What business was it of ours to interfere at this late stage if it wasn't for their oil? Well the reality is Iraq is now more dangerous, more being killed and maimed than at any time during Saddam's rule. FACT.
2006-08-30 13:03:06 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Saddam was about to start selling oil in Euros rather than us dollars .....this would have destabalised the dollar so us attacked the us government put him there and when he decided to sell in euros, end of saddam ...its so simple do a little research.
2006-08-30 21:47:12 · answer #1 · answered by Bearable 5 · 2⤊ 6⤋
Yep, Saddam was happily ruining (sic) is country. Happily invading Kuwait. Happily killing, torturing, and (his sons) raping his citizens. Most likely happily plotting to take over the middle east. You're probably OK with all of that though - I say this because it seems you're only upset by the FACT that America took him down.
[to bearable]
Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq was under an oil-for-food program run by the UN. They were told how much oil they could sell. Even if Hussein wanted to sell oil in Euros, Iraq by themselves wouldn't have been able to change the world oil currency.
[to Prem Palmer]
If he was doing nothing, why were we over there for 10 years monitoring him and establishing a no-fly zone in order to protect his own citizens. The cease-fire agreement HE signed ending the original Gulf War had in it a number of obligations placed on Iraq, many of which Hussein ignored hoping we wouldn't have the stomach to invade.
2006-08-30 21:06:54 · answer #2 · answered by Will 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
FACT, Saddam was happy. But do you think that anyone else was? I wonder how the people of Iraq felt when they were "voting" for one of the biggest terrorists in the world. I'm sure they hated it. How can one person get 99% of the vote in any country? The only way is to rule with an iron fist.
But you're in luck, I have a way that you can get out of this country that you're so miserable in. It seems to me that Iran is being ruled by a terrorist with an iron fist, so why not move there?
Or even to Cuba or Venezuela. I'm sure that you'd be much happier there. I know I'd be happier with you there.
2006-08-30 20:16:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your presumption is full of flaws. Saddam was a brutal and vicious dictator and his sons were even worse. However, he was to some extent a stabilizing force in the region. Being completely non-religious he kept the Islamic extremists in check and did not allow extremists to flourish in Iraq. In addition, because of the tension between him and Iran, Iran was also kept in check to some degree. With Saddam gone, extremism is flourishing across the region.
This is the direction your question should have taken.
2006-08-30 20:16:17 · answer #4 · answered by beren 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In Saddam's mind he might've been happily running his country, but the Iraqi people may think differently. I've been against us going into Iraq from DAY 1! There's no doubt Saddam was a bad dude but there are bad rulers all over the world. Why didn't we attack North Korea?? Iraq is more dangerous and thousands are dying you are correct. Afghanistan was probably legitimate, Iraq wasn't and it's time to bring the troops home.
2006-08-30 20:11:42 · answer #5 · answered by carpediem 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Saddam and his cronies we the only ones who were happy. He has killed almost as many of his own countrymen as Pol Pot did in Cambodia. How then, could the people of Iraq be happy. Sure it's more violent there now, that's because several different factions want to run the government, and the don't want to do by free elections.
2006-08-30 20:16:28 · answer #6 · answered by Gunrunner 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe not happily, but happier than now (and not for 40 years). It was utterly irresponsible to upset a stable, contained government without preparation for the aftermath.
And he wasn't ruling without intervention during that time - the U.S.A. was actively supporting him for many years!
It is a ridiculous pipe dream from the "Project for a New American Century" that is responsible for the Iraq mess. Many of these same people are now pushing for "action" with Iran. They're arguably the biggest danger to world peace in the world.
2006-08-31 10:16:41 · answer #7 · answered by Zhimbo 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ken Lay was "happily" running Enron at the time, also. And the Board of Directors were "happily" running World Com.
And the workers - oh, hell, who cares about the low life, blue collar workers?
Saddam had to go - it's just plain human decency to kick these Islamic fascists' butts before they can maim and kill more innocent men, women and children!
2006-08-30 20:19:34 · answer #8 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
His wrongful acts of the invasion of Kuwait. The subsequent cease-fire as a result of us kicking his butt. And then the subsequent violations, by Saddam, of that cease-fire agreement.
See... quite simple when you break it down.
Ummm.. and it is NOT a fact that more are being killed in Iraq now. Ask the Kurds. Ask those that dared to stepped up at the end of the war because they did not think that Bush Sr. and the US would cower to the will of the UN and not finish the job of removing Saddam from power.
*************
The post by Bia Bia has to be th emost ludicrous post I have ever seen in my life. Practically glorifying Saddam for free healthcare and such. And 'not much worse than what we have in America'????
Talk about a misguided fool.
2006-08-30 20:06:45 · answer #9 · answered by DiamondDave 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Saddam was happy. The poor souls who were tortured, murdered, raped and had to watch the same happen to their kids - not so happy. Nothing like throwing a "dissident" into an acid bath to make a happy end to a dictator's day!
2006-08-30 20:25:11 · answer #10 · answered by JC6005 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The main reason why your question is incorrect is basically because.....Saddam was happily running his country for 40 years because we allowed it to be that way. When he tortured his citizens, we did nothing because simply, we didn't care. He was our attack dog until he wasn't needed anymore. Why do you think he made the statement at his trial.."why is president bush not sitting by my side?"
This is a very accurate statement for him to make...of course you have to throw Clinton and father Bush plus Reagan in the mix too. These were the administrations that supported him. Happily.
2006-09-01 00:10:30 · answer #11 · answered by Charlooch 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋