Was Iraq headed in the right direction before the US got involved??

Answer 1

Galloway vs. The US Senate: Transcript of Statement


"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.

“I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.

If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.

"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.

"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.

"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."

Answer 2

No, it wasn't. Their dictator leader, Saddam, was killing men,
women, and children for no apparent reason. The people
there were scared to death they and their family would die next> After 911, the US retaliated by ridding Iraq of Saddam
for which they were greatful. Saddam was a part of the
other Al Quada terrorists, so after him came time to go after
the other terrorists that were set to take over his position.
Do those who object think they'd like to live like they do in
those terrorists-led countries? I think not. Americans love
their freedom too much. Most of us want to continue in our
freedoms, but if terrorists keep taking over more and more
countries, they sooner or later will be after US. We can't afford to let that happen. Those terrorists have already said their goal is to eliminate Israel and the U.S. and they won't stop
working toward that goal as long as we sit back and do
nothing and let them. So, we had to get involved even tho
most all of us hate war. The reason we still have freedom here
is due to us fighting other wars to assure that we do.

Answer 3

It depends on what you consider the "right direction".

Iraq was stable, with very little internal sectarian conflict, and likely to remain so. Therefore, if the goal was a stable Iraq, then yes, they were heading in the right direction.

However, if you define "right direction" as the way the USA wanted them to go, then no.

Answer 4

Yes.

The Baath Party had successfully ended the in-fighting of factions.

Before the sanctions Iraq was the most advanced Arab country in the world.

Then we destroyed them. Not just Saddam, the people of Iraq.

Answer 5

because Pat became a recruiting magnet and it may be counter to the mind-set to admit he became fragged. in reality i'm no longer particular he became fragged. between different issues, he became buried as a hardstripe corporal, yet all of his images coach him as a spec 4, which isn't a administration position. or maybe the golf eco-friendly uniform he became buried in did no longer have the wrestle chief tags, and fragging is what you do to a stupid chief. on the Ranger/Airborne issue, Vampire, please cool down. AR 670-a million became revised in 1998 to limit the wearing of qualification tags (airborne, air attack) on classification B uniforms, or maybe as I agree it truly is fishy that not one of the images of him coach his suitable shoulder, i imagine that too a lot conspiracy concept is being fed into this incident.

Answer 6

Abosolutely! The same way Germany was headed in the right direction in 1938!

Answer 7

It is certainly worse off now. What concern is it of the United States "which direction" another sovereign state is heading?

Answer 8

No but it also wasn't our issue before we got involved

Answer 9

yes, they would be doing what they always did...pose no threat to the U.S...that area used to keep all of the psychotics confined in that area; now thanks to us, not only do they hate us, they want to kill all of us and are actually acting on their hatred...

Answer 10

Well yeah. If we hadn't stepped in they would have already nuked themselves by now and done the rest of the world a favor.