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

and the Hussein boys, too.

2007-06-15 16:12:32 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

8 answers

Hey chappye7 –

What are you talking about? It was Reagan that turned Saddam from a nobody into dictator backed by money, weapons, and intelligence from the US.

After all, it was the Reagan Administration that provided the chemical weapons for Hussein to gas the Kurds with.

Until the day he died, Hussein considered Reagan a close and great personal friend. Don’t you remember those photos of Rumsfeld being all buddy-buddy with Saddam? If not, you can see one here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

------------------------

As for the question, America would have maybe suffered less but the current chaos would be the same. Every non-partisan Middle East expert in the world (and, in fact, everyone with any knowledge of the region) predicted Iraq would erupt into a civil war if Saddam was removed from power.

Moreover, all anyone had to do was read the book Bush’s father wrote in 1998 (‘A World Transformed’). In it, he - Bush the Wiser - explained why removing Hussein from power would further destabilize the already volatile region with the possibility of causing regional (or greater) armed conflict. He also stated that if the US invaded Iraq and removed Hussein from power, it would:

1.result in America becoming stuck in a no-win Vietnam-like quagmire;

2.result in America losing its friends and allies;

3.result in America losing its standing in the world and its ability to lead and influence international political events; and

4.result in jeopardizing America’s own interests in the Middle East, undoing decades of intense effort to put ourselves in a position to be politically effective in the region;


If Bush had listened to his real father instead of the imaginary one he hears in his head we would not be in this mess.

2007-06-15 16:34:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

They could not get close enough, thus the invented reasons for waging war, besides an assassination was not what the elite wanted they wanted to invade the country to control its resources.
Even Bush (with that evil grin) shrugs that all the pre-war intelligence was wrong.

2007-06-15 16:16:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

It was never about Saddam. It was about the oil.

2007-06-15 16:23:19 · answer #3 · answered by trichbopper 4 · 1 0

Yes, that is what I want to know, whatever happened to clandestine operations? We didn't like a dictator and we had him taken out. I had no problem with that.

2007-06-15 16:18:23 · answer #4 · answered by kradleoffilth 2 · 0 1

Great idea, but a democratic congess in the 80's stopped us from doing that.

2007-06-15 16:15:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

my thoughts exactly

2007-06-15 16:22:51 · answer #6 · answered by crazzy 4 · 0 0

well i suppose so....but how would they have done that? Call in Jack Bauer!!!!

2007-06-15 16:15:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

yup

2007-06-15 16:15:10 · answer #8 · answered by ash 7 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers