If the reason we invaded iraq and took Saddam out of office is because he was a bad guy, why aren't we taking care of Darfur and the people who are being killed there, or other parts of the world who are suffering?
Wasn't it true that America was Saddam's friend?
I just want to know the facts, no bs.
2006-12-30 18:20:26 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Detroit, you're one of the deniers.
2006-12-30 18:24:13 · update #1
no we were never Saddams friend. he was a threat as they say to the U.S. so we invaded found no weapons of mass destruciton. but yet were still there.....um oh yeah we found Saddam and his country trailed him for the deaths back in um 1989 i think.....some one tried to assasinate him and he never found out so he killed the whole town.....but yeah he's dead so i dont give a damn! care to see the video of him getting hang? there is only one out and they show it all.
2006-12-30 18:26:39 · answer #1 · answered by all_war_heads_will_rust_in_peace 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Wow - seems uncommon to see someone with brains around here...
Yes - the US supplied Saddam Hussein and Iraq with a great deal of money and equipment to wage war on Iran, as well as, perhaps inadvertently, on their own people.
The reason we took out Hussein, according to the Bush administration's justification (found to be completely false) was actually weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had none... and has none... though terrorism has found great incentive and opportunity since we deposed Saddam Hussein.
As for Darfur - no oil, and no interest on the part of the current administration...
I know that sounds terrible, but we live in a nation that is run by the wealthy (an oligarchy in essense) and the corporations...
-dh
2006-12-31 02:52:53 · answer #2 · answered by delicateharmony 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately we did offer aid to Saddam when he was fighting Iran. This country should have seen that coming.
We did not attack Iraq because he was a bad guy. Intelligence did show he had WMDs and was not allowing the UN inspectors to inspect his facilities as he was supposed to do. If he didn't have WMDs then he should have let them in.
Ultimately he was a worldwide threat. Hopefully we can help in Darfur but we must finish the job in Afghanastan and Iraq. Iran and North Korea need straightened out too.
Hope that helps, I tried to keep opinions out and deal with just facts but it is hard.
2006-12-31 02:32:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
During the cold war Saddam was supported by the US Government. It was not his crimes that brought about his end as these were always going on. Iraq has oil so it was first to get revenge agains Saddam for turning on the US and the oil, oil and oil. Darfur, Sudan, Somalia have no oil and are not of economic intrest to the Bush Government.
2006-12-31 02:25:08 · answer #4 · answered by Kenneth H 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Your observations are true and real and yes absolutely confusing, perplexing and infuriating. There have been other situations where Naions have needed our help such as Rwanada, Angola, Congo, Uganda (Idi Amin - worse than Saddam) where people have been slaughtered, starved, raped and maimed. In fact just think what the trillions of dollars spent on the Iraq war could have done for AIDS in Africa, which is killing off millions of people and rendering many kids parentless.
Some quotes:
"But thousands of miles away in Botswana, the Bush administration's claim provoked frustration and anger among public and private partners that had built Africa's most far-reaching AIDS treatment program, recalled those involved. Although the Bush program had promised millions of dollars of support, no money had yet arrived, they said."
"Bush Aids Plan PR Spectacle Instead of Money for Aids in Africa
Activists have denounced Bush's Announcement of $200 million Contribution, One-Tenth of U.S. Funding Needed, Calling it Shameful. There will be a 12 noon protest & press conference today outside white house (north side)
Activists for US AIDS funding will hold a protest and joint press conference with ACT UP and other groups that have sought to get AIDS drugs into developing nations. The press conference will take place outside the White House at 12 noon today. The groups are denouncing Bush's plan to contribute only $200 million contribution towards the new UN AIDS Global Fund-- a fund which, according to Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, requires 7 to 10 BILLION dollars to confront the escalating global AIDS crisis. International relief organizations had called on the US to contribute about $2 billion to the fund.
The Bush administration has also decided to deny increased funding for the Ryan White CARE Act, despite infection rates among African- American gay men of 30% in US urban areas."
AND Yes there are pictures of Rumsfeld and Saddam haing tea and discussions!!!!
This is a disgusting and hypocritical administration. I think its unconscoinable to go to war for trillions of dollars when people in the YSA are also starving. No money should be spent until all americans have health insurance and equal access to our courts whether you have money or not....
2006-12-31 03:34:50 · answer #5 · answered by meldorhan 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes it's true saddam was once the most stable giovernment in the middle east. However he saddam changed and moved his country from a modern country to one seeking control of his neighbors.
2006-12-31 02:24:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
why are we not in Afghanistan looking for bin ladden. he is the one who started this. Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.
2006-12-31 02:24:26 · answer #7 · answered by loretta 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because Darfur has no natural resources.
2006-12-31 02:23:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
America was not Saddams friend.. ever
2006-12-31 02:23:36 · answer #9 · answered by Wade 5 · 1⤊ 5⤋
bets the hell out of me. but i am glad they hung him. he had it coming along time ago.
2006-12-31 02:24:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋