Should Saddam have been removed from power?

Question

Should Saddam Hussan have been removed from power? I realize that there are many tyrants in the world that comit attrocities to the people that they rule over, so then why did we choose Iraq? There were no WMD's. Our reason for envasion is no longer valid. Rumor has it that we are spending $325M/day for this war. What is the validation for it?

Answer 1

Yeah but we could have saved a lot of money and time if we had the CIA do it.

Answer 2

Yes he needed to be removed. Since his removal the people of Iraq are 100% better off for it.

Of course you probably only see the bad things going on in Iraq from the news... You know 100's of Iraqi's murdered this month... You know thousands of Americans have been murdered here in our own country this month.....

Watch the film at the link below and get some good news for a change.

Answer 3

No WMD....what do you suppose he and his men killed all the Kurds with..harsh language? Funny, I heard they were gassed using an agent like Serin. Mass graves have been recently discovered in the region several bodies deep and forensic tests show that many of these citizens were buried alive. Women and children among them. Want to back out because of the cost? What price do you personally put on wholesale murder of this kind?

Whatever real reason started this war concerns me less than the aftermath if we go all yellow and weak and leave the region before it can stand on it's own. I am no fan of our current President, but it very likely is a foregone conclusion that for us to bug out now would leave a huge vacuum in the region that is sure to be filled by the Iranian leaders by whatever means necessary.

YES. Saddam needed to go.

Answer 4

I'm going to have to say, yes. I think this because anytime a person is mass murdering people, there is something wrong. It is that simple. Sure there are other countries that have the same problems with their violent tryant leaders but what makes you think the US government won't handle that once the troops are pulled from iraq? They have to start somewhere right? If they had invaded north korea in place of iraq, i'm sure that people would be asking why north korea and not Iraq. If oil is a factor in this war (which i think it is) than it was simply another reason to invade iraq over other countries. 2 birds, one stone. Booya

Answer 5

Sadaam hated the US, plain & simple.
Whether he had the WMDs in hand when we got there or shipped them out before isn't the real question.
He had used them on his own people in the past.
Unless you missed it, while Clinton was in power, he said Sadaam had them. Was he lying?
Unless you missed it, the Islamic Extremists have said everyone must convert to Islam or die.
Bush is at least smart enough to fight them there not here.
Would you rather be spending the same or more money rebuilding after attacks here and compensating victims?
I wouldn't.

Answer 6

yes he should have.but not at our cost.the people of Iraq should have done this.there is no way a leader in this country could walk down a street knocking on doors shooting people at will.i don't care how much power he had some one would blow his brains out.and that's what should have happened in their country.to me Saddam was not worth all the American and Iraqi lives.the reason we attacked was because the presidents buddies the Saudis wanted us too.other wise we would have pulled out when Saddams power was gone and let the United Nations put him on trial.

Answer 7

Um he has killed over 400,000 people with weapons...some call those WMDs but those were not what we were looking for. Poeple are glad he is gone. Sadly the government hasn't done as well as we had hoped.

Answer 8

M, would give him a Nobel peace prize instead? Sweet Jesus & Mary, you people need a clue....

Answer 9

What good are sanctions if you won't back them up? Maybe there should be no sanctions against N. Korea either. Nobody wants to back them up. Hell just let Iran have nukes too. Maybe they can sell them to Usama, or some other nut.

Source(s):

"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Answer 10

No he shouldnt have been removed. Things were going swell with him in power. There is no validation, other than it gives you something to ask about. this was meant to be sarcastic.