This was the liberal mantra on keeping a ruthless brutal dictator in power. Please note that Saddam Hussein was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Mass graves have been found in Iraq and Saddam was a terrorist.
2007-04-13 06:49:18 · 8 answers · asked by Barack O Bankrupt 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I do not know anyone from Saudi Arabia. So I have no friends there I am afraid.
2007-04-13 06:55:24 · update #1
There are many dictators like Saddam and we haven't invaded them, not yet anyway. On the other hand, it is galling to listen to these cut and run politicians who for many years voted for defense appropriations that exceeded those of the rest of the world combined.
Perhaps Bush took a page out of Ralph Waldo Emerson's playbook, "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door" to draw the terrorists to Iraq and kick it up a notch. On the other hand, there's an old Army saying, "Custer died in a target-rich environment."
Guess I'm saying I don't know the answer. For many years we tried the go soft on terrorism approach that culminated in 9/11. Now it seems that many if not most Americans have no heart for the get rough approach.
Perhaps America's best days are behind it. When you compare the sacrifice in Iraq with earlier wars, its minuscule and morale on the home front was sky high then. Now many Americans feel you aren't entitled to say that unless you've earned a Purple Heart. Check out "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and Oswald Spengler.
2007-04-13 07:12:43 · answer #1 · answered by Necromancer 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Iraq was a noted sponsor of terrorism for quite some time. The lefties like to pretend that only Al Qaeda counts as terrorists these days, and choose to ignore the part of the 9/11 Commission Report that does, indeed, say that there were links and communications between Saddam and Al Qaeda, even if there were no actual coordinated efforts between the two (yet).
Attending WTO protests and chanting their silly little slogans is a much better way to fulfill their skewed moral obligations rather than meet the problem head-on.
2007-04-13 13:57:28 · answer #2 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Now that Saddam Hussein is gone, what reason is there for the United States still to be in Iraq?
2007-04-13 13:58:29 · answer #3 · answered by Peter P 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The world is full of brutal dictators, what is your point? is it somehow the US militarys job to go around the world invading countries because we don't like the government they have??? that's the height of stupidity, the US military's job is to defend the USA, it is NOT their mission to try and turn the world into a utopia, the bottom line is that IRAQ WAS NOT A THREAT TO US
2007-04-13 13:57:46 · answer #4 · answered by Nick F 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Our military was designed around the concept of fighting two wars at once, yes, Saddam was bad but the war was a bad idea...
2007-04-13 13:56:17 · answer #5 · answered by Man yahoo is biased 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hey smart guy who else pays palestinian families.... ya your good buddies in Saudi Arabia. Get a clue then post!
2007-04-13 13:53:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Borring, next question
2007-04-13 13:58:25 · answer #7 · answered by carlos r 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Right, and how has that turned out for us?
2007-04-13 13:52:18 · answer #8 · answered by toff 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋