Iraq violated dozens of UN resolutions. The UN should have ousted Saddam.Why do you think Saddam is innocent?

Question

I hear we should have never gone into Iraq. If someone had done something when Hitler started prancing around millions of people would not have lost their lives. If you have an infection in your pinkie finger, do you wait untill it has engulfed your entire body before you take antibiotics to erradicate the infection? No. You fix it immediately because if you wait it may be too late. Stop acting like Saddam was just sitting in Iraq knitting sweaters and feeding geese when the evil US came in and started blowing things up. Saddam was an infection that was resistent to UN medicine, so he got a dose of US.

Please remember, Iraqi citizens dying everyday are not being killed by Americans, how bout you place the blame with the insurgents? Blaming the US for Iraqis killing Iraqis is as ludicrous as blaming slavery for black on black crime.

Answer 1

they why dosent the USA invade Israel to make it comply with UN resolutions?
Americans tend to forget in WW2 they were cowards it was the UK, France and the commonwealth who declared war on Nazi Germany , the USA refused. London burned from Nazi bombers and the USA passed a law that anyone who fort the Nazis would lose their American citizenship. however this is not relevant to Saddam.
Iraq qua an anti extreme Islamic country, he was a dictator but but that doesn't worry the USA, it is currently trying to unseat the democratically elected Chavez.

Saddam did not have the weapons , or the capacity to deliver. He was no threat to the USA. Bush is an extreemly stupid man who wanted to attack Iraq first becasue "it had better targets"!!!!!!!!!

Now you have enter an imoral stupid war and your men now bleed to death, your tax payers have to fund it and you cant even control a city let alone a country. the iraqis will hate you for the rest of eternity not for geting rid of Saddam but for totaly ruining their country. there is less power , water and serage un american tyranny than under saddam.h was not elected by the iraqi people he is as big dicator and undemcratic tyrant to them as saddam was, except uner the tyrant Bush the rule of law is destroyed, there are islamic terrorists and extreem religoius groups rule the streets
If america was so concered for hel;ping people you would have helped in rawanda, teh usa is a joke but this time the joke is on you.

bleed , bleed , bleed

Answer 2

The whole concept of a 'pre-emptive' war was very worrying. The morality of attacking someone because you think (but don't know for sure) they may have WMD and you think (but don't know for sure) that they might use them against you was going way beyond what was acceptable to most intelligent, rational and reasonable people. And to then discover there were no WMD put the whole affair into an infinitely worse light!

Nor has regime change ever been deemed acceptable by civilised nations - however abhorent that regime. You may defend yourselves, or your allies if they ask for help - you may not go storming into a sovereign nation because what's going on there doesn't meet with your approval. The idea of 'bringing democracy' to anyone is a complete oxymoron. It is only democracy if it comes willingly, from within.

There is no doubt the middle east is unstable, and that dangerous extremists now threaten the West. And you cannot condone the actions of terrorists, no matter what their grievances. But the West, and in particular the US needs to learn to keep its nose out. They were not elected by anyone to act as world police. And they have no right to threaten nations that do not agree with their crusade - it's disgusting. The US needs to learn the difference between cowardice and diplomacy.

It was said at the time of the Iraq invasion, if you sow a wind you will reap a whirlwind.

We certainly have.

Answer 3

There are a lot of nations out there who have violated the UN and most conservatives are no can't stand the UN except in the case of supporting the invasion of Iraq.

I agree that Saddam was a bad dude and probably did wish a lot of bad things on the US. But he was not tied in to Osama's folks. Saddam was into himself with all his palaces, etc., etc.

Bush Sr. knew the value that Saddam had in the region to keeping it stabilized and out of Shiite hands. He was right, his son was wrong. Shiite control of Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States and to my way of thinking that is the only consideration when looking at whether or not we go to war with someone.

There are some many other ways to deal with people like Saddam and we have done it successfully for decades. Iraq is something completely different and we all know it....

Answer 4

If you think Saddam was the most evil dictator at the time than I'm sorry, but you're a fool. Look at the situation in Darfur, where millions of people have been slaughtered. Look at North Korea and Iran where they have actually threatened to build nuclear bombs. And we do nothing. Nobody ever said Saddam was "innocent", get those Bill O'Reilly delusions out of your head, but to say that Iraq was the biggest threat to our security is simply laughable.

Iraqis are killing each other because the US threw that nation into chaos, and now they are on the verge of civil war.

Answer 5

I just finished a year long tour in Iraq, who says Saddam is innocent?
He needed to be relieved of power. But it's not the US's responsibility to liberate people. Iraqi's should have rose up themselves. Look at Vietnam and Korea. Not our job.
If terrorists are being backed though, different story. Only time whill tell.

Answer 6

The UN failed to oust Saddam in the same way that they failed to stop the Bosnia crisis, the Rwanda crisis, and in the same way they are failling to stop the Darfur crisis in Sudan as we speak! If America had not taken action, the UN never would have, and thousands more Kurds would have been tortured and killed under his regime. Maybe saying there were WMD's was simply a ploy to raise popular opinion and support to do a job the UN should have done back in the 1980s!

Answer 7

Sooo, if that is a rational reason to invade and occupy another sovereign nation, what wasn't that used as justification to the Congress? Why did the Bush administration have to fabricate fearful tales of mushroom clouds and tons of biological weapons as an imminent threat? Why allege the connection to Al Queda? Because the Congress would never have supported imperialistic expansion based on greed. Do a search on PNAC and the Pentagon Office of Special Plans.

Answer 8

Hitler headed one of the most powerful ingenious Anglo Saxon nations on earth, you are comparing apples w. dandelion seeds.
All those M.E. nations are diametrically opposed to us in principles and religion, hit one and you stir them all up. Saddam was our puppet for years and he ran by far the most secular Middle East country reasonably well considering the tribes he had to deal with (we are certainly doing worse look at the death count on both sides.) By the way Osama was cheered for kicking the USSR out of Afghanistan at our expense and bequest and look where that got us!
The world got a dose of US ignorance and there is no telling where it will lead, the intended 100 years of controlled oil markets and cheap energy are looking like an unlikely scenario.

Answer 9

Saddam is innocent or not innocet . is not the case we are not in court room this is country invade and occupied by another country and in the first time in the history this occupation without any reason .
I challange any one in the world to tell me just ONE reason to attack Iraq
no fixation no solution and this is the rule when you break the VASA you must buy it

Answer 10

Millions of people were still going to lose their lives even without Hitler. Stalin was getting ready to invade Poland from the east regardless. So that would have started it.