What would have been done to stop the genicides, political murders, and countless international laws he broke, not to mention being a threat in the middle east? What were the other solutions? Geoncides are everyone's problem, and the UN did nothing.
2006-12-20 17:52:29 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Okay, Suddam killed his own people to pervent an overthrown and if he assisnated him, that would be considered a war. Its funny how no one can give me a good answer to this question.
2006-12-20 18:04:08 · update #1
Although it was the US that supplied Saddam the WMD's during Iran-Iraq, the only way to get rid off Saddam was some sort of attack upon him, but assassination would be very hard as he never stayed in one place for very long & he had doubles, so that is a problem.
2006-12-20 19:44:38 · answer #1 · answered by Mike J 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Kept him bottled up with the embargo and the no-fly zones. Kept added pressure with the UN. Forced him to accept the weapons inspectors. All of this was not done by Bush because he wanted this war. He didn't look for any solution except war.
More Iraqi die every month now than at any time since the Iraq Iran war. Iraq is a far worse place for Iraqis now than before the invasion. Bush and his pals had no plan, zero foresight. Fools.
2006-12-21 04:15:08 · answer #2 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't agree with the war and I don't think it's the US responsibility to "clean up" other countries problems. If that were the case the US would pretty much have to invade the entire African continent, Hatti, China, North Korea, and most of the middle east. The ONLY reason we illegally invaded Iraq is because Iraq has oil. Simply no other reason. There are worst governments doing worst things to their own people than Saddam was doing so why haven't we invaded those countries? And don't forget that the US helped put Saddam into power in the first place.
2006-12-21 02:08:54 · answer #3 · answered by Erin N 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It was the US that supplied Saddam with all those wierd weapons. The US did not say much about Saddam's brutal Anfal campaign during the late 80's.
Why do you think the US forces are so unpopular among local Iraqis?
Judging from your question, I would say that you are young and you do have a lot to learn. Look for past facts, they are the keys to the conclusion of any matter.
2006-12-21 02:04:19 · answer #4 · answered by Zabanya 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I would have dealt with it the same way history has dealt with dictators that do such things: let time or civil war usher in a period of change.
2006-12-21 02:12:01 · answer #5 · answered by K A 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would have supported the UN ....... given them a little more power.... and democracy will do its work of ignoring it or fixing it....the people will have to decide......by electing their own officials to represent their country and interests....
You know democracy may be a little slow....and inefficient but it is better than the mess we are in..............
2006-12-21 02:18:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Implant a chip in his skull with a transmitter to show what he sees and hears at all times as well as track his movement. Let him show us the WMD's that he hid.
2006-12-21 01:56:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Not to have supported him in the first place just because he decided to attack the enemy of the US, Iran
2006-12-21 02:12:29 · answer #8 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Revolutions and world pressure have worked well in many other countries. Why not in Irak by their own people?
2006-12-21 01:57:32 · answer #9 · answered by Tune 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Assassination!!
Him- his sons- 8 top military aids.
2006-12-21 02:01:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋