would liberal Democrats be blaming President Bush for not taking out a dictator who supports terrorism?
2006-10-08 04:11:44 · 12 answers · asked by babe 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes you know they would. Such sore losers.
2006-10-08 04:24:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
There are many certainties about your question.
Had we never went into Iraq:
Nearly 3000 servicemen would still be alive.
Nearly 10,000 servicemen wound not be maimed.
Thousands of Iraqi women and children would still be alive.
There'd be 300 billion dollars available for productive needs in US.
If this is the cost of removing a dictator, just think of the cost of removing all dictators.
Top 10:
1. Kim Jong-il (North Korea)
2. King Fahd and Prince Abdullah (Saudi Arabia)
3. Saddam Hussein (Iraq) TOPPLED
4. Charles Taylor (Liberia)
5. Than Shwe (former Burma, now Myanmar)
6. Teodoro Obiang Nguema (Equatorial Guinea)
7. Saparmurat Niyazov (Turkmenistan)
8. Muammar Gaddafi (Libya)
9. Fidel Castro (Cuba)
10. Alexander Lukashenko (Belarus)
2006-10-08 11:43:42 · answer #2 · answered by echiasso 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
no. why would they? Saddam was not in any American's consciousness until they said, 'hey, we got attacked by al qaeda on 9-11, but we are now going to go into Iraq to combat terrorism', and people are like "say what?",
yup, 'defeat terror, links to al-qaeda, no, um, defied the UN, no, um, has chemical weapons, no, well, he's just a really bad guy and the world is better without him'
that's right, 9-11 had NOTHING to do with Iraq, therefore, it must have nothing to do with an invasion of Iraq.
It would make more sense to snuff out the TRUE evil dictator that we KNOW has WMD.
North Korea.
2006-10-08 11:19:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's silly. There are so many dictators who support terrorism. If we took them all out, half of the world's governments would topple. American taxpayers cannot afford to support so many countries. We're bankrupt supporting our efforts in Iraq and giving tax breaks to the wealthy.
2006-10-08 11:17:00 · answer #4 · answered by farahwonderland2005 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Saddam was a macho nut case playing "dictator" in his little sand box. With a US Brigade in Kuwait, and the "No Fly" zones, Saddam was as dangerous as a garden snake. Saddam's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction was limited, and his macho image would never allow his friendship with Al Queda. In strengthening relations with the Kurds, and using the north as an operational and intelligence base, CIA operatives would of been able to conduct surveillance on Saddam's military and any production of WMD. In strengthening ties with the Kurds, we would of had a long term and faithful friend who had years of experience in dealing with Saddam. In addition, Saddam could of been a "trump" card in dealing with Iran since both countries hate each other.
Iraq was the biggest tactical mistake we have made since Vietnam, and we can not afford to make mistakes with Iran and North Korea.
2006-10-08 11:27:37 · answer #5 · answered by Fitforlife 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Probably. But in fact, the "dictator" you are talking about, was one of the most progressive rulers of the Middle East, and if I am not mistaking, he never supported NATO terror against Yugoslavia ether.
2006-10-08 11:24:29 · answer #6 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, we'd be saying c'mon, do something, DO SOMETHING PLEASE because North Korea is making nukes. Since we haven't gone into Iraq and gotten stuck there FOR NOTHIN', we have plenty of resources, we're in a position of strength to DO SOMETHING.
Since we're not wasting 6 billion a week in Iraq, we don't have to keep borrowing money from China, so we don't have to worry about them CALLING IN THE LOANS.
Since we're not wasting time in Iraq, can we PLEASE stay the course in Afghanistan?
Since we have plenty of resources and since we're not J##king off in Iraq, can we PLEASE find Osama Bin Laden, who humiliated us?
Since we don't have over 2500 GI's who've DIED FOR NOTHING, lets get down to business.
What terrorism has Saddam supported, by the way? Where'd you hear that? Fox news?
2006-10-08 17:35:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, and here the proof.
Are doing so regarding Chavez, Ahmadenijhad, or Kim Jonhg Il?
2006-10-08 11:19:56 · answer #8 · answered by Tofu Jesus 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, since there is no connection between Saddam and terrorism.
2006-10-08 11:20:10 · answer #9 · answered by Phil S 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's a tough one. I would have to look at what they are saying about Darfur and then draw some kind of parallel. Yes, I believe they would.
2006-10-08 11:42:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋