What I am asking is, since we invaded based on evidence which proved at best inconclusive, shouldn't we have helped Saddam recapture control of his country, come back home and issued an apology? I mean, we wouldn't want anyone doing that to us. Iraq was a soveriegn nation! So is the USA! We really had no right to go there at all. So, what would have been wrong with making things right according to international law?
2007-03-05 22:45:15 · 11 answers · asked by michael p 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I really didnt ask anyone here to be abusive. I asked for an answer to a very important legal question. Saddam was the President of that country. We didn't like him, he was an ***. But so are the Presidents of Iran and of Syria. They torture their own people as well, but it is not an excuse to go there, take over and create a puppet government. Or is it? Most of you people seem to think it is. So, tell you what, let's all put on uniforms and go kick them out and hang them as well! That's the logic you are applying, but most of you would nevere consider serving in the military and most of you are against this war. Most of you are behaving like hipocrits. Cant you see that?
2007-03-06 11:37:07 · update #1
Since we did find WMDs I guess this question is moot.
If you support Saddam so much why don't you go over there and protest against America?
2007-03-05 23:07:03 · answer #1 · answered by jack_scar_action_hero 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are right in almost all accounts except one major one. Sadam was an incredibly arrogant, immensely cruel criminal on a scale not seen since Hitler. He clearly was a very real threat to the rest of the world and he needed to be stopped. Unfortunately for the Sadam, he made it very clear that the only way he was going to be stopped was by ending his life, and in his arrogance honestly didn't believe that there was anyone who could do this. right or wrong, the US clearly invaded to protect its own interests in the area and in so doing provided the opportunity for the Iraq people to rid themselves of this evil villan. I regret that the situation arose, but to think that there was any other way to resolve the issue , especially after Sadam was given over ten years to change his evil ways, is so naive that a newborn would seem like an wise old woman.
2007-03-05 23:04:37 · answer #2 · answered by al b 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
maximum of Saddam's Air stress fled over the Iran border contained in the Gulf conflict quite than wrestle. So sure, Stuff occurs...... again on topic. Your skipping over data in historic previous. a million. Syria is a civil conflict. 2. both aspect are undesirable. The Govermnent vs. professional Al quidea Rebels. 3. In 2003, Saddam had violated words of the 1991 give up hearth, the No fly zone, & UN embargo. 4. The UN became attempting to achieve a peace in Syria & failed. 5. Libya? maximum felt there became no reason to flow to conflict in Libya, Obama acted without Congressional approval. the fee of that operation for the U. S. & Nato has no longer been paid for. it truly is ends up in line with activities very last month look like the incorrect flow after all. 5. the u . s . did not arm Saddam contained in the Iran -Iraq conflict. you've a computer virus up your butt about Syria? Fly to Turkey, flow the border & connect the rebels. Frankly they a have in no way been friends of the u . s .. I shead no tears for his or her losses.
2016-12-05 07:49:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are logically correct in your conception. But I guess, you have forgotten that WMDs was just the excuse to invade Iraq. The purpose of invading Iraq was not at all to punish Saddam or save the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam. It was clear mission just to take control on the Iraqi oil. So, don't listen to what are said, try to think the whole thing.
2007-03-05 22:57:12 · answer #4 · answered by The Falcon 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
If the WMD's did help Saddam, then he would've been in charge as of now instead of being guilty of treason of his country.
2007-03-06 10:51:07 · answer #5 · answered by Roxas of Organization 13 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam was tried by the Iraqi people and found guilty.
If he had been found innocent I am sure he would have been released and returned to power.
2007-03-05 23:15:44 · answer #6 · answered by Red 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
We know for a fact that he has used WMD on his own people. On children from his own country. He deserved everything he has got.
2007-03-05 22:49:31 · answer #7 · answered by History Buff 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Sorry Iraq was only big enough for one dictator , and you know who Bush chose right?
2007-03-05 22:50:15 · answer #8 · answered by prole1984 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Why do people always wanna do the "right" thing even if it is so dumb as this question?
2007-03-05 22:54:40 · answer #9 · answered by zaks 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
thats good, jaques. ever heard of killing two birds with one stone?
2007-03-05 23:44:42 · answer #10 · answered by alex l 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋