But because of NATO warnings that we would not have been backed if we went after him we did not. Should we have gone after him? Should we have pressed NATO into going with us?
2006-10-16 14:10:36 · 13 answers · asked by Too Cool For Me 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Yes but the UN was opposed to it. They basically told Bush 1 not to go to Baghdad. They had only agreed to get Saddam out of Koweit, not to overthrow him.
2006-10-16 14:12:32 · answer #1 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No we were defeated in Iraq the first time by the slaughter on the "highway of death". As soon as the pictures started comming in of thousands of Iraqi's burnt into crispy critters on the road out of Kiwait there was no will to continue the attack. We even let some of Saddam' s best soldiers escape.
I don't know if you've seen any of the video but it was pretty shocking. There was nothing like that in this last war.
2006-10-16 14:17:15 · answer #2 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. We shouldn't have gone in the Middle East in the first place and we have no right to go after somebody in the Middle East. America should worry about America and leave the rest of the world alone.
2006-10-16 14:13:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
woow the american and revisionist history.bush1knew what bush2 refused to listen to.gen powel worked with both administrations.the same advice he gave 1 he gave to2.the first bush1 knew that going into bagdad was like stepping into a hornets nest.he knew his history and the geography of iraq.let me remind you that bush 2 did not have any idea that iraq was divided in three parts.he did not know about the intense compitition between the sunni and shia.intelligent men knew what gready and stupid men did not want to know.we did not go in following nato advice but our own.now our #1 compitition in the area has taken over iraq and our soldiers are dying to keep irans power and influence strong in iraq.
2006-10-16 14:39:40 · answer #4 · answered by miraclehand2020 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No we shouldn't have gone after Saddam Hussein the first time we were in the Middle East, nor should we have unlawfully invaded Iraq this last time.
2006-10-16 14:18:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We didn't because Saddam weeped like a little girl saying he would follow all the UN rules from then on. Of course, he lied. So yes, with hindsite, we should have gone in and get him the first time.
2006-10-16 14:13:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
We did discover WMD, the liberal media only won't document on them. all of us understand the place Bin laden is (the mountains of Pakistan the place is somewhat ineffective and impossible to flush out as a results of terrain. it somewhat is a warfare on terrorism. bypass forward, stick you head in the sand. the situation won't bypass away. this is going to develop till it reaches our seashores. combat them there or here, which might you pick? Please dig previous the sound bites on the liberal media and get the real data. in fact no longer what you examine in the papers many of the time. it somewhat is a liberal slanted version of the fact to assist their schedule.
2016-12-08 16:02:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, we would have been mired in Iraq an extra thirteen years and would probably be bankrupt by now. Old George was smart enough to get out and his son was stupid to go back.
2006-10-16 14:19:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should have taken him out during the First Guld War. Hindsight is always 20/20 though.
2006-10-16 14:15:18 · answer #9 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
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
2006-10-17 03:23:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋