Weren't the national security interests of the US best served by a stable Iraq?
We have supported many dictators, and we armed Saddam in the first place.
Now Iraq is in chaos.
Are we (the US) better off?
If we got rid of Saddam for humanitarian reasons, why don't we stop genocide in Darfur?
2006-12-21 01:38:12 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
we got involved with Iraq not for humanitarian reason but for interests. you said it right we have defended many dictatorships. and for the genocide in Darfar forget about it too many black africans and you know how that goes
2006-12-21 01:55:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You look a little too old to be asking such childlike question,but here goes, in the First gulf war under UN resolution coalition forces job was only to remove Iraq from Kuwait soil which we did if we had invaded Iraq the rest of the world would ended up condemning us like they are doing now. Considering how much we are being vilified the last few years if I was the president I would be reluctant to send American troops anywhere unless we are facing imminent danger. How does that quote go. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
2006-12-21 02:29:46 · answer #2 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush one was advised that an unstable situation that is exactly like the one that is occurring there now would happen. His best option was just to keep Saddam in check, using "no fly zones" and an embargo against certain goods. We need to stop the genocide in Darfur too, but right now it appears American forces are stretched to their limits, so even a superpower isn't omnipotent.
2006-12-21 01:46:00 · answer #3 · answered by Paul H 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iraq replaced into not extra constructive off! #a million you supply motives to why usa would be extra constructive off no longer Iraq #2 Iran did no longer replace because of the fact of Iraq. even regardless of the indisputable fact that, now there is an American presence on the two sides of Iran. this would help in making the area extra stable. #3 human beings in Iraq hated one yet another below Saddam. there have been the same themes as till now. the south replaced into Shiites and the north replaced into kurdish. The Sunnis below saddam controlled the midsection and Bagdad. Now there's a Sunni and Shiite presence combating in Bagdad however the rustic as an entire is doing extra constructive. As for WMD, i'm unsure. they did no longer discover them so Bush failed. they'd have been there and moved to Syria yet regardless Bush did no longer help his declare. Is Bush a stable president NO! Does the conflict in IRaq benifit usa sure. as long as we are residing there and nt go away. If Democrats win and make usa go away, the midsection east will proceed in its EVIL and it eventualy deliver approximately Nukes. Collin Powell pronounced it terrific, we broke it now we offered it. If we go away it it particularly is going to harm us. IF we restoration it it particularly is going to help us do unlike conflict yet conflict each so often = stability like WWII
2016-12-15 05:32:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because we were in a coalition of nations and the U.N. would not allow us to take him out. Plus, the Saudis didn't want that to happen for fear that Iran would step in.
2006-12-21 01:41:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are such a polite man!
You stuff it in so politely, so respectfully !!
Kudos to the asker!!!
I will bet, you will not get a single serious answer from the Bushies.
2006-12-21 01:43:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ask James Baker, Colin Powell, and the UN!
2006-12-21 01:40:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The UN would only allow us to liberate Kuwait.
2006-12-21 01:41:32 · answer #8 · answered by here and now 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hypocrisy is a legitimate political philosophy.
2006-12-21 01:42:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋