Shoulg George BUsh Jr.'s father have deposed or assassinated Saddam Hussein? Would Iraq be as bad as now?

Answer 1

I know that if we had finished the job the first time ( desert storm )and didn't renege on our promise to back the Iraqis against Saddam we would have allot more support from the Iraqi people and the world.

Answer 2

I think it would have been a very bad idea. Remember the massive coalition we assembled against Iraq for the first gulf war - including virtually all the arab nations? I'm sure that coalition was formed with the understanding that we wouldn't depose Saddam. The goals were to restore Kuwait and to render Saddam unable to threaten his neighbors, and both of those goals were accomplished.

If we had deposed Saddam anyway, we'd have violated the trust of every nation in the region, and we'd still be stuck picking up the pieces. It wouldn't have been any easier then than it is now.

Answer 3

i've got faith there are a number of factors to why Iraq became invaded - the anti wars provides you one tale, and the experts yet another....shall we verify out the various data..... at the beginning i've got faith Saddam introduced this very plenty on himself, besides the undeniable fact that regrettably he became style of caught between a rock and a no longer common place. As all of us understand, Saddam became an best pal of the west for some years, such as the years whilst he gassed the Kurdish village. yet he became the main anti-Iran impression in the region, so best pal he became. Saddams first mistake became invading Kuwait - consistent with probability he theory that western governments does no longer act, yet this loss of judgement brought about his downfall After Kuwait, UN protection resoluton 687 became signed, with between the factor that he had to coach that he had destroyed all of the WMDs (which all of us understand he did have - gassing villages, utilising against Iran and so on, anthrax and so on) - yet returned, right here became the confusing place - if he proved he had have been given rid of them then he became showing weak point + showing his enemies he became militarily weaker than they theory. His 2d undesirable loss of judgement became his brinkmanship with the UN weapons inspectors - even Hans Blix, the supervisor UN weapon inspector suggested this. And with this coming after 9/11 he rather rather screwed up (and UN SCR 687 suggested that if he did no longer prepare that he had destroyed the weapons, then "serious effects" (i.e. conflict) would take place) - so i think, on stability, that the Iraq invasion became justified (besides the undeniable fact which you would be able to desire to argue why dont all of the UN protection resolutions get enforced!) the place the U. S. and uk did screw up over Iraq became the go out technique, errr, or loss of! in basic terms because of the fact WMDs weren't modern-day in Iraq does no longer mean that there became no longer a stable reason to look for them, as UN SCR 687 and the blockading of the UN weapons inspectors offered this

Answer 4

No, we'd be in the same shape we are now. Bush Sr. is much smarter than Jr......Pushing the Iraqi's out of Kuwait was the goal and he did just that. Jr. took his eye off the ball in reference to Afghanistan and now we've got 2 major problems to deal with.

Answer 5

Then we wouldn't have entered this war...unless of course he worked hard to find another excuse to install Halliburton in Iraq.

Speaking of which, if the U.S. executes Saddam after the trial...it will cause a gigantic uproar in the middle east, and namely, Iraq.

Answer 6

No. It's NOT about a "war on terror", "fighting for freedoms", or Saddam Hussein". It's REALLY all about THIS!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm

Answer 7

GWB Jr should not have invaded Iraq..it would have been a better place.