Please give as many reason as possible for and against it. i have to hold up one end of this aurgument in a debate. thanks for the ideas. please be detailed.
2006-08-11 19:49:17 · 11 answers · asked by Jonesy 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Reasons for:
Saddam was a bloodthirsty dictator who killed his own people.
There was a possibility of Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction.
There was a supposed connection with Al Qaeda.
Against:
Saddam was getting older and his Baath regime likely to fall at some point.
There was no proof of WMD.
There was no proof of him sponsoring Al Qaeda. Saddam's regime was secular and Bin Laden hated him.
There was no viable alternative to Saddam in terms of holding a very unstable, artificial nation together.
2006-08-11 19:56:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The whole deal with Iraq, WMD. is just a reason that the public has taken off and run with. When those planes hit those towers in NY.. That was an act of war, against us (USA). We could really care less about Iraq. We are at war with a culture!! Iraq, Saddam, trained these terrorists. He gave money (I think about $25.000) to the families of a person who blew themselves up against westerners. Just as many people died on Sept. 11th as did Pearl Harbor. Iraq is just a starting place against this new enemy. This is going to be a long drawn out ordeal. Good luck with your debate..
2006-08-11 20:06:18 · answer #2 · answered by mr.longshot 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Believe it or not, Bill Clinton said it best in 1998 after the airstrikes in Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
It's funny that many Democrats have a problem with a Republican agreeing with many of the points that Bill Clinton made. I strongly feel that if Clinton were still in office after 9/11/01, he would have ultimately dealt with Iraq similar to the way Bush did. It's a shame, but that's politics for you....
_________
Update:
Peeps like chrismango above have no sense of history. Iran restarted many of its nuclear programs in the late 80s as the war with Iraq came to close. I say restart because "peaceful" nuclear technology was already on track started in the late 60s with our help when we were a strong ally. The programs were scrapped in the 70s as internal conflicts against it came to life. And of course, the revolution in '78 scrapped the entire thing altogether. It wasn't until the late 80s that Iran again realized how important nuclear technology could be to them in their quest for POWER.
The chrismango's of the world haven't a clue when they make comments like that. Removing Saddam had nothing to do with it...
2006-08-11 20:03:10 · answer #3 · answered by SirCharles 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The original argument was that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and were an imminent threat to USA security.
Arguments for staying are that if we leave, the insurgents will take over Iraq thereby reverting back to a regime like Saddam had before.. a dictatorship.
All of it is bologna but those are the reasons.
2006-08-11 19:58:25 · answer #4 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Saddam needed to be taken out for the good of humanity.
I Corinthians 13;8a, Love never fails!!!!!
By the way jonesy after what happened in London today do
you finally begin to get the picture?
2006-08-11 19:53:00 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush invaded Iraq because in the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein tried to kill his dad.
Bush stayed in Iraq to create high paying jobs for Dick Cheney's company Halliburton.
2006-08-11 19:55:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well you see we were, but then we received a copy of The Rocky Horror Picture Show so we kept watching till we said "OH MAN WE'RE LATE ........again" then we ate tacos and made a hamster army.
"The End"
2006-08-11 20:41:47 · answer #7 · answered by THAT GUY 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam was sleeping with Satan, and plotting to destroy humanity.
Here's an undoctored photo of Saddam sleeping with Satan.
http://www.thamike.com/fn_images/satan_saddam.jpg
2006-08-11 19:53:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the CIA reports of whether they have WMD or not!! and the report showed that there was no evidence that saddam has any WMD!! the adminstration disregarded the intelligence agency's report and made a fake report and also screwed the man that did that CIA report.
2006-08-11 19:55:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
well, while saddam was in power, there was no threat in the middle east, iran, syria, etc, were scared to mess with him, he was primarilly the reason its been safe overseas, now that he is out of power, iran is the most powerful force in the middle east, and were able to build a nuke program
2006-08-11 19:52:03 · answer #10 · answered by chrismango13 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋