Should we have used that to justify the invasion instead of weapons of mass destruction that he never denied having?
2007-01-22 04:01:21 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
We couldn't use that argument in order to go to war, as we (the US) are the ones who put Saddam into power in the first place as well as supplied him with his arms.
A headline reading "Our patsy who we forced into power is now trying to run his own country as he sees fit" just wouldn't work as well as "Saddam is a lunatic, we must kill him!"
It is often the case with American propaganda, the less we tell our people, the more they will support us in anything we do.
A prime example is Columbus Day.. somehow a guy who raped, tortured, enslaved and subsequently slaughtered hundred of thousands of natives is taught to children as some kind of heroic man in our government schools.
Government funded education (and the media, for that matter) is not around to propel your education, it is around as a sales tool.
-addendum- I just noticed that you put 'he never denied having'. Saddam *did* deny having them, as he didn't actually have any. Do yourself a favor and search yahoo for 'did saddam have WMDs'. The prime evidence in going to war was a forged purchase document which the US government (as well as many other countries) knew was forged well before going to war.
Bush himself has said in multiple press conferences that there were never any 'MWDs' within Iraq or even under Saddam's control.
2007-01-22 04:13:20 · answer #1 · answered by Edward W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Still looking for a fabrcation that will stick. Tony Blair told that lie early in the occupation and was forced to eat it. Saddam never had any WMD he said it openly and supplied documents to prove it. 25,000 pages of documents which the US took less than 8 hours to claim were lies.
2007-01-22 04:49:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes
2007-01-22 05:10:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
HE KILLED MORE OF HIS OWN PEOPLE THAN YOUR NUMBER IMPLIES. WE WENT TO WAR ULTIMATELY BECAUSE HE IGNORED THE UN SANCTIONS.
2007-01-22 14:27:27 · answer #4 · answered by tcbtoday123 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not personally, but he approved it.
2007-01-22 04:09:11 · answer #5 · answered by S K 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush killed 600,000, it'd be unjustifiable now.
2007-01-22 04:04:38 · answer #6 · answered by ck4829 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋