Do you think saddam Hussain should have be left in charge of Iraq?

Answer 1

It's his country, so yes I think so. Bush is president of the U.S.A not the entire world, it's none of our business how he ran his country.

Answer 2

Hindsight is 20/20. I do not support the war - I never did. BUT, the intelligence that everyone in the Bush Administration had (as well as the Congress) said that there were WMDs in Iraq. Now we know that there aren't. (Well, technically you can never disprove the fact that there aren't any, but until we find any, we will have to logically assume we had faulty intelligence and they are not just well-hidden.) So it is an understandable mistake to have gone into Iraq. But to answer your question, Saddam Hussein SHOULD HAVE been left in charge of Iraq. The reason is, as it turns out, he was NOT a threat to the United States. But to say it is all the Republicans fault is rather unreasonable. John Kerry, for one, was for the war until he was against it. It's just a rather unfortunate position we are in now. But the point should be raised that the world is much better off without Hussein. He committed war crimes against his people. He is a terrible dictator. But it seems it was not our place to do what we did. We were justified through the perception that we were in danger. But we were not. The US is not the international police and ideally we should have left Iraq alone. We made it worse. We caused a lot of Iraqi and American deaths. And made the region unstable and may have caused more terrorists to hate the US. But the argument that we did a great thing in stopping Saddam from killing his people is not good enough. Saddam really only killed people who spoke out against him. If you kept your mouth shut, you were fine. Sure, you can make a case for everyone having a natural right to political and civil liberties, but to start a multibillion dollar war to let the Iraqis have free speech is crazy. And the most important thing is the United States has CAUSED the death of INNOCENT Iraqi men, women, and children. Saddam only killed people who spoke out against him. So the answer to your question is YES.

Answer 3

This has become a forum for US policy haters. Someone said Saddam was not an imminent threat. Define imminent threat. We had been attacked by foreign terrorists. There leader had run to ground. Intelligence (not Bush, not Congress) suggested that an unstable dictator in the region had WMD's that showed no record of destruction after the first gulf war, said dictator was known to pay death benefits for suicide bombers, and there were hints that he may have been in contact with terrorists that had hit the trade centers. If he possessed WMD's and the Terrorist offered to pay for them - he would have sold them, NO DOUBT. I feel safer knowing that won't happen. We have other potential sellers to our enemies. Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons in the hands of terror organizations is NOT an option. If the UN is unable to procure assurances from these nations that they will halt pursuit of WMD weaponry it is up to the free and able nations of the world to protect each other and their citizens. Sometimes that means bad things happen to good people but in the defense of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness nothing should be spared.

Answer 4

His time had come anyways but now you can't change the past and while he's caught we should tie his nuts to a little truck and give him a tour of Iraq so that his people get to know him up closer!
It's very Iraqis get the chance to express their feelings towards their beloved president. If that works, I suggest same for Bush.

Answer 5

Oh yeah....I'm sure the women who could be taken off the streets at any time and raped wish he was still there. And the little girls who are now going to school. Probably the pour souls that were fed to his sons tigers for sport wish Saddam was still in power. Remember Freedom isn't free. They need to get themselves together and fight for themselves and their own freedom.

Answer 6

No, he was really getting crazy. Something needed to be done about him. I realize the country is in turmoil right now, but I do believe it won't always be that way. They were in turmoil before. I couldn't live under a tyrant like that. I can barely live under the one we have now.

Don't get me wrong, I love my country and I love the service men both past and present who keep our country great, but I am still not crazy about our government, and I don't trust them one bit.

Answer 7

Yes, Iraq seemed to be more free before we stepped in.

Answer 8

Saddam must not allowed to control Iraq again because he will continue the repressive acts against those who oppose him.

Answer 9

Ask that question to the children that he and his thugs put their limbs into tree shredders or gouged the eyes out of????

Answer 10

No. Ask the families of the 'dissappeared'. All our brave soldiers have died to get rid of this tyrant. We owe it to them.

Answer 11

Unfortunately yes. He is a bad man, but he was not an immanent threat to the U.S. We did not have a right to go in there. Are we going to invade every country with a leader we don't like/?? of course not, we can't. Why did we do it this time??????