It appears Iran is a bigger threat-we kinda know now why it took a strongman to run things over there. What really bothers me is the ignorance of the draft-dodging neo-cons who implemented this war. How many civilians have died as a result of our "Liberation" not to mention our own precious young men. Yea "cut and run" the phrase used by those who avoided service themselves. Hey if somebodies gonna hurt us -take it to them-but to spend 400 billion to set up a government (by the way it isn't working)-is criminal-when we have needs right at home.
2007-02-06 02:48:08 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ask the Kurds.
2007-02-06 02:50:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
There is no doubt Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant but it has become apparent from the disintegration of Iraq that a tough guy on top was necessary to keep the country together. Mr. Bush was warned in an intelligence report that removing Hussein would lead to the disintegration of Iraq, but went ahead anyway. Its so ironic, but in knocking down Iraq he made Iran the biggest, most powerful player in the Middle East; Iraq had held their power off, and now it isn't there any more. This war is the kind of mistake that ends empires, in this case, the American empire. Too bad the supreme ct stole the election for him in 2000 but actually our system was pretty fatally flawed if somebody that incompetent could even get a nomination, let alone get close enough to winning that crooked judges could steal an election for him. Oh well. It was nice while it lasted. We better learn Chinese.
2007-02-06 10:56:07 · answer #2 · answered by jxt299 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Let's review what Saddam did....
1. Kept a lid on sectarian violence.
2. Held a secular government that came down hard on religious extremists otherwise known as terrorists.
3. Kept Iranian influence out of Iraq.
4. Killed off approximately 150,000 citizens over the course of a couple decades that he was in power. Yes that is bad, but compared to 650,000 that got killed in the past 3 years I would consider 30 times less people per year getting killed under Saddam more stable than it is now.
5. Used leftover chemical weapons (that the US sold him to fight Iran) on the Kurds. (The death toll from this is included in item 4)
We had him tried and executed by a kangaroo court for having the people that tried to assassinate him executed.
Even here in the states, if you tried to assassinate the president, you run the risk of the death penalty.
No one is arguing that he is some kind of saint, but you have to admit that Iraq was much more stable under Saddam than it is now during a civil war that we instigated.
2007-02-06 11:14:23 · answer #3 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer. I'm sure you wouldn't have wanted Hitler running things or Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Baby Doc, Robespierre, Stalin or Nicolae Ceausescu. The world has been full of despots and the western world has often turned a blind eye to their villainy. The consequences were often disastrous. The realy ignorant move was when the US put him there in the first place in the interests of the oil companies and we know the rest of the story. Terrorism and terrorists had a friend in Saddam and now it's just that much more difficult for terrorists to find safe havens. Too bad so many courageous young people are paying the price now for the sins of the past but all action demand some form of payment sooner or later. God bless those in the service of peace.
2007-02-06 11:01:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
YES, the cost of occupation will be $2 trillion over ten years. The cost to Americans was 3098 of our best and bravest dead and over 24,000 wounded. In Iraq over 250,000 civilians have died. Iraq is in civil war now. Only a Idiot like Bush would think not.
The Impeachment of Bush and Cheney for their crimes in office is the only course for Democrats in Congress. The real question is. Do Democrats have the courage to do what is best for all Americans?. When Republicans impeached Clinton they knew they did not have the votes in the Senate, They did it anyway to make Clinton/Gore look bad for elections. Dirty tricks are not knew for Republicans. It did not work, Gore still won in 2000 with 50,996,116 votes over Bush 50,456,169 votes. Kerry also won Ohio in 2004.
2007-02-06 11:03:04 · answer #5 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
~YES! There were no WMD! I agree that our country's needs are more important than who is running a different country that has nothing to do with us.
We're spending way too much money and losing too many of our young men for something that had nothing to do with us!
Osama Bin Laden is still free! That was another point in the war.
How quickly some forget.~
2007-02-06 11:26:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What I find interesting about the removal of Saddam is the fact that the Americans felt justified in doing so. The US has refused to join the international criminal court...so then why is it okay to play international police? I recognize that the capture and trial of him was long overdue, as he was a treacherous dictator....but what gave the US the right to step in and overtake him?
Seems to me as though the US wants to play both sides...they will enforce international criminal law, but not submit to it. Hypocritical, methinks...
2007-02-06 11:04:47 · answer #7 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
#1 it's a fact that most of the "draft dodgers" were democrats and liberals look it up . Kid, you really need to go back to school and learn history instead of lying to poeple like you are doing. You may be too young to know but your own President Clinton not only dodged the draft but he signed up then ran to the UK. Every polotician is a liar, it comes with the job (most of them are lawyers so they lie all the time) but as for your misconseptions about Iraq, if you'd had the guts to join up and go fight, you might have learned something instead of the BS and lies you've been told by others.
Sad, trully sad.
2007-02-06 11:00:33 · answer #8 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No it was not. The timing was not great but the job needed doing. Waiting on the UN to do a job that they even saw as necessary is pointless because the UN is worthless and week. The last three presidents all agreed that Saddam needed to be removed from power but only one had the nerve to do it at the risk of his popularity.
2007-02-06 11:02:04 · answer #9 · answered by joevette 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
It was an ignorant move. When we leave, Iran will hold the influence over the middle east.
2007-02-06 11:02:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would say yes, people are still ignorant there and don't deserve our way of life, yours is more important, and god forbid, we deserve to be bound at the bottom of some river, tortured and condemned to death..
Actually, I think the military should hideout and allow those who want you to come and get you..
We will be moving to an undisclosed location and will come back when you are dead..ok?..
See ya later gater..
2007-02-06 11:01:27 · answer #11 · answered by tiny b 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋