Not to mention 200,000 Iraqi lives, The moral high ground of the USA and the 'bonne ami' of our Arab brothers and sisters.
2006-12-04 06:39:35 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions"
Sure, we could have armed Muqtada al-Sadr, he would have got rid of the weakened Saddam, or we could have asassinated Saddam.
2006-12-04 06:53:17 · answer #1 · answered by Ringo G. 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
i won't have the ability to respond to this, even with the undeniable fact that i might say we only attempt to strategies our own enterprise, yet that often do no longer paintings. We the two get offered right into a conflict by employing somebody bombing some thing of ours. yet, we are the main suitable usa of the international. i think we further down Saddam by way of fact if he grow to be nevertheless loose then we would difficulty approximately what he might do next. we would desire to blame somebody. ok, i'm 27 female, fairly disillusioned approximately how the international is popping out. observed that the international is somewhat backwards and function been talked approximately in a city, the place barefoot and pregnant is going stable. I only p.c. to be someplace else, i do no longer understand if the entire international is like this. i'm getting bitter by way of fact of adult males's comments approximately females I over hear or they confirm to tell me. Which gets them in the tip a effective beating from yours rather.
2016-10-14 00:01:19 · answer #2 · answered by dusik 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fact of war is that you can't simply remove a government and then say "well, see yah later, good luck with all that!".
Oh no, then your left with a handful of factions all vying for the new spot of power left open, and they'll be at each other's throats to get it. The death toll would be much higher
2006-12-04 06:41:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
LOL! Monday morning quarterbacks.
And how exactly would we have "just brought down" Saddam without using military force? Write him a letter and ask nicely?
The civilian death toll is not 200,000, and even if it was, blame the terrorist slime causing the mayhem there.
___________
Gringo, see www.iraqbodycount.org
2006-12-04 06:44:23 · answer #4 · answered by C = JD 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I'm not against that, but I wonder how it could have been done without bringing his sons to power...
2006-12-04 06:41:46 · answer #5 · answered by rustyshackleford001 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's against US law to assasinate foreign leaders. I think it's a bad law.
BTW, the Arabs aren't our friends let alone family.
2006-12-04 06:49:07 · answer #6 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
what do you mean? according to Kofi Annan, Iraq was better of with Saddam Hussein. huh. glad he's outta there in January.
2006-12-04 06:46:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
WOULDN'T BEEN BETTER TO BE LIVING IN PEACE THEN BRINGING HELL UPON EACH OTHER.WHAT ARE YOU KILLING EACH OTHER FOR.HATE/GREED/AND THE OIL.WELL THAT'S ENOUGH OF YOUR CARELESSNESS/SELFISHNESS/AND UNGODLINESS.SICK TO MY STOMACH //WHAT IN HELL ARE YOU DOING TO EACH OTHER.IS THIS THE WAY THE WORLD WAS MEANT TO BE LIVE IN ,A LIVING HELL.,PARADISE LOST.ITS JUDGMENT CALL THE SENTENCE IS NOW PASSED ONTO A WORLD LOST TO THE WORD OF GOD,,FAIL TO KEEP THE WORD OF GOD AND DENIES THE WORD OF GOD,BY FAILING TO KEEP THE WORD OF GOD.YOU HAVE DECLARED WAR ON THE ALMIGHTY GOD,NOT PLEASED
2006-12-04 07:26:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
And leave Haliburton out of this kind of profit?
2006-12-04 06:55:36 · answer #9 · answered by edubya 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Of course it would, but business was the main goal.
2006-12-04 07:02:12 · answer #10 · answered by Mysterio 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋