....and he needed to be brought to justice at any price, and has since been likened to Hitler - why do you think Bush and Blair publically gave him a ultimatum to leave Iraq - and both wanted to allow him to get off scott free and go live in the sun - the day before the Iraq war?
And what do American republicans now think - in the light of the Iraq invasion - and all the casualties - about the President wanting to let a murdering despot and the sole justification for the iraqi invasion -just wander off - and to go live wherever he likes?
2007-03-04 09:58:13 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
There you go "sure whatever"
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.main/index.html
2007-03-04 10:05:16 · update #1
there are really two questions here. One that he was a threat to us. The answer to that question is NO he was not a threat to the United States. The second was that he was a bad man and needed to be replaced. I agree that he was a bad man, I do not necessarily agree that it was our place to do so. But it does bring up the question, that if Bush thought he was such a brutal person, why was he willing to let him go free? I don't have an answer to that. I'm not sure there is an answer to that.
2007-03-04 10:05:08 · answer #1 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No Saddam was not a threat to anyone and even if he was, its was only Iraq which he could have harmed and thats wht he did, He played as a puppet for America and let them get in Iraq and onces they were in, they executed him as he was of no use to Bush and blair, he was like a disposible tissue paper for their poltics..and secondly Iraqis were ther only one who had a right to decide about his fate not US or England....and third and most important thing is that we are just looking at the front and we are missing much which is hidden behind and that is 'Oil and american economy which is been stabalised by that Oil .......America simply want a hold in middle east and Iran issue is a part of it, and this all propaganda of lethal weapons and rest is to get that hold, basically this is Politics , Misguide the world and get whatever you want....and it would give 100% result when the player countries are in power !Now look at Iran situaion.......they are accused for having nuclear power and no one in this world could ask Mr, Bush that what about your own nuclear power? which is one of the biggest powers this time in the world?? and the bigger threat is that US has invaded some countries too so US is the biggest threat to the world not these small countries or puppets !
2007-03-04 10:23:18 · answer #2 · answered by ★Roshni★ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam was not a threat.He had no WMD.He had no weapons to strike USA or UK.But Iraq has got a large resource of oil.USA wanted to have a control of the strategic oil resourses.The best method was to install a puppet regime in Iraq.Iraq war was a invasion for oil.Because oil will not last for ever.Saddam was the victim of US plot to control world reserves of oil.Next strikemay be on Iran,another oil country.
2007-03-04 20:09:11 · answer #3 · answered by leowin1948 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
pancake day massacre
all over again
bush blair saddam
had the lemon
but pooh poohed it
in favour of apricot jam
Them are the ones at
costcutters direct
be there no doubt in your
jaffa cakes on this 1 or 2
2007-03-04 16:18:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
what a good question and just look at the history, Batista of Cuba, who killed and tortured, Marcos of the Philippians and the perons of Argentina, all dictators all murderers all torturers all who kept the people under oppression, oh they had one other thing in common all financed and backed by America sounds like someone we used to know in iraq appart from the usa involvement as far as we know of course, lets face it they used to finance bin laden
2007-03-04 10:15:13 · answer #5 · answered by bruce m 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you were to give people of Iraq a choice between living with saddam as their leader or life in iraq today.....which do you think they'd choose??
I am certain... that it is not occupied Iraq that they would choose.....
Look, Saddam was no angel.....so don't get my wrong.....
He was never as big a threat to global stability as BUSH....
2007-03-04 10:07:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
They ignore unpleasant little facts like that--just as they ignore the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the '80s, when the US gave him chemical weapons to use against Iran.
2007-03-04 10:01:24 · answer #7 · answered by KCBA 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
He wasn't a threat to anyone, he barely had weapons to control his own country . And i believe that in his latest few years he was only concerned in surviving and stay in his position , and he was willing to do anything he is asked to without war and just only to stay in his position .
2007-03-04 22:23:42 · answer #8 · answered by BREX 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it would have accomplished the same thing and saved one hell of a lot of lives and money.
Fair trade off for letting him wander as far as I can see.
2007-03-04 10:04:10 · answer #9 · answered by diogenese19348 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
After he didn't they realized they could use his capture as political leverage.
2007-03-04 10:01:39 · answer #10 · answered by iccelou91 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋