Then what do they call Saddam and his army?
2007-07-15 08:40:39 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Libtards call them role models.
2007-07-15 08:44:06 · answer #1 · answered by john b 1 · 8⤊ 9⤋
There was no terrorists in iraq, not until the invasion anyway. When we invaded, it caused this huge mess, and then that gave the terrorists a chance to slip in and cause more hell.
Saddam, was, a leader of a country. He WAS a bad person, he WAS a dictator, but he was not a TERRORIST. He did nothing against the U.S., and he also actively opposed radicals and terrorism.
Despite what many people think, it is very hard to completely invade a country, throw out the government, and put in a new one. Especially when you have no significant military help. The United States cannot police the world. Doing those things causes more problems than it solves. Where do we start:Zimbabwe, Sudan, Cuba? The list goes on and on. The United states needs to stop worrying so much about the conditions of OTHER countries, and start worrying sbout the flaws WE have.
2007-07-15 13:18:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were terrorists and BTW, there were Terrorist Training Camps in Iraq near the Iranian border NE of Baghdad!!!
2007-07-15 09:25:08 · answer #3 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Saddam and his army were a terror to the Shia and the Kurds. He also paid $10,000 to the families of suicide bombers who would kill Jews. Sounds like a terrorist to me.
2007-07-15 09:01:55 · answer #4 · answered by Larry 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
howdy Ted i became in Iraq on 2 excursions ,and in no way observed any terrorist education camps of any variety ! became this some the place in a e book that G.W.Bush study or consistent with hazard wrote ? i became with the a hundred and first Air Borne Div , and with the 2d I.D. on my 2d excursion and we in no way ever observed any damn terrorist education camps or W.M.D.! So might you be as so sort and element out on a map of Iraq merely the place the "Hell" the terrorist education camps the place placed at and at the same time as your at it teach us the area of all of the W.M.D. Any time at present could be merely great . And Saddam became in no way a threat to usa ! that's what G.W.Bush informed you and additionally you went for it hook line & sinker . And no way do I ever want to thank G.W.Bush for inflicting the dying of six of my appropriate pals . F him . howdy Hgldr ! A Liberal is somebody with a pair of ball's and which will provide his existence for the liberty of usa . in assessment to your self hiding on your partents basement or below-floor growth shield .
2016-10-03 21:12:03 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I call Saddam the former political head of the nation state of Iraq and the army of Iraq was the former standing government military, commanded by Saddam.
Before our current President came to be, most people defined terrorists as non-government organizations. Terrorists may be regionalists, nationalists, groups holding to particular religious/political view, groups that fight for particular racial or ethnic "purity", or simply militants. People like Saddam, Castro, Pinochet, and Kim Jong-il were not terrorist but tyrants, despots, dictators...
That's why the war against terrorists is idiotic, its like saying, "We're going to war against crime", or "We're going to war against drugs", or "We're going to war against poverty." War is enacted between nation states not groups, concepts, or ideologies. In those cases, war is being used as a hyperbole.
2007-07-15 09:04:50 · answer #6 · answered by juan70ahr 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The U.S. supported Saddam Hussein during his atrocities. The U.S. only stopped supporting him, because he invaded Kuwait.
The U.S. is just as guilty as Saddam Hussein. The U.S. government has committed terrorist actions and we have trained terrorists as well.
2007-07-15 09:11:12 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
An ally to the US against Iran. Friend of Rumsfeld. Not a threat to the US. But he did put his oil on the Euro and he was in the way for the PNAC plan. The 9/11 cover worked great. Good to see that Rove still has pods on the board for the few remaining kool-aid drinkers who might be sobering up.....
2007-07-15 08:52:42 · answer #8 · answered by expose_neocons 3 · 3⤊ 5⤋
When the 'terrorism' was going on in Yugoslavia there were many in the Republican party who opposed a U.S. intervention as well!!!
Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to sniper that @sshole and his evil offspring?
Don't we have special forces for those kinds of missions?
2007-07-15 08:48:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
There have been terrorists out there for a long time. I don't know what else to say.
2007-07-15 08:46:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
A horrible dictator.
2007-07-15 08:44:06 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋