Aside of everything else, he was a threat to
A- Besides killing many of his own people directly, he was starving
and depriving every Iraqi except his chosen few of Medical ,
etc. by robbing the "Food for oil" program. How come we are
not hearing anything more about this?
B- Whether he had WMD or not. It is undisputed that he was
intent on pursuing this and since he invaded two neighboring
countries, at what point would he stop ?
C- He was paying suicide bombers in Israel and there were
terrorist training camps inside Iraq.
2006-12-05 10:00:16 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
yes, he had to go.
this will be rather controversial but.... IMHO if we had acted sooner it would have been better for the people. I'm just thankful we didn't wait as long to remove him as we did to aid in removing hilter.
2006-12-05 10:08:03 · answer #1 · answered by Marysia 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If he had to go, then Georgie has to buy a ticket too.
America does not have the right to go in and change a country's leadership nor to impose a political system.
What if China or Japan decides they don't like Bush or democracy. Do they have the right to attack us?
2006-12-05 18:50:12 · answer #2 · answered by Succubus 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
all of the above is true, yet it pales in comparison with what is going on now, dont believe that, than just ask any Iraqi
2006-12-05 20:37:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. He was not worse (in fact he was much better) then other Middle Eastern Rullers. Instead, Penis Clinton should have been brought to justice long ago over war crimes.
2006-12-05 18:55:31 · answer #4 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He was a scumbag, but he did keep the country together.
2006-12-05 18:08:47 · answer #5 · answered by Kenneth C 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no he did not have to go
2006-12-05 18:38:51 · answer #6 · answered by Zoe 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no
2006-12-05 18:55:02 · answer #7 · answered by mist 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋