if Bush never invaded Iraq? Or pressed the WMD's issue? Do you think that Saddam would be using weapons on his people and other countries or that he would be helping the US rid the world of terrorists? Or even something else?
2006-09-28 14:16:39 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Saddam already used WMD's............on his own people! Some people have short memories. Remember he gassed the Kurds!
2006-09-28 14:18:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Something else. I don't know that the past three years would have been optimal, but I think it's safe to say that the No Fly Zones would probably still be in place.
A lot is made of Saddam using WMD's on his own people. Yes he did gas a Kurdish village. And yes he fired a boat load of scuds at Israel. And yes he was a despot. No question about those things.
I don't believe Iraq would have been a help in the fight on terror, but neither would it have become a training ground for new ones.
It is unlikely that we would have resolved many of the issues with Iraq that were prevalent before 2003. Saddam would still have played games with the UN and probably fired a missile or two at us and we would have dropped the occasional bomb.
But on the plus side, life (such as was) would have gone on in Iraq and we would have continued our uneasy relationship with Saddam...much as we have with Castro these many years. And we would not be faced with the very real prospect of Shiite domination of Iraq, which will eventually lead to Iranian dominance in the region and the unleashing of an Islamic tidal wave aimed right at Israel.
Stability in a region has its value, whether by tryranny or democracy. We have to go back to being the pragmatic nation we used to be before we got this "spread freedom" disease.
I think ultimately, you have to really ask yourself, is the action that we are taking in the best strategic interest of Americans (not Iraqis or anybody else....but Americans). The interests and security of the American people trump all else.
There are many who believe our current course of action is in the best interest of this nation. I did not believe that in March 2003 and I do not believe that now.
2006-09-28 14:28:17 · answer #2 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam had no WMD's so he couldn't use them on his people. And he wouldn't be helping us with the terrorist threat. He was contained. Zinni was the guy in charge of the containment, read his thoughts;
2006-09-28 14:47:26 · answer #3 · answered by notme 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it would be somewhere in between, assuming of course that the US put extreme pressure on Saddam. Hussain got rid of his WMD's thanks to US pressure and weapons inspections, though I sincerly doubt that he would have become an ally in the "War on Terror".
on a different note, i think without a US invasion of Iraq, i think we might have seen a pro democratic revolution in Iran.
2006-09-28 14:22:54 · answer #4 · answered by lsquad70 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam was worried the USA would do just what it did. H would have use all his power to help fight radicals!
2006-09-28 14:19:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh noooooo..According to the Liberals, he was a great guy, who took care of his people!!
As long as they agreed with him, they never were tortured, raped, and killed! Who could ask for more in a leader??
2006-09-28 14:23:28 · answer #6 · answered by itsallover 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋