English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I vote Zarqawi..........hands down

beheading videos, suicide attacks, attacks on policie stations, attacks on civilians, attacks on military, suicide cement truck attack on UN head quaters, attacking the Shia mosque and knocking all the gold off of it, this guy was a modern day arch super villian from Al-Qadea, he's almost dead a year, and the consequences of his actions are still being felt,

2007-03-20 03:43:48 · 16 answers · asked by csn0331 3 in Politics & Government Politics

16 answers

Zarqawi with the help of the subversive terrorist supporting libs here in the US

2007-03-20 03:48:11 · answer #1 · answered by Real Estate Para Legal 4 · 1 2

Let's see - shock and awe - a bombing campaign consisting of at least 1700 sorties

150,000 US soldiers marching on the major cities and occupying them

disbanding of the Iraq army and police

dismantling of the Iraq economy - closing the government factories, and banks, scrapping the Iraqi currency

dismantling of the government including the capture of many of Saddam's officials

dismantling of the bureaucracy and much of the university system when all Baath Party members were fired

dismantling of the food for oil food distribution system

bombing of the electrical grid from which the country has still not recovered

Ok. Let's compare this to Z's beheading videos and several terrorist attacks which began after all of the above.... Gosh, I can't come to a conclusion as to who did more to destabilize Iraq.

2007-03-20 04:00:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Iraq was undeniably more stable before George W Bush signed the executive order for invasion and the subsequent quagmire of a poorly planned and executed war "effort".

Zarqawi is a cheap hood and a terrorist, but hardly powerful enough to de-stabilize an entire country.

2007-03-20 04:19:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Let's see. . .
Central government replaced by a vaccuum, military disbanded, leaving thousands who know how to fight without a source of income and really mad, no plan for the post invasion, leading to looting and lawlessness that can be conveniently taken out on the guys in the camis, removing the solitary check against Iran's power in the region without any plan to reestablish said check, beyond the whole "democracy will flower" bs. . .

Gotta go with old W.

2007-03-20 03:48:59 · answer #4 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 0 0

i'm fascinated in utilising people who think of that Saddam grow to be extremely ok. He used chemical weapons against his very own people and killed all of us who made a peep so in case you experience that he grow to be extremely a sturdy impression in the area then you certainly extremely ought to be shifting to the middle East the place that kind of government is for you. Zarqawi and Al-Quida are distant places fighthers (basically like US troops?) who've some exceptionally extreme plans for the inhabitants of Iraq who has lived a mundane existence for some years. For all of us who thinks that Saddam hunted down terrorists needs to undergo in concepts that he funded state terrorism, gave sanctuary to wanted terrorists from international and allowed the operation of terrorist coaching camps interior his borders. in case you reside in the U. S. and have arrived at a factor on your existence the place you think of Saddam grow to be a sturdy guy then you certainly ought to take a seat down and picture approximately how a techniques out of whack you're with your us of a and democratic governments and the thought of human rights. the U. S. needs to leave the area and Al Quida needs to return in (from the exterior, its no longer a companion and toddlers corporation) and take over the rustic to impose the comparable sort of murderous, oppressive government that existed in Afghanistan and to apply the oil wealth of the rustic (no longer for the persons bubby) to fund extra terrorism throughout the international. Zarqawi is the villain in the piece, something is basically nutty liberal politics in the U. S..

2016-10-02 10:54:16 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

All of what you mention is AFTER the fall of Saddam. Destabilization was by Bush. Zarqawi would not have done any of it had Saddam still maintained power.

2007-03-20 03:56:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

al Zarqawi

2007-03-20 03:56:50 · answer #7 · answered by White Man 2 · 1 0

Abu Musab al Zarqawi. If you listen to the nightly news, they will tell you over and over how evil America is and it's all Bush's fault.

2007-03-20 03:46:30 · answer #8 · answered by Casual Traveler 5 · 3 2

Destabilization is all part of the war process in attaining democracy and freedom!

Please read factual history and not just count on the MSM for your info.
+

2007-03-20 03:50:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Zarqawi.

He insisted on the Sunnis carrying out attacks on the shiites. He purposely incited violence between the two groups.

Bush, while he did knock out the control (saddam), didnt try and incite viloence between the groups.

Violence between the two groups was there decades before.

2007-03-20 03:47:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers