Iraq had law and order while I was in power, but since the US has invaded the country is on the brink of civil war. My regime may have seemed a bit cruel but really look at the way it is now.
Was it better off under me or the current state of anarchy where they are getting slaughtered by air bombs from stupid mistakes, killing eachother etc.
2006-10-01 21:45:55 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Or will they never leave so they can get heir grubby hands on our oil.
2006-10-01 21:53:26 · update #1
prosper?never.do u think that the americans will let u rule your country as long as there will be oil?order u say?let me ask u this: if there was order in iraq how could america still explain keeping the invading force stationed?peace will be only after the americans leave forever.those terrorists that u see on tv bombing
everything are patriots that defend what is left of their country, that are doing everything to make the plunders leave.
2006-10-01 21:51:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Regardless of the reasons I appose the U.S. invasion of Iraq, no, Mr. Hussein, I do not agree with you. "Law and Order" only existed because people feared crossing you for so long. Now, I don't believe the United States is the best candidate to command this "police action" in Iraq. There are far too many sects of people in Iraq that VIOLENTLY appose the ideals of this country. In some ways, I agree with them. In most ways, I don't see where the hatred comes from. Either way, I think the United States needs to pull out of Iraq and let the United Nations take over, due to the sentiments toward this country. The UN would do a better job because--once the U.S. was out of the question--things would settle down some.
2006-10-01 22:03:09 · answer #2 · answered by Danielle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it somewhat is a disaster. issues have been already undesirable through fact of sanctions, and because we assisted Saddam to stay in means and to attack Iran; now issues are worse, and maximum probable gets worse nonetheless, no be counted if we live there or not. No-it is easy to administration the area, which incorporates not Iran and Syria, and no person is known with what the end result would be - which it noticeably frightening for each guy or woman in the area, and for all people it is fearful approximately jihadists getting a genuine means base. My coronary heart is going out to the suffering people of Iraq, who did not something to convey this on themselves (aside from sh!ts like Saddam of path).
2016-12-15 18:13:16 · answer #3 · answered by Erika 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NOthing is better between the two situations.Neither, there will be no heaven for the Iranian as long as your hands and the US is in their land. Leave the decision to the people. After all, they should be the ones to know what is best for them...
2006-10-01 21:57:10 · answer #4 · answered by leeane 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A bit cruel ? Killing thousands is a bit cruel ? No, Saddam needed to be taken out.
Iraq will prosper once the terrorists are dealt with. It wouldn't have under Saddam - Ever !
2006-10-01 21:50:06 · answer #5 · answered by george g 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You libs pretend to be such idealists but then ask questions like this. Yeah, let's keep a known mass murderer, child torturing, woman raping, chemical weapon using maniac in office!
Anything is better than the U.S. to you America hating libs!
You PUSS! You wouldn't fight for your own life, would you?
You're all NUTS!
2006-10-01 22:22:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the US liberators being in iraq does not stop the iraqi people who want freedom from prospering....at least you are not filling mass graves anymore.
2006-10-02 00:03:43 · answer #7 · answered by bushfan88 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You da man, Saddamn!
2006-10-01 21:54:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
come back saddam iraq needs you.
2006-10-01 21:53:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is like saying which is worse, Cancer or heart disease
2006-10-01 21:51:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋