2007-08-31 12:27:42 · 27 answers · asked by AB17 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
By no means was this country capable of doing the U.S any harm. After Kuwait we made sure they had no army left. They would not ever be able to reach our shores and inflict any sort of real damage. Because they only had ground troops without a navy or an airforce.
2007-08-31 12:40:49 · answer #1 · answered by stephenmwells 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Of course not. This has been conclusively proven by the invasion itself, which revealed zero ZILCH nada capability of harming the United States and which revealed zero ZILCH nada direct ties to any terrorist organizations. In fact, an Al Queda member had the life expectancy of about a summer may fly in Saddam's regime.
Iraq was a wrecked country run by a brutal man who could only hurt his own citizens. Had we left the Iraqis alone, they would have shot Saddam soon enough.
2007-08-31 19:38:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, but I wouldn't want to wait and find out after it's too late. We know there was an Evil man in power there torturing and killing his own people and now he is no more. It's just like 911 everyone complains about how the govt. and Bush did nothing or not fast enough, but if the govt. and Bush had any idea it was going to happen and had used war tactic to prevent it all the democrats would be yelling how there was no threat. Why do leftists insist that we let the damage be done first then react. We need to prevent not wait until thousands are killed first.
2007-08-31 19:35:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nope.. and I didn't think it after the Bush invasion- there are many other countries and people that are a threat that we should be taking care of
2007-08-31 19:35:01 · answer #4 · answered by katjha2005 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, Clinton had to deal with many problems in the Middle East even before Bush invaded Iraq. The reason why many people don't hear about it, is because Clinton didn't want to make it a huge problem and tried resolving the problems.
2007-08-31 19:33:16 · answer #5 · answered by Qu'est ce que tu penses? 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. Countries like China, Afghanistan, Russia or more security threats.
2007-08-31 19:56:54 · answer #6 · answered by Roderick F 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam wouldn't have been a threat to a Soldiers of Fortune convention, let alone to America's military.
2007-08-31 19:35:24 · answer #7 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It was a very weak remote threat that was fully contained and going downhill as far as it's potency. There were (and still are) other places and people who presented a far greater threat than Saddam ever could.
2007-08-31 19:34:59 · answer #8 · answered by AJ 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes...and if you require more, why did our Congress vote for it? FYI, it is not a "Bush invasion", it is a step in what, from the first, was characterized as a long and difficult struggle against terrorism.
2007-08-31 19:32:57 · answer #9 · answered by makrothumeo2 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. I didn't think they had W.M.D.s or links to al-Qaeda either. But then, I didn't think G.W. legitimately won the '00 or '04 presidential elections so what do I know.
2007-08-31 19:48:40 · answer #10 · answered by socrates 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋