The "threat" of Saddam's regime was being monitored by the U.N. and its inspectors. Sure, Iraq was making illegal deals with other countries like Russia and France, but instead of invading Iraq, it would have made more sense to have the U.N. begin to pressure these nations as well as Iraq.
Also, Clinton and the U.N. did on several occasions conduct missle raids on suspected weapons targets in Iraq when Saddam would not allow the inspectors in. Most of Saddam's stubbornness regarding the U.N. sanctions to allow himself to appear strong to his people. This kept his persona of being a strong dictator. It also allowed him to enough of a presence to keep Iran and al Queda from entering his country and becoming a major threat, unlike now.
As for a strategy, I would have let the U.N. keep monitoring Iraq. I would also have put more pressure on Russia, France, and Germany to stop making deals with Iraq against U.N. sanctions. I would have instead beefed up intelligence (reliable intelligence) in the area to monitor and investigate.
Saddam was an evil man, but just like the poisonous snakes in the woods behind someone's house, he served a purpose. He maintained an opposing military force at Iran's border and kept warlords and terror groups out of his country. He never talked of invading another country after the 1991 Gulf War, and he clearly did not have the weapons technology to commit a massive assault in the region.
2007-02-17 05:50:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Continued to look for a diplomatic solution through international channels rather than invading a country for no real reason. Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban in Afghanistan was. We bombed Afghanistan and removed a totaliarian regime from oppressing an innocent population. That is what we should have done. Saddam was a bastard, don't get me wrong, but just because we have a billion dollar military-industrial complex doesn't mean we have to bomb every schmuck out there. Why didn't we instead get inolved in Darfur? Why was North Korea not stopped from testing a nuclear device? Why do we as Americans see only military solutions where there should be political/diplomatic avenues explored? Have we learned nothing from the Vietnam War?
So, what I would have done, is put more effort/money/troops toward Afghanistan to prevent it from becoming a failed state. Then, I would have lobbied harder to really, REALLY get the international coalition against Saddam built. With international support, this situation would not have occurred. We were just way too cavalier about it. Had we waited three more months on that UN resolution in November 2002, we would've had our European allies. With them on board, we surely would've had NATO support in Iraq as well as the implicit blessing of the EU. Nope, instead, we're all on our own with some Aussies, a handful of Poles, and some scattered Ukrainians.
2007-02-17 13:51:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by nejnna 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
Saddam was no threat to the United States. Neither he nor his government had anything to do with 9/11. Was he a murdering butcher? Sure, he was. What you say about the UN resolutions is true. He was not the first one to ignore that impotent body of people. If the UN didn't like it, then the UN needed to declare war on Iraq...
WE are NOT the police force for the world. Mr. Bush invaded Iraq for two reasons only, 1) he wants control of the oilfields and, 2) he wanted to show his Daddy, former president Bush, that he could get Saddam when his father couldn't
Mr. Bush was raised with no discipline, was a whinney momma's boy who got away with anything he wanted to do. Nobody ever told him NO. His daddy fixed him up with the Texas Air National Guard so he could avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam. He partied and coked his way through that - and didn't show up for most of his military requirements - daddy got him out of that too.
He was an alcoholic party boy with no self discipline most of his life.
If Mr. Bush was so interested in the poor, oppressed citizens and the murderous leader, he could have selected many African nations to invade. I cite Rwanda, Congo, Zaire, the Tutsi-Hutu massacre....he doesn't give a rat about "bringing democracy" to any country. He just thought he could run over Iraq, grab the oilfields, set up a puppet government and lord it over the Iraqi's....
All of that aside, how another country is governed is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS unless they start lobbing missiles towards us. Mr. Bush is a murderer...over 3000 of our young people dead, thousands seriously wounded, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's dead...Even Saddam couldn't do that.
2007-02-17 14:27:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Good enough reason to kill 655,000 Iraqi, over 3000 Americans. He was contained, he couldn't even take a flight in his own country. What was needed was better intelligence, we had none. Bush sr. did not go into Baghdad for a reason, and I admit I thought he should of. But as things turned out he was right. What a mess we have made in that country with no end in sight. Money is going there that could be used here. People are dieing every day because of his flawed decision to invade. It is only getting worse. I think it should have been up to the U.N. if there was an invasion, not the U.S. and Britain.
2007-02-17 13:55:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I would have finished the job in Afghanistan. That's the true terrorist stronghold. The Taliban are rising once again. Also if Bush was serious about terror he should have knocked out those crazy fundamentalist religious schools in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Iraq was no longer a threat to anyone but Bush decided to go in anyway. Just for the hell of it. Also Israel has ignored all UN resolutions that have condemned their actions but no one has taken them to task. Why is that? They have more influential friends?
2007-02-18 09:06:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by Watcher 465 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I personally, agree that Iraq should have been targeted for attacks, just not at the juncture that they happened. I would have at least come close as close gets to finishing the war in Afghanistan first. We STILL DON'T have Bin Laden. At least capture his butt before we go to get Iraq. Not to mention, Iraq wasn't even planned properly to begin with, and I don't think there is a proper way to invade Iraq without not having the reports infront of me. They Had the Reports are failing in Iraq. Me I am against the Iraq war now. Not the Pricipal of the war. It was a timing thing.
2007-02-17 14:07:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by The Hitman 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'd have put a better long-term strategy in place.
Better yet, I'd go back to 1979, and beaten the piss out of Iran, unlike Jimmy Carter did. Iran-Iraq war would have never happened, because we'd never have given Saddam any weaponry. And we'd be out of there now.
2007-02-17 14:03:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by MoltarRocks 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
They probably would've just tried diplomacy until Saddam started working with the terrorists or became one himself by ordering an attack on the U.S. similar to 9/11.
2007-02-17 14:28:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by STILL standing 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
I might have not gone. But that speculation is worthless at this point.
I think it is essential that we now support the troops and the nation, regardless of how we feel about the war.
2007-02-17 13:45:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
WHAT RIGHT DO YOU HAVE GOING INTO HIS NATION THAT HE HAD UNDER CONTROL,AND GIVING HIM ORDERS AND HANDING HIM INTO THE HANDS OF HIS MURDERERS,WHEN CLAIM TO BE THERE ,WHEN YOU SAY THERE IS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND DON'T FIND ANY .AND THINK YOU ARE A POLICE FORCE OF THE WORLD AND ARE NOTHING ARE NOTHING BUT A DESTROYER OF NATIONS ,THAT KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN ,BY BRING THEM INTO HARMS WAY
2007-02-17 14:16:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋