2007-08-01 18:55:34 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Nobody would say that - unless their idiots
2007-08-01 18:59:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Saddam in power meant a stable Iraq. They provided a counterbalance to Iran. Now, Iranian tendrals have wrapped themselves around Iraq. Saddam was a scumbag. I am not disputing that. However look at what we have now in its place. Iran has grown tremendously in its influence, the Iraqi government is on the verge of collapse because they can't get their s h i t together, Iraq is now a training ground for radicals as well as a recruiting tool.
The world could have been in a better place if we had come in to Iraq like gangbusters with half a million troops and occupied the country properly. We didn't do that however.
2007-08-01 20:40:42 · answer #2 · answered by Kenneth C 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should be but unfortunately is not.
Because we removed Saddam with no concept of what was likely to happen in the resulting power vaccuum - and hence no plan to counter it - a very important part of the world has descended into chaos and given AQ a stronghold in which to recruit and fight back against us.
2007-08-01 19:12:06 · answer #3 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hussein was a evil evil man, He killed thousands and thousands of people. He tortured, raped, beheaded. He used torture to improve the soccer team. He made children as young as 5 yrs old due military training which included cruelty to animals and the list go's on and on......anybody who thinks the world is not a better place is ignorant and selfish
2007-08-01 19:38:39 · answer #4 · answered by Tony L 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sure Saddam is dead...but the death toll is rising...can you really say you feel more secure or that there is ANY stability in the Mideast since we invaded Iraq....out of the frying pan into the fire
2007-08-01 19:17:40 · answer #5 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Who can say Bush is not a war criminal responsible for the deaths of 655,000 innocent people? The world would be a better place without him.
2007-08-01 19:01:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
you are right. Turks are more in danger than Saddam's era. you know that PKK has increased its power when Saddam has gone
2007-08-01 19:02:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Saddam was out of his flipp'n mind, he murdered his own people, and he and his country were and are a threat to our country...
If you believe for a moment that the world would be better with him still arround, you're out of your flipp'n mind, and i'm gonna have to be very irratated to you....
2007-08-01 19:01:46 · answer #8 · answered by Conservative 1st, patriot 2nd 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
He was a stabilizing force in Iraq..............Women held half of the professional jobs...............No more........
Shia and Suni did not kill and mutiliate each other...........No car bombs.............
Yogoslovia went the same way when Tito departed..........
Democracy is not for everyone//////
2007-08-01 19:01:36 · answer #9 · answered by richard t 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
His daughter?
2007-08-01 20:10:38 · answer #10 · answered by cynical 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋