2007-01-02 02:14:17 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
sure they did...because Bush who created the new Iraqi "democratic" government and he still giving order to them
2007-01-02 02:35:58 · answer #1 · answered by maleozi 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the United States and the Allied forces hadn't have invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be the leader over there...and alive.
There sure as hell would be less civil unrest over there too if Iraq hadn't have been invaded. What concern should our government have with the human rights issues and affairs over there when there's far worse atrocities going on in the world?? Why should the United States rub elbows with England when they're guilty of horrible crimes of humanity against the Irish people...and have been for a thousand years??
That invasion was a political power play and it only confirms what I've always believed that there's nothing more dangerous than a second term U.S. President.
In my opinion, the best thing that our president could have done was ask for a pardon for him and just request that he spend life in prison. That would have been the most effective diplomatic route to take and it would have probably quelled a good bit of the unrest over there.
Politically, the execution of that man was the dumbest thing ANYONE could have done or let happen...whether he deserved it or not.
And as far as all of the people cheering and dancing around when it happened, even though Saddam was determined to be a monster and probably DID deserve to be executed, to cheer and dance in glee over the death of any living soul is wrong and makes those who celebrated no better than Saddam...
2007-01-02 10:29:32 · answer #2 · answered by Chick-A- Deedle 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The United States was in control of his captivity held him under guard. But the actual Trial and Execution was carried out by Iraqies.Politically it would be Sucicide for the United States to carry it out Themselves.There Position is already Intolerablle to the Arab World who see them as a force of Occupation who are there only for the Oil and not as Liberators,and they want Rid of them as quickly as Possible. No matter what the U S did it would still be viewed with Hostility and Suspicion.
2007-01-02 10:29:11 · answer #3 · answered by janus 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, since the U.S. invaded Iraq (without cause), captured Saddam, and handed him over to the Iraqi's, I'd say yes, they had a part.
2007-01-02 10:19:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The fact is they handed him over to Iraqi authorities.. another fact is they tried to delay it because of the concern that it was a Muslim holy day and they didn't want it to appear to be a revenge hanging or they were taking sides in the sectarian conflict....!
2007-01-02 10:23:36 · answer #5 · answered by dadacoolone 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but they used the Iraqi government to do it for them
2007-01-02 10:19:11 · answer #6 · answered by taq 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We captured him. Iraq hanged him and the guy who answered above me is an idiot.
2007-01-02 10:16:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
they sure do , do you think that Iraqi people wanted that for Saddam? , you gat to be kidding me . they really love that guy and i do too
2007-01-02 10:17:02 · answer #8 · answered by Donets'k 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
USA capture him
2007-01-02 10:18:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As witnesses!
2007-01-02 10:16:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋