Harry Sikanisari writes for the world social-http://pages.intnet.mu//jhkr1/author.htm He has presently 9 books at Janus Publishers in London under review.He writes in simple English for simple people in simple societies.So don't be hard at his language.
2007-06-25 23:42:42 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yes. And Tony Blair made a monu - MENTAL decision in supporting him and allowing it to happen.
2007-06-25 23:47:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
Yes. Saddam was nothing to do with the US or the UK. He was not a threat to world peace. It is now very clear that the US and UK are the aggressors and IN THE WRONG!!!!!
If removing dictators from power is an objective then why are we not massing an army to remove Robert Mugabe from Zimbabwe??
This hypocrisy makes me sick.
2007-06-26 03:50:27 · answer #2 · answered by George 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, a guy like him would possibly under no circumstances remorseful approximately some thing that killed maximum of of the infidels. He probably j basically concept approximately his own self, how unlucky he became into, possibly he shoudl have hidden someplace extra constructive or snuck overseas or some thing, yet he did no longer remorseful approximately 9/11. possibly he regretted under no circumstances going to Disneyland!
2016-11-07 11:26:55 · answer #3 · answered by deily 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not too sure about that but they should have had a plan B about what they were going to do once they got rid of him. There should have been something pre set up so they could go in 'do the job' have a government and policing in place and then be able to leave and have the countrymen run their own country again.
2007-06-25 23:53:46 · answer #4 · answered by Victoria M 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
In terms of what Bush wanted to achieve, no. Together with his cronies in the industrial-military complex, he has made a fortune from the war. He has secured further income from arranging the theft of Iraq's oil, he has fragmented the country so it is less of a threat to his Israeli puppet masters, he has established a huge fortified embassy there to be close to the Caspian Basin oil and the rising might of China. So it's a success as far as the imbecile is concerned. The fact that over a half a million Iraqis and thousands of US troops have died means nothing to Bush. It's a price worth paying, as the lovely Madeleine Allbright put it.
2007-06-26 00:47:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
nope, he's achieved exactly what he was supposed to do: wreck Iraq, establish US bases,get hold of the oil fields (ripe for the plundering and personal gain of few cronies) , feed the MIC, and whip up 'patriotic' fervor in a generally ignorant and emotionalized people enabling a justification for increased repression and stifling of dissent at home.
The stage set for the next PNAC attack on Iran/Syria.
So everything according to plan- don't believe the media or the so-called opposition.
2007-06-26 01:29:46 · answer #6 · answered by celvin 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
You can assume that they did their calculations on the pay-off for this incursion.
So for the administration, it's unlikely to be an error.
But as for justifying mass-murder with um mass-murder, well that's what I call hyprocrisy.
Saddam had his crimes like many many national leaders, but prior to the u s uk invasion, Iraq had high levels of education and development by all accounts. Now Iraq is being vandalised beyong recognition, the destruction of heritage fading to a memory and the killing and maiming of civilians including children asssimilated into notions of democracy.
The erupting civil conflict whether it was previously kept-at-bay, and/or is a consequence of the invasion, is being intentionally fed by certain international factions.
2007-06-26 00:03:26 · answer #7 · answered by L 3 · 5⤊ 4⤋
the mistakes came AFTER the removal of hussein...going in and removing him from power was necessary, but it was the follow up and all the errors made in the aftermath that have us where we are now...however, if the correct strategy is applied henceforth, things should turn around rather quickly...
2007-06-26 01:07:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No - they accomplished exactly what they set out to do, and not only did they get many innocents killed, many more are being killed by bullets we didn't even pay for - its like kill 2000, get 150 per day FREE.
Bargain..............
(please note - there is a high degree of sarcasm here)
2007-06-25 23:58:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
No, he and the entire congress voted to attack Saddam. Thank God he is no longer in power. Had we not gone over there, the terrorists would have come to us!!!! By the way, it wasn't just George Bush who made the decision to go. It was the majority vote of Democrats and Republicans to go. We did the right thing!
2007-06-25 23:53:33 · answer #10 · answered by vanhammer 7 · 3⤊ 6⤋