Please ignore these other nitwits - it's late and their mommies are out partying and so are not home to put them to bed.
The answer to your question is that Saddam sent a hit team to kill George H. W. Bush (the current President's father and the 41st President of the United States) in Kuwait when Bush was there to receive thanks from the Kuwaiti government and people for freeing them from the yoke of the Iraqi dictator.
Bill Clinton was President at the time of the attempted assassination and, being the Weak Sister that he is, he just sent a few cruise missles into Iraq and called it a day. What he should have done was to go back to Iraq and kill Saddam at that time - but, as I say, he's a very weak man (he's not REALLY a man, he just has a man's body) and so he did almost nothing.
2006-11-08 17:32:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
interior the words of Stephen Colbert, "did no longer taking Saddam out sense like the astounding element?" i do no longer think of everyone somewhat knows why. He replaced into, regardless of the undeniable fact that, a brutal tryant and commited mass genocide. don't get me incorrect, nonetheless, i'm no fan of the Bush administation and the conflict in Iraq is going against each thing I stand for. yet Saddam did no longer need to be in ability. It only wasn't any of the U. S.'s business enterprise. As for why the U. S. are helping restoration up Iraq, that's what the they do. They injury countries and attempt to make it lood like they're performing some stable by potential of fixing it up afterwards. i like usa, yet their regulations are somewhat screwed up and the government is loopy corrupt.
2016-12-10 05:40:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
He committed genocide and killed thousands of people in his own country and then just dumped them in mass graves like animals. He was attempting to "cleanse" his country to his liking, much like Hitler. He isn't the only one - how about that upstanding leader in Darfur? There's a real dilly for you... I'm not much for capital punishment since DNA testing has set free more than a couple people on death row who were proved innocent. But in a case like Saddam? Who needs DNA, the whole world knows who was running that show. I say hang him on public TV.
2006-11-08 17:32:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
He had no respect for human life!! He was a threat to the entire world and we (the USA) are part of the world and so he was a threat to us. We had every right to want him out of power and dead. The world is better off without him!!
2006-11-08 17:28:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
That's right block head, things are different now. The slaughter is over. It's Nov 8, 2006 and the sun is shining the birds are chirping and everything will work out just fine now, you'll see!
2006-11-08 17:27:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
You are joking right? Maybe just an ignorqant moron that can't construct simple English sentences.
2006-11-08 17:54:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by Ted Kennedy aka Swimmer 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
And hanging saddam only fuels the fires of insurgency, as they have a martry
2006-11-08 17:27:41
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
I'm happy cause ol george an da media tole me 2
2006-11-08 17:26:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by bradship4u 3
·
1⤊
3⤋
If you have to ask the question, you wouldn't understand the answer.
2006-11-08 17:36:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes he was threat. He does deserve death
2006-11-08 17:23:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by knowssignlanguage 6
·
4⤊
1⤋