Can the Bush Bashers and Pacifists on this site tell me if they would have left Sadam in power ?

Question

All those who attack Bush and Blair for Iraq - what would YOU have done?

(i) Would you have turned a blind eye to the torture and brutality and done nothing (as they treated Hitler in 1937), or

(ii) Would you have relied on the United Nations to talk about a solution even though they have failed to do anything of any real value for the past 50 years.

It is easy to criticize from the comfort of your living room; safe in the knowledge that you will never face such a decision in your lives, so now is your chance to tell us what YOU would have done about Sadam and the Kurds.

well - 10 mins in and still not no answer. Isn't it amazing - if some liberal posts an attack on Bush and Blair - all their lemming friends jump on the bandwagon. Ask them to explain their own policy - and we are deafened by silence.

well... 15 mins in and so far the liberals have talked about what happened in 1990, what should have happened in 1990, they have talked about North Korea, they have talked about brutal governments elsewhere.....

BUT NOT ONE has said if they would have left Sadam in power.......

tick tock tick tock

I am not interested in your view on OIL - that is not my question.

let me ask again in terms so simple that even a dukakis voting liberal will understand....

WOULD YOU HAVE LEFT SADAM IN POWER ?

Answer 1

An intelligent question for a change. Its interesting that no Bush
bashers had the answer to your question and are hiding behind
their couches. Some UN members were involved in the
"oil for food" ripoff and the French and Soviets lost big contracts.
Why would they have helped us ?

Answer 2

I would have left him in power and I'll tell you why. The bringing down of Saddam has done absolutely nothing to make the U.S. safer. That being the case, what was the reason behind it? Please don't think that anyone buys that Bush did it to liberate the Iraqi people.

Right now there are countries who are a much bigger threat to U.S. safety. North Korea alone should have been a bigger target. They have the capability and drive to launch an attack on major U.S. allies and soon the U.S. itself. Our military rescources are stretched thin in the middle east and we've pissed off so many people that its unlikely we'll find much support to deal with real threats.

There's no doubt that Sadam was a bad person. But was it our job to deal with it? If so, who's next? Is it our job to police the world? When you look at the reasons put forth for attacking Iraq, none of them line up with what was actually done.

Answer 3

If the United states had been to have an enema, then Crawford, TX could be the colostomy bag. Guess what you could discover within that bag? George W. Bush. George W. Bush is a boil at the scrotum of a syphilitic mule...a veritable melanoma at the white apartment. Why placed such an fool right into a function of energy? A guy who has faithful his whole lifestyles to failure (Bush Oil Co., Texas Rangers, Texas Governor, and so on) will get essentially the most robust country on the earth as his present. How does this occur? four convenient steps: a million) be rich, two) support rich persons, three) dupe dull persons into considering that you're in there high-quality curiosity, and four) haven't any soul.

Answer 4

To compare Kerry or any would be opposer to Bush's Middle East Agenda is a very big push to say the least. The "WHOLE" premise of why the United States got invovled in the second Gulf War was under false pretext. Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, he did not even have a working agenda to attack American intersts. As late as the late 80's the Bush\Regan adminstration was supporting him, by giving him weapons of mass destruction aka Anthrax... Which of course was meant for the Iranians not the Kurds... This was the crime he was convicted of and ultimately hung for. The Conservative Adminstrations of the recent years, have decided to play both ends of the candle when looking for justification for conflict. If you want a war for profit... STATE IT AS SUCH!!!! ROME, LONDON, NOR ALEXANDER ... never had a problem stating as such... So why can't the more agressive adminstrations of the United States do just the same?

Answer 5

Yes. North Korea and it's known nucleur weapons and lunitic leader have been a bigger threat longer than Iraq, why not them first, why not IRAN, why not finish what we started in Afganistan? It's as easy to criticize war from an armchair as it is to say the war is just. We invaded Iraq becasue they torture? most of the countries of the world probably torture, and now we have joined their ranks.

Answer 6

Should have been done a long time ago. I am happy that he's finally out of power and will be happy when the Iraqi government can handle the country on their own and we can start sending troups home!

Answer 7

Sadam was an evil man, no doubt about it.

But the US is alwas showing off how great it is, the UK has the SAS. They could have gone in quietly but they choose the easy method.

Answer 8

if it is about oil then why are we letting them make a new government? shouldent we make Iraq a puppet state if we wanted oil? as for saddam, i am happy to live in a country where i do not have to worry about someone pulling out my fingernails and then "disapearing". God Bless the USA!!!!!!!!

Answer 9

I am not a Bush Basher nor Pacifist, but still want to throw my hat in as someone who does not criticize the President and I am waiting to see any "bright" ideas from those who do.

It is one thing to have a "repressive" regime in power, but quite another to have a leader who is torturing and brutalizing his people as well as harboring and training terrorists.

Answer 10

I just don't understand why USA didn't go after Saddam the first three times. Why now? They would have nuked you during the war in Kuwait if they really wanted to.