We had not invaded Iraq at all? Now: I'm not on board with the Anti-War Bandwagon. But: I'm just asking if taking Saddam out was really best for America. We know it was great for the Iraqi people! I mean this regime was a very cruel one to say the least! But, lets say we decided not to invade Iraq. Do you believe that Iran would be so brave right now? You know Iran is wanting an American defeat in Iraq! You know they would love nothing more than to at least influence the Regime in Iraq or possibly even take over the country itself! With Saddam in charge, it kinda balanced things out in that area of the world. I know Saddam was an evil man! But I think that America should focus on whats best for itself first! Ronald Reagan understood the importance of Iraq keeping the Iranians in check! I mean this is like a chess game! I'm wondering if the US really made the right move!
2007-10-05 16:33:47 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
A Moot Point.Deal with it and move on .Our National Defense was the issue then and always is going to be.Even though some people in this country want to roll over and give it up with out a fight,Thank God we still have some in the Government that won't surrender to the threats we face from other countries!
2007-10-05 16:44:06 · answer #1 · answered by Hillarys lovehandles 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reagan and Bush Sr. were master chess players and would never have done what Bush Jr. did. They understood the role that Hussein played in the region.
Regional stability was in the American interest. The loss of that stability threatens to give Iran a much more influential role in the Middle East.
2007-10-05 23:49:52 · answer #2 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We need to go further back and say that we should not have put Saddam into power there to begin with and perhaps we would not have these problems. Too often we put someone in power in a country and then have problems with that country as in the case with Saddam and Castro as well, to name just two examples.
If we back a little further, when that area nationalized the first oil well, we should have lit it on fire and asked them what wells they wanted to nationalize next.
2007-10-05 23:44:46 · answer #3 · answered by Al B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Now you are on board with the anti-war bandwagon. You wagoneers don't deserve western liberal democracy.
Perhaps that is the way of civilization though, it reaches a pinnacle where it's cushy lifestyle develops such wimps that it can't defend itself against the barbarians. You're the guitarman, write a song to usher in the new dark ages.
2007-10-05 23:56:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Iraq had completed its work on WMD, and terrorists had gotten hold of some, the US could quite well have been much worse off. For a how-to scenario, read Clancy's The Sum of All Fears.
2007-10-05 23:39:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Saddam executed terrorists the day they stepped foot into Iraq
If they indeed did have WMDs he would have used them on his own people, most likely.
2007-10-05 23:44:04 · answer #6 · answered by Trash 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think with less than $600,000,000,000.00 and counting, we could have just bought Iraq and live happily ever after !
2007-10-06 00:01:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
we had no choice. both parties thought there were womds.
2007-10-05 23:41:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋