Should Saddam charges be dropped and he be allowed to retake his presidency back since we took his country from him illegally and went to war on lies and incorrect information?
2006-09-08 17:34:11 · 10 answers · asked by pcsneely 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Um...that's not really possible. You can't unring a bell once you've rung it; you also can't return sovereignty to an invaded nation once you've robbed them of it. The best hope for a stable Iraq is, sadly, a massive military presence that will only serve to destabilize the rest of the Middle East and cement in Arab minds that the United States seems to be pursuing a policy of imperialism.
2006-09-08 17:40:01 · answer #1 · answered by David W 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course Saddam should not be allowed to reclaim his control of the country. The man is a mass murderer. Whether it was legal or not to invade Iraq is now totally irrelevant. It has happened. However I cannot see the problems being resolved as there are too many warring factions within the country. Get the troops out and let the muslims kill each other rather than Americans and the British. This will of course not happen since the reason why the war commenced had nothing to do with human rights but OIL. I think most ordinary thinking people know this and this is the reason Bush/Blair are so unpopular over this foreign policy.
2006-09-11 09:48:05 · answer #2 · answered by david c 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not see how that is possible or desirable. That said..
The Iraqi invasion as most sensible people predicted has been a unmitigated failure.
No WMD
More Iraqis and non-Iraqis are dead than Sadam could have ever killed.. the daily death toll is still rising.
From zero terrorism in Iraq to it now being the main training ground for AlQueda, I heard 10x as many trained terrorists are graduating from Iraq today than were ever coming from Afghanistan.
The Invasion remains the biggest rallying cry for terrorist organisations.
Then there is the money that has been printed to pay for it all..It is going to take a generation of taxpayers to repay one administrations folly.
And the Oil price has definitely higher as a consequence.
The rise in the oil price has benefited some oilmen close to the Whitehouse. For that to be the plan from the outset would have involved greed of satanic proportions that I still feel the American and British government are not capable of. I therefore favour the incompetence theory over the conspiracy one.
To answer the question, it will be solved, by Iraqis, when we pull out. I personally no longer believe (as I once did) that the situation would be worse if there was a troop withdrawl.
2006-09-08 18:28:23 · answer #3 · answered by Andrew 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question. Iraq is the biggest mess. Oh wait, New Orleans! Been over a year for both issues and neither of them are even close to being finished. Do we see a pattern here? Saddam is not any worse than Fidel Castro and he is still sitting down in Cuba smoking a cigar. George W. Bush had a special interest in seeking out Saddam because there was a hit set out on his father from the first Gulf War. Might as well have Tony Soprano has president!
2006-09-08 17:38:48 · answer #4 · answered by Amy Soprano 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Stranger things have happened. We need a counter balance to Iranian sponsored Shiite extremists. Supporting the Sunnis IS in our interest...although I don't think we need to stoop so low that we let Saddam retake power.
2006-09-08 17:37:46 · answer #5 · answered by Brand X 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
America is now like the Monkey who put his hand in the gourd.
it would be best to ask Iraqis to give their verdict on Saddam Hussein. if they say hold him then do so if the majority say release him then release him and get out. The US did not learn its lessons from Vietnam
2006-09-08 18:09:25 · answer #6 · answered by Brahmanda 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This would all depend on what one's idea of "solved" would be. And certainly there will never be two like opinions. I mean really...who's problems are they anyway? Ultimately, it all boils down to the simple fact that mankind has always been and will forever be conflicted in his own right. We strive to make sense of a relative world using subjectivity and objectivity as tools for reason. YIELDS: JUDGMENT. Food for thought: Things aren't right or wrong; they just are. For crying out loud. How can it make sense to kill people so people can live? What the F__K difference would it make and for what purpose or benefit or power or control or whatever relative purpose can come out of destroying an entire world of persons - group by group, individual by individual, who don't believe in your beliefs? That would, by logical deduction, leave ONE RIGHT PERSON! What kind of life would that be? All alone in this world for no one to see your power, wealth, fame and fortune...SAVE YOUR OWN SELF!
Damn I'm good! And if you don't believe me...just live altruistically. To thine own self be true. Who said that anyway? I love you.
2006-09-08 19:20:08 · answer #7 · answered by what_privacy 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Will not happen...he'll be assasinated by a female suicide bomber, who's sons were killed just for being alive.
2006-09-08 17:54:20 · answer #8 · answered by masterwitchphd 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Never
2006-09-08 17:39:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO
2006-09-08 17:47:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋