Please provide intelligent factual answers. Also kindly leave the Bush and America bashing at the door. This is not a question about whether or not America was justified. This a question about Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
2006-07-26 02:21:34 · 14 answers · asked by Bryan 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
This question was a thought experiment. I placed it in society and culture, and added extra details specifically for the purpose of seeing if people could answer the question without imposing American justification or lack thereof depending on your personal viewpoint. Several managed to accomplish this while others failed miserably. The essense of the question was should Saddam Hussein have been removed based on his treatment of the people of Iraq. I appreciate all of the responses and found several reasonable in their assumptions even when they didn't fit the narrow scope of the question.
2006-07-27 04:06:57 · update #1
By all means he should have been removed. He was a mass murderer. What other reason do you need?
2006-07-26 02:25:26 · answer #1 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The people of Iraq could have risen against Saddam. Although he ran a tight ship, and usually killed anyone who opposed him, people always find a way to organize, and revolt against a tyrannical government. If the people of Iraq wanted help, they would have asked for it.
Iraq is far worse of now that it ever has been, and its only getting worse. Once the occupying force abandons them to fend for themselves just like back in the 80s, civil war will erupt and the struggle for power will begin once again.
2006-07-26 02:29:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes... I think he was a megalomaniac, murderer, genocidal and all around bad person. UN sanction's had been put on him for over 12 years and he thumbed his nose at them while he was dealing under the table with UN members.
He killed 10's of thousands at least, murdered his own people, had some dipped in acid, some thrown from buildings. He was and is a total wack job.
I believe he supported terrorism and would have given terrorist weapons of mass destruction if he had not allready.
2006-07-26 02:32:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I believe he should have been removed, just as many other "leaders around the world". At the end of the day this is a man who abused his powers for his own benefit. Though there are definitely others out there even worse.
2006-07-26 02:24:56 · answer #4 · answered by prinsin99 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
enable's get genuine about the actual motivations for the invasion. The Bush administration needed bases interior the middle East to guard Israel and center jap oil. 9/11 and Saddam Hussein were purely the justifications used to finish the objectives. convinced, i'd want that women and toddlers and different harmless Iraqis be alive at present who were killed by using our gunfire and different munitions. convinced, i'd want that the historic treasures had no longer been looted and that the Iraqi infrastructure no longer be destroyed and that the trillion funds wasted might want to were spent on the infrastructure of the U. S. of u.s..
2016-11-26 00:39:07 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes. and the reason being because after desert storm. there were a set of UN resolutions put in place of which Hussein was to comply with to prevent being attacked again. of which after being given MANY chances and opportunities. he failed to comply with i believe like 5 or 7 of them ONE of which was the WMD.. he basically thumbed his nose at the worlds in complying .. and it is a proven fact he DID have WMDS.. one of the resolutions was to prove he had DESTROYED the ones he had. which he did not. .. people love to talk about how there were now WMDs.. but the fact is. that once the last of the weapons inspectors were ousted IRAQ had about 5 years with no one looking in on them. .. now all of these idiots who cry well he didn't have any . give me a break. if he had 5 years. my god. of course he is going to move them or do something so they cannot be found. that is just moronic. to think otherwise. it didn't surprise me that when we DID attack again that we have not found them. but this war was about the finality of the failure to comply with UN resolutions.
2006-07-26 02:56:31 · answer #6 · answered by Calvin 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Iraqis should have been the ones to decide whether they wanted Saddam, not Americans.
2006-07-26 02:24:54 · answer #7 · answered by Davie 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can't help it...he should've been removed...but not by outsiders that took over the country, killed most famillies and destroyed a nation in the process after stealing it's @$$ off!!!!
2006-07-26 02:25:48 · answer #8 · answered by Diablous 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ask Iraqi people if they are better off now or before. Personally, I think that what happened to them was going from bad to worse.
There's no Sadam now there, and they're killed every day.
2006-07-26 02:32:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The scary parts about this we Put him in Power and now we are putting someone else in Power over there is there something wrong with this picture I do say it is
2006-07-26 02:25:30 · answer #10 · answered by Linda 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋