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

2007-07-14 01:47:08 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events Media & Journalism

23 answers

The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein ever since the days of Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was criticized, ridiculed and humiliated for 'not finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time. Even Hussein publicly joked about it, and made veiled threats about killing Bush, Sr.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney installed in the White House for three reasons:
1) To "settle the score" with Hussein and satisfy George H.W. Bush's thirst for revenge;
2) To take control of all those rich, easily-accessible OIL fields in Iraq so that Cheney's oil friends could get richer and richer and richer feeding America's addiction on cheap foreign OIL;
3) To boost the sagging profits of America's giant military-industrial complex. Eisenhower warned us about the MIC when he was President. After World War II, 'war' suppliers realized how profitable 'war' could be. So all the politicians were bought up, pricey lobbyists were hired, and special interest groups were formed to promote and encourage more 'war'. Thus, the U.S. became embroiled in the Korean Conflict; the Cuban Missile Crisis; the Cold War; Vietnam and Desert Storm. A 'new war' was necessary to funnel billions of dollars in profits to McDonnell-Douglass, Lockheed-Martin, Sikorsky and countless other government contractors, including the two 'newcomers' to the Pentagon's war trough: The Carlyle Group and Halliburton, both of whom had direct ties to the Bush-Cheney White House.
It was wrong to execute Hussein because he in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States. -RKO- 07/14/07

2007-07-14 03:01:48 · answer #1 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 1 1

I guess the question is purely based on one's own opinion of the death penalty...an eye for an eye then I suppose he should have had a thousand deaths but was it right for them to keep showing it over and over or was it right for them to wait and do it on a holy day in Iraq? If they were going to do it I personally think it could have been done with a little more civility and a little less media coverage because they gave the group exactly what it wanted a world wide audience to feel sorry for what was going on with him. I might get some negative responces for this but I do think that the media circus surrounding it and the yelling just prior to the actual hanging changed some people's minds about how things were done. Maybe not Americans minds but other countries.

Now with that said I am a proud American and I think that we should protect ourselves!!

2007-07-14 03:05:20 · answer #2 · answered by dr_say 2 · 0 0

He did deserve to die,his regime was evil.

I was in America when they showed the films
of him being hung,that, I did not agree with.
I feel so sorry for the innocent people in Iraq,
they are suffering more now. I do not see a peaceful end in that country unless the troops
leave. Yes there will probably be a time of
upheavel while they sort themselves out,but
I think that this is the only way.

2007-07-14 02:21:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Hi
No in hindsight, there was never any trouble in Iraq, no civil unrest on the scale we see now, yes they did right to bring him down but then they should have worked with him and let him lead his people under guidance, that's American politics for you, have they ever started a war that's had a successful ending, they go in panicking with guns blazing and never spare a thought for a proper conclusion or withdrawal policy, they're that busy trying to teach other countries yet they never learn anything themselves.
Ray. West York's. U.K.

2007-07-14 01:55:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Well he killed the Kurds, with Technology supplied by the British and Americans. Wouldn't want that coming out.

2007-07-14 01:56:18 · answer #5 · answered by Paul T 4 · 0 0

I think the execution was wrong ....I do not agree in such extreme forms of criminal sentencing....

It was way too quick and he was humiliated .. although He committed evil acts he deserved dignity..

I think it was done under the pressure of bush and Blair ...

His death has served no purpose .. in fact he has now become a martyer for many and this fact was enabled by his death

2007-07-14 03:40:32 · answer #6 · answered by sammie 6 · 1 1

Has anything changed in Iraq since Saddam died?

2007-07-14 03:41:15 · answer #7 · answered by mr_fartson 7 · 1 1

Yes

2007-07-14 01:49:52 · answer #8 · answered by Pups 4 · 2 2

no. that was propaganda, even though it was by his own people, if they had not done it, Bush would have intervened. It was a disgrace. Bush killed more of that countries civilians than Saddam did.

2007-07-14 03:08:49 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 1 1

Just did it too late...after he had thousands murdered...He
is one of the few that deserved to be victims of partial-birth
abortion........they could have just crushed his skull, because
later life proved he had no brains to be sucked out of his
head!

2007-07-14 02:59:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers