Go in, find and arrest Saddam (as they did with Noriega)...and get out?
no years of insurgency, secretarian violence, foreign interventions....
i'm asking this because the bush admin did offer saddam and his sons a chance to leave the country before the invasion. but they choose not to.
2007-09-09 16:35:23 · 7 answers · asked by Moore55 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
well, bush did offer an ultimatum to Saddam to leave.......had Saddam leave....there would've been no invasion.
i thought the reason Saddam didnt leave was because he was going to fight to the death and release his deadly wmd's on US troops when they were getting close.
saddam did not destroy the dam, did not use wmds on US troops.....and yet hes executed. while bush is......nevermind.
2007-09-09 16:58:54 · update #1
I think the real question is why Saddam didn't just give in to our demands before the invasion, instead of seeing his army torn to shreds by 300,000 of the most technologically advanced troops on the planet. Mighty peculiar, if you ask me. Something mighty peculiar about that dictator.
I don't know a whole lot about the Panama conflict, but at least part of the problem in Iraq is that we couldn't find Saddam, for at least a year I think it was. He sure knew how to hide. Plus Iraq has three main groups of people vying for power, plus a boatload of religious sects, all armed both by armories left undefended in the first days of the conflict, plus probably some unknown supplier(s) continuing to give insurgents weapons.
Plus while I never thought Saddam made his own nuclear weapon (aquiring one from a Russian republic would be more likely), if he did have chemical or biological weapons, he either sent them away or buried them (I find the ladder more likely. There's a lot of empty space in Iraq, and Saddam was fond of tunnels), so none were ever found and the main spoken motive for the invasion seems moot.
2007-09-09 16:54:16 · answer #1 · answered by kvn8907 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We did. It was a pretty short invasion, forced Saddam out of power and then we would have been very happy to go home.
But the Iraqi people would not let us leave.
First, they went nutso on their own country. All the cops quit. People stole anything -- to include hundreds of miles of high-voltage wire and breaking into museums and every sort of public utility. Add in the normal criminal element (helped by the fact that Saddam let every thief / rapists / thug out of jail just before the invasion) and SOMEONE had to try and establish order.
Second, they might not have liked the jihadists and foreign fighters but they did not OPPOSE them and turn them in. They provided cover for them to develop terroists cells and networks to attack both US forces and the civil structure of Iraq.
Third, the shieks took the opportunity to start local power struggles / pay back old debts. So began the inter-clan killings and religious murders. Again, SOMEONE has to be there to help protect the innocent and contain the violence. Else the guy with the most guns wins, and that is usually about the worst way to select a new government.
So the short answer to your question is that in Panama the civilians wanted a peaceful transition and the locals worked out the difficulties in peaceful ways.
But in Iraq the civilians either hid or supported the insurgency, sectarian violence and foreign interventions.
FACT: What is the fastest way to get US troops out of Iraq? Have the Iraqi's quit killing each other and quit tolerating the jihadists. Its that simple.
2007-09-09 23:49:17 · answer #2 · answered by SMBR 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
2 Reasons Iraqi had a much larger and complex military and Saddam was alot better at hiding than Noriega.
2007-09-10 05:51:33 · answer #3 · answered by firetdriver_99 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They could have, but I don't believe their intelligence was as comparably good with the whereabouts of the targets. Also, i believe the intelligence level of the leaders behind each of those different events was quite different as well. Ronald Reagen and Bush Sr. are just alot more competent compared to what we have seen recently.
2007-09-10 00:16:05 · answer #4 · answered by Cysteine 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because it was 2 different situations , they should of turned it over to the UN after we caught Saddam
2007-09-10 00:38:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
So who do you think would have replaced Saddam?
2007-09-10 02:12:26 · answer #6 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Invading a sovereign country is a good thing?? Man, this country is in alot of trouble.
2007-09-09 23:42:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋