Do you think it is better that Sadam killed thousands of people in Iraq or?

Question

we, the USA, start a war on false information that kills thousands of people in Iraq and ruins their infrastructure?

Answer 1

Stop listening to the media. The war was not started on false information. We went in to remove an oppressive despot and we did it with remarkable sucesss. We are in the area now to rebuild that infrastructure. Schools are opening at an amazing rate and they even let girls attend now. Jobs are being created and the oil industry is being privatized leading to great wealth distribution to the people and not just back to the Hussein family. The Iraqi people who have been killed are by a large percentage being killed by their own people which has been going on for decades, and radical Islamic mercenaries bent on controlling the area for their own oppresive goals.

Let me supply you with some facts about this and other wars, maybe you will believe this as much as you believe the propaganda our media spews.

a. FDR led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.


c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea .
North Korea never attacked us ..
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives wer e lost ...
an average of 18,334 per year.

d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.

f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us .
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions.

g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and, North Korea
without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking.

But Wait

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation..

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida !!!!

Answer 2

As much as you need somebody to blame so your liberal minds can sleep at night the facts are pretty clear that we were going to go into Iraq no matter who was president. Clinton/Gore/McCain. As much as Gore and Clinton can blame Bush, had they been president on 9/11 they would have been forced to make Saddam show his cards. Nobody from the previous Democratic administration disputed the intelligence at the time. In fact it is confirmed without a doubt that Saddam had WMD, the question and problem we have now is, "Where did it go?" Did he destroy it out of the goodness of his heart? Did he move it out of the country? The history books will judge this conflict, if the American people give up on the Iraqis than we will lose, if we stay with Iraq until the government is secure it will be considered a success.

Answer 3

The US didn't start this conflict; it was there already. We are trying to help the decent majority of Iraqi people to develop a solution other than dictatorship.
The war in Iraq is actually a continuation of the elimination of Saddam Hussein. The forces known as "the insurgency" are mainly members of Saddam's regime who want to get back in power. The Shiite extremists that are also opposing the US are one of the groups that Saddam suppressed. Not all of Saddam's enemies were good guys.

Answer 4

Saddam Hussein did use WMDs (rather those we gave him), yet WMDs he had earlier the 1st conflict in Iraq. He have been given rid of them via fact he had to, understanding we'd flow kick his *ss if he did no longer. on the time of the 2d Iraq conflict, there have been no WMDs anymore. He had gotten rid of them. And we were instructed that with the aid of fairly some intelligence companies international, or maybe the CIA. the only group to assert there could be WMDs became a collection interior the CIA working with a guy named Ahmed Chalabi. subject is, Ahmed Chalabi became a time-commemorated liar and con artist. He had screwed us a pair of instances earlier. He had additionally screwed the British, the French, the Israelis, the Egyptians, the Saudi Arabians, the Iranians, or maybe the Iraqi government itself. in fact, it rather is the reason he defected to us; via fact Saddam Hussein became coming to kick his *ss for mendacity to Hussein's intelligence enterprise. If Bush had maintained even an oz.. of objectivity, he might on no account have long previous into Iraq while you evaluate that they had WMDs. yet he wanted so badly to flow, he allowed this time-commemorated con artist to bullsh*t him; and then Bush used that particular same bullsh*t on us. And for the checklist, interior the 1st 4 years of the conflict, we handed the style of Iraqis killed than Saddam Hussein controlled interior the full 25 years he became in fee in Iraq. That became 2 years in the past. So no, in all fact we've not rescued extra Iraqis than we've killed. it rather is made each and all of the truer while one realizes that we are people who positioned Saddam Hussein in fee, and gave him his weapons of mass destruction so as that he ought to combat off the Soviets.

Answer 5

In 30 years, Saddam killed roughly 300,000, and the entire country had a functioning legal system and working infrastructure.


Conversely, between 1992 and 2001, the US killed 500,000 children through bombing (the "no fly zone") and sanctions. Since the occupation began, the US has murdered approximately 600,000 and displaced over a million refugees.

Even the majority of Iraqis said (in a US funded poll) that life was better under Saddam's rule.


.

Answer 6

Bush has done far more harm than Sadam. I have no time for the Muslims or Arabs, but in a just world both he and Blair would be on trial as war criminals.

(By the way, why is that dude above me out of the asylum?)

Answer 7

i didn't know one could get this many pinheads to answer the same question......anyway i think your question is a bit of a red herring, Sadam was a murdering dictator, are we going to attack every country that has a murdering dictator?

Answer 8

are u alleging they had an infrastructure before?

Answer 9

I really hope none of the survivors of the hundreds of thousands who were brutally tortured and murdered by Saddam see that thoughtless remark . Many of your democrat senators voted to go to war..before they voted against it and then for it and against it again as soon as Saddam & his evil sons were captured . .