he had no connection with al queda, and bush lied to everyone. his former state of secretary made an azz of himself for saying that in the UN meeting.
can anyone with a reasonable mind really think that saddam can produce weapons of mass destruction, then ship them all the way from Iraq to US?
Can he actually send his troops all the way to the US to make some damage? impossible.
And wasn't he a "friend" with the US government not so long ago?
2007-05-16 11:47:24 · 12 answers · asked by Sexy dude 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, he did not have the capacity or inclination to harm us.
After the first Gulf war, his military was devestated, even more so than after the war with Iran, which left it one of the least ready in the region. He was able to take over Kuwait, but a determined boy scout troop could have done that. He certainly did not have the means to do us any harm after that.
As you stated, he was not connected with al-Quaeda. Those people who seem to think he had a connection believe that any Muslim who hates us must automatically be friends with any other Muslim who hates us. Fact is, al-Quaeda hated Saddam, and vice-versa. Al-Quaeda's goal is to replace any secular Muslim government with a fundamentalist religious government. They wanted Saddam out, and that's why he never let them into Iraq. We did them a big favor by getting rid of him. Now it'll be easier to put a fundamentalist Islamist government in, if we ever leave.
But I digress...
Saddam also would not have helped a third party (Nation or organization) strike against us. Why? Self-interest. He saw what we did when he invaded Kuwait (Who had it coming, frankly), and he knew how George W. was looking for any excuse to attack (Look at George's speeches before 9/11), and that, if he did attack, he wouldn't stop until Saddam was gone (Due to the belief that leaving Saddam in power was a factor in his father's failure to win re-election. That, and the claim that Saddam tried to kill his father. George W has a bad habit of personalizing policy decisions). Knowing this, there was no way Saddam would do anything to provoke us, or even give us an excuse. He may have been a madman, but he wasn't stupid.
As to his having been our friend, we have had and always will have lots of horrible friends, and we often turn against them when politics calls for it.
2007-05-16 12:06:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam was a threat to the people of Iraq, now Iraq is a threat to the world and who is responsible for that? Bush's actions have now caused more threats to the whole world from terrorists.
2007-05-16 11:54:41 · answer #2 · answered by Lori B 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Iraq does no longer quickly threaten usa. think of approximately this heavily: "Why does the dominion of Saudi Arabia needs US troops to stay put in Iraq; and why does the dominion products to the US or uk in speaking with Iran-Syria approximately settling the Iraq project?" The risk is actual. Very actual. pass parent!
2017-01-10 02:58:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not> The facts proved that he was not a threat....al Qaeda is already training in Eleven(11*) other Nations.. What are we going to do attack them to?
2007-05-16 12:06:02 · answer #4 · answered by dca2003311@yahoo.com 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Isn't it nice how a change in time can change a person's perspective?
In 2002 and 2003, how much money would you have placed on whether Saddam had WMD's or was helping terrorists? Were you willing to risk your life then?
Obviously, the democrats weren't willing to risk their political lives on that as they all supported going to war. How convenient that they can back up now and blame it on Bush only. Most of them weren't looking out for you. They simply knew that if they were against taking action and then something happened linked to Saddam, that their future would be toast.
2007-05-16 11:56:38 · answer #5 · answered by bkc99xx 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
at best... he was maybe a threat...
but there are clearly much greater threats out there, like al-queda, which as you said, had little to do in Iraq before our invasion...
2007-05-16 11:57:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yep.
Study history, especially the UN rules saddam needed to follow after losing Desert Storm.
2007-05-16 11:52:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
no he never was a threat, he also seen al queda as a threat to iraq.
2007-05-16 11:56:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes he did have ties to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups and was actively seeking to take over oilfields that belonged to friendlier nations.
The WORLD IS DEPENDENT ON OIL. Any threat to the supply is a threat to the peace of the world .Figure it out!
2007-05-16 11:53:56 · answer #9 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Iraq is more of a threat now as a terrorist breeding ground.
2007-05-16 11:50:56 · answer #10 · answered by James T 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋