Saddam had the hoards under control and he just liked winding up the Yanks! Now the UK and the USA have been there for so long and are P*ssing in the wind trying to get Iraq to come to some sort of order! Your views please?
2006-11-27 07:35:46 · 12 answers · asked by Sir Sidney Snot 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Well, the US fought its own bloody civil war on the way to nationhood; perhaps it’s a right of passage democracies have to go through. Imagine if there had been a third power standing between the Yankees and the Confederates saying ‘cant you guys just all get along?’ Yea…right…. Would have gone down a treat.
The US is now no more than the meat between the two slices of bread trying to eat each other. Those who can afford to flee Iraq are doing so at a rate equivalent to 1% population per month. 1%…. that’s bad, real bad…. Do the math, civil war is inevitable and is already there, its just not yet very organised. That is changing. Blood will point the way to the future, and rather a lot of it.
How on gods earth the Americans thought they could bring democracy to Iraq is beyond me, a high school history student should have seen this coming. Power held for centuries by a 30% minority now suddenly and effectively disenfranchised from power by democracy. Who would swallow that? I know what will happen though; the US will pull out of Iraq and support the government against the anti government ‘insurgents’… which will be on a percentage of population basis more than those Americans who voted for Bush.
2006-11-27 14:38:47 · answer #1 · answered by John M 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iraq is populated by three very distinct groups. Shia, Sunny and Kurd. Kurd in the north, Sunny in the middle, and Shia at the bottom. Why are they all apart of the same country? Well the British invaded and stuck them together in the same country! Now the groups are pulling apart. So, yes it would have been much better to have left the place alone because the groups would have formed their own countries eventually anyway, and probably in a less bloodier fashion, and over a longer period of time. The 'coalition' is trying to keep the three groups together, for fear of looking like complete failures.
2006-11-27 08:02:52 · answer #2 · answered by Mr Slug 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that Saddam was smart in that way and went by the use of force to keep the people under control. He positioned himself right in the middle of both parties(Baghdad) and kept them separated. These factions have hated eachother since the beginning of time. Because this country and the UN believe in human rights, it goes against the law of the land in the Middle East. I think that's where we have gone terribly wrong in this war. Yes people are dying now, but they have always been dying on a daily basis, it's nothing new to the people over there.
2006-11-27 08:43:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shame on us. Another fine mess you have gotten us into Ollie.
It's gone from bad to worse. Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. He also was only a threat to those around him. Not the world, as some people would like us to believe. The lies and half-truths told to both countries by their respective leaders is awe inspiring. Too bad it's in a negative way. Iraq is going to go up in flames and come down in ashes. There will still be people saying we can win. Go figure.
2006-11-27 07:43:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Bush admin have a hidden agenda in Iraq. They can care less about how many people dies. Iraq posed no threat to the US or the UK. And that has been proven when the Bush admin were forced to admit no WMDs were found.
2006-11-27 07:59:47 · answer #5 · answered by Jerry H 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iran does no longer have had a similar danger to get over the first Iran-Iraq conflict, so would have a lot less ability to be aggressive, yet i don't think of it would have stimulated their approach in any respect. that's believed element of the archives provided by between the Al Qaeda captives that Bush used as justification of the invasion became given with the objective of influencing united statesa. to invade Iraq, with the conception of having Iran surrounded. i do not truly like it being suggested that Saddam Hussein saved them in examine. He did so with American help, and on the useless fee of fairly some Iraqi lives. united statesa., if it had to save Iran in examine, must have finished so itself.
2016-11-29 20:37:57 · answer #6 · answered by sobczak 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say you can't civilize the animals right now is the proof they can't live amongst themselves let alone the rest of the world. You win a war by killing everyone when the civilians get tired of dying for some jack*** that wants to keep their society in the stoneage they will point out the terrorists and it will end.
2006-11-27 07:40:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
British soldiers should not have ever been sent out to Iraq, my hubby went out there for six months (unnecessarily) and still nothing has been achieved!
2006-11-27 07:39:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah it sucks, I feel bad for our troops who sacrifice their lives for a country of savage animals.
2006-11-27 09:07:49 · answer #9 · answered by chefbill 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Disagree. Sodom declared war on US and UK. He did not consider the Gulf War to be over.
2006-11-27 07:41:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋