" before we finally did what was right.

Answer 4

We are a peace-loving nation. Unfortunately, peace comes at the cost of lives in war. If you are not a strong military force, there is no peace.

Can you tell me why when Sadam was in power the uprisings of the Shiites and the Sunis were not more frequent? I believe it was because Sadam set about with genecide and mass destruction of the people; he starved them, brutalized them, dominated them, gave them no choices in their own country, and they were afraid of death if they were to rise up against him. Sadam ruled them with terror----power----so there was the appearance of peace.

However, there is no freedom or peace if one person is not free or at peace in his own country. The United States had to have its own civil war to determine whether our nation would endure slavery of one people while allowing the freedom of another people. Our country decided, through war, that freedom for all was the way to go. Slavery, murder, and genecide of a race or culture was abolished and will not be tolerated again in this country.

If you believe peace-loving means "without altercation or confrontation," then I am afraid you may not have read you history books in school. No peace is secured without a fight; no fight is waged or won without lives being lost; and no country will ever be free without both.

Whether or not attacking Iraq was a good idea is a moot point now. We're there; we're in it; and we have to finish it.

Would Iraq rather we just picked up and left them in the shape they're in now? Or would they prefer to go back under the murderous dictator, Sadam. If I had my way, we'd turn the Middle East into a huge ocean of glass with one massive flash of heat and destruction. But then, that's not a reasonable tact--just an emotional response to all of the Americans who are trying to do the best job they can under incredibly difficult circumstances.

America - Not perfect----but still the most wonderful country in the world. Why else do you think so many are risking their lives to be a part of this great country?

Answer 5

stepped down.
To be a "peace loving " nation means that you ensure peace. It means you dont let a dictator kill tens of thousands of his own people.
It means you dont stand by (like Bill Clinton) as HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS are subjected to genoside in Rwanda...the darker the skin it seems the less we care.

BTW peace talks with suicidal terrorists, are you kidding me? We are going against a culture we know nothing about. We turned our backs on many Palestineans as they were forced from their homes, and we broke our promises with them. We could have avoided the hatred toward America if we treated the Muslims with the same respect as we did for the Zionist terrorists. I AM NOT anti-semetic, but do yourself a a favor and research, and ask yourself what you would do if in the same situation.
Its an ugly mess that we have made worse, and there are no easy answers.
See "behind the Hatred" a Discovery Channel (I think) video that should be available on Amazon

Answer 6

Maybe if he had learned early in life to work and play well with others instead of spending all his time trying to CONQUER others....and if he had spent a lot less time thumping his chest trying to convince others what a Bad A** he is and more time trying to make life (actually) better for the people of his nation. But he did the opposite of all these things.

Yes, America IS and always has been a peace loving nation, but it's not "Peace at the cost of Freedom". If other nations "hate" us for the freedoms we have is it our business to give up those freedoms just so they'll like us----I think NOT!

Answer 7

We are a peace loving nation. We aren't, however, naive enough to think talking will solve every problem. We have been on and off negotiating with North Korea for years. We have been having talks with Iran. And before we went into Iraq we talked with them.
Hussein did try to defend himself. His military wasn't strong enought to repel the coalition. If he obeyed the resolutions and cooperated with the international community, there would have been no need to go back in there.

You seem to think it is soley up to the USA if there is peace or not. Other countries have to want peace too.

Answer 8

Saddam could have definatley complied with the several resolutions that the UN issued to him, which he just thumbed his nose at. When you are the leader of a nation like Saddam was, you owe it to your country and to the world to be a good steward. He definatley was not. Take some time to research all of the atrocities that he has done to his people before you say something as misguided as you did. We ALWAYS try diplomacy before a military movement, Saddam is the one that refused it.

Answer 9

Since he was the one who drew the attention of the UN and the world by invading Kuwait, I would think he would have been a little more cooperative in the ensuing years. I think our peace loving coalition did quite a bit in the way of restraint and patience in dealing with this man. I lay 100% of the blame on Saddam and his arrogance in thinking that his payoffs to Russia, Germany and France AND the UN would be enough to hold us off forever.

Answer 10

According to a released white house memo Bush was bent on attacking Iraq before 9-11. There is nothing Iraq could have done Bush's mind was made up when he took office. He was just waiting for an excuse.