2006-10-19 07:33:36 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. That's not what the recent National Intelligence Estimate says.
2006-10-19 08:13:19 · answer #1 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Are you kidding me?
Though Saddam was a tyrant, he kept Iraq much more stable than it is today. It's a real shame that now, we are losing about 4 Soldiers a day in Iraq and at least 50 Iraqi's per day, are killed as well. The American death toll is already very near 3000.
Plus there were No terrorist camps in Iraq. I don't know where people get their info from...Saddam hates Bin Laden and anything associated with him. Saddam found Bin Laden to be a threat to his regime. The last thing Saddam would have done is, assist Bin Laden!
2006-10-19 14:45:14 · answer #2 · answered by MSJP 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Not if history has taught us anything. Many people knew before we ever entered Iraq that it would be another Vietnam, but without the trees. The vast majority of the people who live there don't want us there. Just like Vietnam. Now Bush is finally admitting it. 1200 years of hating "infidels" is hard to wipe out when you have "there God is not our God" things going on. Two totally different cultures/social structures. No way can our influence be considered stable.
2006-10-19 14:42:36 · answer #3 · answered by southwind 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Let's see. Thus far, over 2,700 American soldiers dead--over 70 this month. Nearly 20,000 troops seriously wounded. On average, 100 Iraqi civilians killed every day--many bound, tortured, and killed execution style. Thus far, approximately
130, 000 to 655, 000 civilians killed. To date we've spent 500 billion dollars on this war. There is no exit plan nor an end in sight. Bush continues with his "stay the course" proclamation. We have not revealed or identified what event(s) need to take place in order for us to declare victory and redeploy. Oops, I forgot. The mission was accomplished years ago. I guess we're doing just fine.
2006-10-19 14:44:20 · answer #4 · answered by Hemingway 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sorry, but I have to answer your Q with a few of my own:
Do you think that Kim Jong Il's North Korea is "stable"?
Do you think that Hugo Chavez' Venezuela is "stable"?
Did you think that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was "stable"?
Did you think that Mullah Muhammad Omar's Afghanistan was "stable"?
Would you characterize Hitler's Nazi Germany as "stable"?
Would you consider slave ownership as allowed in the pre-civil war U.S. southern states as "stable"?
I could go on. But the point is that "stability" is not always worth the rights being surrendered, is it?
One last question (since you seem to be concerned about Palestinian oppression by Israel): Do you agree with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's view of how to "stabilize" the Middle East (eliminate Israel)?
2006-10-19 14:58:24 · answer #5 · answered by idlebud 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Oh very stable, we haven't reached 100% of Iraqis that hate us, so we are still liked, a little bit.
2006-10-19 14:35:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
WMDs were only one of 23 UN resolutions that Sadam violated.
While Sadam and laden were opposed by faith, they were united in hate against America........
Sadam allowed Zaraqawi to build an Al Qaida camp in Iraq.
Laden was exploring the option of moving his operations to Iraq
Sadam provided training manuals for Al Qaeda
Sadam funded the attack on the USS Cole.
Sadam paid a reward to the spouses of suicide bombers
2006-10-19 14:35:37 · answer #7 · answered by SHIRAZ the Magnificent! 1 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I don't think ANY thinking person would suggest that we've had a stabilizing influence over there.
2006-10-19 14:35:41 · answer #8 · answered by missusjonz 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Do you even watch the news?
2006-10-19 14:35:36 · answer #9 · answered by Clycs 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
getting closer!
2006-10-19 14:35:41 · answer #10 · answered by battle-ax 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋