Neocons, You must believe that Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney was doing business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion?
2006-08-16 05:03:53 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
yep, neocons must be REALLY confused now
he's good,
he's bad,
he's good,
he's bad
I guess he's going to be good soon, provided he doesn't die
2006-08-16 05:35:40 · answer #1 · answered by Echo 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
At the time the US was arming Iraq it was during the Iraq Iran war and the reason we did this was to stop Iran's expansion plans in the Middle East. Was it the best thing to do at that time I would have to say yes because it kept Iran pinned down with fighting Iraq. Now, Saddium was never a good guy and he later proved that in Iraq war 1.0 where he invaded Kuwait. Still the US did not take him out of power by leveling his country to the stone age. This permitted Saddam to grow strong because he stood up to the Americans and survived. In fact, the US in the post war Iraq Version 1.0 made teh mistake of trying to get the people to overthrow Saddam but they did not give them any US backing. For this reason Saddam crushed the resisant wthin his country by using Chemical weapons. It was for this reason the USknows he had the capacity to build WMDs. The talk of an Osama diversion is not right. In my personal opinion what Iraq War 2.0 was about is removing Saddam but more importantly planting the seeds of democracy in the middle east and surrounding Iran with two democracies and hoping the people of Iran with US help overthrow Iran who is the true head of the snake without firing a shot.
So to the question is he a scapegoat yes and no. He was a bad guy that needed to be removed but the reason I feel he was removed was partly to be a scapegoat so we could hopefully overthrow the Middle East's true demon Iran.
2006-08-16 12:18:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
correct. He was once our ally but then we wanted the oil in Iraq and not he is a bad guy. It is funny that both the Bush's started a war with the same guy for the same thing. We just sit back and let it happen.
2006-08-16 12:10:21 · answer #3 · answered by Metacoma 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think he was a bad man.
Reagan armed him against the communists.
Bush Sr. made war with him when he invaded one of our allies.
Cheney is a capitalist, no harm in making an honest buck.
President Bush used intelligence to determine he was linked to OBL. The same intel that Clinton used to link the 2.
Next question please.
2006-08-16 12:11:50 · answer #4 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Of course he was, Bush is in cahoots with the Saudi's and all for $$$$, Duh-bya is a traitor.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=253&row=0
2006-08-16 12:32:03 · answer #5 · answered by Dr.Feelgood 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Dan Rather's interview with Saddam was moving to me read it and you will get your answer.
2006-08-16 12:15:42 · answer #6 · answered by twinsmakesfive 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Scapegoat, maybe; ultimate, hardly
2006-08-16 12:09:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Poor thing, had nothing to do with 911 or terrorism.
2006-08-16 12:10:34 · answer #8 · answered by ash_m_79 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ask the Kurds.
2006-08-16 12:09:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
TSK. I am ashamed. Oh forgive me! LOL!!!
2006-08-16 12:17:23 · answer #10 · answered by TJ 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋