2006-07-20 05:36:53 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes and No. There wouldn't be the constant turmoil in Iraq at this time. But then again the people living there would still be in a constant state of fear from his government and people would still being killed for political reasons. Personally I believe that a nation should take it upon themselves to get rid of bad leaders. We did during the Revolution. Otherwise it's like a parent who cleans up after their kid all the time. The kid never learns to do it on their own and have no appreciation for what they don't have to do.
2006-07-20 05:41:47 · answer #1 · answered by ej_bronte 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, Israel was fighting with Lebonon and Palestine way before we took Saddam out, and Iraq would have invaded someone else eventually. Pakistan would probably be at war with the former Afghanistan... The Middle East is always at war and will be long after we leave...
You have to keep in mind that no Middle Eastern country likes Israel. And with that Shia and Suni (sp?) muslims can't seem to get along over there. Although alot of people think that our being in the Middle East is wrong I think the fact that we now have the oppertunity to work with these countries and install a sane and stable government will help out in the long run... If you go to Wikipedia and search for the history of Israel you'll get a good idea of why they can't get along...
2006-07-20 05:41:43 · answer #2 · answered by Rob H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you're wondering incorrect. The “ineffective” area is for you and human beings. u.s. ‘s administration isn't the president, the administration is entity, which has like 2 hundred human beings imagine together to make judgements, if it became the Iraqi invasion, then each and each and every concept about it for thousands of hours and made a range which ideal serve their interest which isn't providing freedom and liberty for Iraq, that’s for the media. It wasn’t precisely like Bush awoke and stated shall we invade Iraq, and after 10 years the U. S. stated: oh crap, we tousled. Oil is for positive became an effective reason yet there are a form of others, likely it became the first contained in the chain of activities that led to the Arab Spring, likely they has some severe inner problem with Saddam, we may be able to’t imagine on an similar element that those human beings do.
2016-12-02 00:06:47 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure would be. So would the world.
For economic, and selfish reasons, the price of oil would likely not have escalated the way it did.
For political reasons Iran, feeling threatened, may not have rushed in the effort to manufacture nuclear weapons Bin Laden and his small crew would probably have been caught as the U.S. would have concentrated efforts to get him. Syria would have been accused of aiding Iraqi insurgents. There would not have been a civil war in Iraq (one is going on right now) unless in the meantime the the citizenry of Iraq had risen against Saddam on their own.
For military reasons, it has proven that a "super power" can be held in check. The Iraq debacle has shown that technology cannot win in conflict ( except for the unthinkable, the massive use of nuclear weapons) It has shown that "boots on the ground" is the only winner. And to date there is no winner in Iraq.
2006-07-20 06:23:49 · answer #4 · answered by gshewman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. Saddam (and his sons) tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of humans. And Saddam had WMD (chemical and biological) up until just before the US coalition invaded Iraq, when he shipped it to Syria. Add to that, Saddam was paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers that took out Israelis. He had to go. Iraq will straighten out in time and be an ally to the US in the Middle East.
2006-07-20 05:49:16 · answer #5 · answered by redjetta 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He was a bad leader by all means but he did control the problems between shias and sunnis.Americans failed to do that and what is going on in Iraq now is much worse than before. Innocent people are killed everyday. People are out of jobs.The country is in a whole wreck.So it's much worse than when saddam was there.I'm not defending him by all means i'm just stating facts.
2006-07-20 06:33:24 · answer #6 · answered by oaa99 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No - Iran would still be trying to produce nuclear weapons, Hezbollah and Hammas still would have kidnapped the Israeli soldiers,North Korea would still be shooting off missiles, and instead of fighting the terrorist that are trying to gain control if Iraq,Saddam would still be committing genocide against his own people and the rape rooms would still be full of raped , abused and tortured young women. So no it wouldn't it would be worse.
2006-07-20 05:54:24 · answer #7 · answered by bereal1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who really knows the answer to that? The US is responsible for Sadaam's rise to poer anyway. But, in any case, the Middle East is always in some kind of conflict and we need to allow them the right to self-determination and assist when asked.
2006-07-20 05:49:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably. Instead of him massacreing his people, they're doing it themselves and our soldiers are getting killed in the meantime. Odds are more people would be alive at least.
2006-07-20 05:43:45 · answer #9 · answered by WBrian_28 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ask the families of the raped, tortured and murdered Iraqis.
2006-07-20 05:40:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋