WOuld we be further along in the global war on terror if we had engaged Saddam , rather than deposed him? In hindsight, he was very effective at keeping terrorists out of his country...Al Qaeda and the rest have entered since he was removed.
2007-06-04 05:09:50 · 11 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
2 posts above.......
"Even if he could, I don't think I would want a murderous dictator on my team."
________
I don't side with murderous dictators either. So apparently neither of us supports Bush. Correct ?
____________________
Saddam was a dictator, and he murdered his own people.
Why can't conservatives ever finish what they start. They give half the message
Saddam was a dictator, and he murdered his own people with chemicals weapons given to him by RonOld RayGun and George Bush Sr.
and
Saddam was a dictator who came to power because of the efforts of the CIA
and
Saddam was a dictator but when he nationalized Iraqi oil, changed to Euro-dollars and insisted on sending support to the Palestinians he quit being our favorite dictator
______________________
Saddam was also an enemy of Al Qaeda. At the time of our invasion of Iraq there were far more Al Qaeda in the United States than in Iraq. Al Qaeda came to Iraq in numbers after we removed Saddam. Isn't it long past time for conservatives to stop selling the Al Qaeda-Saddam alliance lie
2007-06-04 05:40:23 · answer #1 · answered by Peace Warrior 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I am a bit shocked to hear that the US military are the sole party in the conflict that even cares..... My own country-Britain has sent many men,who are also trying to act decently I wouls imagine that the rest of the coalition forces would also be a bit upset that yet again Americans think they are the only people who have turned up for a fight. Perhaps the rest of us should just come home,as apparently you Americans will not even notice our abscence
2016-05-21 01:29:08 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably. Cheney and Rumsfeld courted him when Reagan was in power. They had a personal relationship with Saddam. I wouldn't think it would have taken a great leap of faith to come to him after the election, denounce Clinton and reestablish the relationship they once had. But then again, I don't think the invasion had anything to do with getting Saddam out of power. I think getting Saddam out of power was an intermediate objective on the way to a larger goal.
2007-06-04 05:15:59 · answer #3 · answered by El Duderino 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
NO: His fate was sealed when Bush 41 had mercy on Iraq and stopped the War.
Just like a scene from Greek mythology the Son rose up to conquer his fathers enemy.
Go Team Bush Go
2007-06-04 05:32:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
yeah i think so if we payed him off!!! and then we woulded be in this mess that we're in. He knew how to deal with crazys in his country and others.. we don't. But because bush wanted him for what ever reason, we have to babysit iraq.
2007-06-04 05:24:51 · answer #5 · answered by ♥lois c♥ ☺♥♥♥☺ 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
he held Iraq together for a long time
he treated terrorists the same way many conservatives would like to, kill them, their families, and destroy their whole village
2007-06-04 05:16:00 · answer #6 · answered by anonacoup 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Bill Clinton didn't mind if Bin Laden waged war against the US.
Bill did almost nothing to fight OBL
2007-06-04 05:13:27 · answer #7 · answered by tip zz 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Even if he could, I don't think I would want a murderous dictator on my team.
But that's just me.
2007-06-04 05:25:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Saddam? Saddam who? positive that he was harboring terrorist of his own. any any way, it was always all about his own agenda.
2007-06-04 05:13:37 · answer #9 · answered by Jahpson 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
NO, HE WAS A GENOCIDAL DESPOT...
and was a huge fan of Al Qaeda.
2007-06-04 05:12:52 · answer #10 · answered by Kim 1 · 2⤊ 5⤋