After 9/11 President Bush said, "If you harbour a terrorist or sponsor a terrorist, you are a terrorist and we are coming after you. Everyone in this country agreed. Those critics said there was no reason for going into Iraq must have been asleep and in fact were. Saying Saddam was "contained" was an illusion. Saddam was paying for terrorist to go into Israel. He also harboured terrorist training camps. He terrorized the whole region and his own people. To not acknowledge Saddam as a terrorist is the fallacy of the critics.
2006-09-04 12:14:14 · 10 answers · asked by Search4truth 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
if only everyone could realize this, but they dont, they just think that war is bad and they want nothing to do with it, sometimes war is necessary. im totally with you on this one.
2006-09-04 15:05:28 · answer #1 · answered by krystal 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A TERRORIST? A TERRORIST? SADDAM HUSSEIN? OH, how scary is that in all caps.!
I suppose Saddam was going to try and topple America! The only reason (check the record) we thought Saddam had WMD is because we sold some to him a few years back, when he was our buddy. But he's used them, or they have become docile and he can't put anything dangerous together anymore, nor was he like too.
What the US is doing to people of the Middle East must stop . Let me tell you people who are so worried that if we don't stop the terrorists over there, they're going to come over here and get us. PEOPLE THE TERRORISTS ARE ALREADY HERE! They have come a few at a time across our borders and into this country, they have jobs, wives and children and most pay taxes. These Muslims are ready for war, but they would rather have peace, it's up to America to stop killing, if we don't stop we are going to be woken up some evening with a knife to our throats and that nice guy down the street, or that young student from across town is going to show you first hand what terrorism is, in case you didn't know! .
2006-09-04 12:43:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Saddam Hussein's authorities replaced into secular until eventually the first Iraq conflict (below Bush I). He grew to develop into more effective non secular after that, yet he's not area of an same non secular sect as Osama bin weighted down. Hussein for all his faults, previous to 1991, led the most stepped forward center eastern u . s . except Israel, and one in which females had equivalent rights. He replaced right into a violent guy, yet no worse than most of the leaders in different countries in that area. most of the claims about his excesses are exaggerated, and positioned out via professional-Iranian forces or an same communities that claimed Saddam had nuclear guns fabric and WMDs.
2016-12-06 10:00:53 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The facts show that no tie have ever been established between Hussein and terrorists. No wepons of mass destruction were never found either. Bush bluffed (went to war) becuase we all thought he must have something. He had nothing that we acused him of. Oh well, at least now we have his oil. And can now say we actually went to war to liberate that nation. He was a monster. That cant be denyed.
However, he did have to be removed becuase he was destablizing the region.
2006-09-04 12:26:26 · answer #4 · answered by viajero_intergalactico 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The problem with the definition is that a terrorist is anyone the US doesn't like.
Saddam was a monster, and a war criminal, and may well have been a terrorist. So, he was kicked out of office, his govt destroyed, and he's facing capitol charges which means he'll be dead soon.
So what. We've destroyed his govt and his country. Does it really matter whether we call him a terrorist or not?
2006-09-04 12:17:09 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
"Saying Saddam was "contained" was an illusion. Saddam was paying for terrorist to go into Israel."
Uh, got any proof of all that?
Bush started a war on false (and hypocritical) pretenses about nuclear weapons. His war as killed tens of thousands of innocent people and counting. Would you call that terrorism?
2006-09-04 12:17:46 · answer #6 · answered by Phil S 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
and america paid him to be in power because he was anticommunist then wasnt america sponsoring a terrorist
2006-09-05 00:41:56 · answer #7 · answered by YR1947 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some people just don't get it and will live with their own ignorance forever.
2006-09-04 12:19:13 · answer #8 · answered by Curt 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well said. I agree
2006-09-04 13:08:44 · answer #9 · answered by cnkbrum 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO!!!! They are blind, deaf and dumb, mostly DUMB!!!!!
2006-09-04 12:26:09 · answer #10 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋