2006-07-25 01:35:31 · 13 answers · asked by philip y 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He would have done the same or worse. He has a reputation as a butcher. Read up on him. He's no boy scout.
2006-07-25 01:41:50 · answer #1 · answered by Outspoken 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sharon had used a lot of constraint over the years, so he may have held back a little longer.
2006-07-25 01:43:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He would have done exactly the same. He is/was just a pawn in the game. He and Blair are lapdogs to America
2006-07-25 01:41:27 · answer #3 · answered by China9 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Had Sharon been able to lead his people, this would already be over.
2006-07-25 01:52:13 · answer #4 · answered by sealss3006 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He would have applied more force, I think the stress of having to keep his hands tied this long contributed to his present state......
2006-07-25 01:41:59 · answer #5 · answered by lost&confused 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Possibly would have escalated the conflict beyond what it is now!
2006-07-25 01:44:55 · answer #6 · answered by floxy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ever wondered why hisbollah was silent when sharon was around .
2006-07-25 01:40:27 · answer #7 · answered by bruno 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably would have nuked 'em. I heard he (and a few other Jews) don't have much time for non-Jewish people.
2006-07-25 01:40:02 · answer #8 · answered by Pete Sweet 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
THE SAME LIKE THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT
2006-07-25 01:40:29 · answer #9 · answered by zilber 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He would wipe them out all of them (Hezbola tha is and its supporters)
2006-07-25 01:39:28 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋