Was killing one man, Saddam, worth the projected $2 trillion, 4000 soldiers, and 30,000 wounded?

Question

and the coming recession that resulted from excessive spending?

Let us not forget that it was Reagan, Bush 1, and Rumsfeld who supported Saddam's reign in the first place.

truth (below) To compare WW-II to Iraq is proof of how far fetched people are with defending Bush's blunders in Iraq.

truth (below) To compare WW-II to Iraq is proof of how far fetched people are with defending Bush's blunders in Iraq.

godgunsa (below) Your friends lost his legs following orders, as ALL brave soldiers do. To say that Bush's foolishness if justified because your friend followed orders is ludicrous.

That being said, I do appreciate your participation in this debate.

- friend - (above)

bonsai_k (below) I clearly stated above "Saddam's reign". You clearly added on your own "of terror" (Freudian slip)

It is COMMON knowledge that Reagan supported Saddam. Learn some history please.
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=rumsfeld+saddam&fr=yfp-t-471&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

Answer 1

This is a clear yes or no question, which could, also, include some input.

I strongly feel that killing on man, Saddam, would appear to be worth it as opposed to a projected $2 trillion spent on this war, 4,000 soldiers, on our side, who have died, and 30,000 wounded. Yet, I would add there was no law which would have permitted our nation to do such a thing. And Saddam had violated no law or rule, by which we could act. Every nation in the world is entitled to its sovereign rights and if a nation wants to become a Muslim nation, it has every right to do so.

Yet, our government lied over and over to make its case against Saddam. Saddam did not have WMD and Saddam was not a mass murderer. All actions of the Iraqi government was done during time of national emergency and war (Iran-Iraq War).

It would behoove our media to publish the truth about the Iraq War to reassure our people as to what the real facts of the Iraq War is all about.

My answer to your question above:
Trying to kill one man and creating a war, which has cost taxpayers 2 trillion dollars and 4,000 lives is a complete waste of taxpayer money.

And too Saddam is not the ogre that our nation makes him out to be, this war is illegal and criminal, violates the US Constitution, and need not be fought as Saddam had agreed to all terms that the US said that it wanted. We didn't have to go to war as there was no threat as confirmed by the CIA in 1990. No WMD, which proved to be true!

im_foxygirl, katydid, and Brady E gave fair to good answers and iceman and Stephanie were right on the money (truthful and accurate) with their answers.

The company that I work for negotiated Saddam's withdrawal in 1990, so we are privy to the facts. The agreed upon withdrawal was turned down by the Bush administration, during a time when the Bush administration continually said that all it wanted was for Saddam to get out of Kuwait. Another Bush administration lie!

FIRST EDIT:
Once again I repeat, "It would behoove our media to publish the truth about the Iraq War to reassure our people as to what the real facts of the Iraq War is all about."
.

Answer 2

Me say not. First there has been alot revealed lately regarding Iran & Iraq. These rebel forces have been working together across the regions for decades. The WMD idea was not new. Clinton bombed Iraq regularly, blew the heck out of Sudan & Afghanistan looking for them and Saddam. He also stated he believed Saddam was capable of producing nuclear weapons. We had the Persian Gulf War. The body count 4 years under Clinton peacetime was over 4,417. Who knows the $$ and then he drastically cut military budgets?? I believe the lie is in the media impression of this the second Iraq War. No one lied. In fact numerous Democrats voted for the use of force to engaged with Iraq. Mrs. Clinton can not apologize as she knew above all others she was right. Just uses it for campaign purposes. When it is PC. As we know she waffles, as the wind turns ectera etcetera... One thing for sure is Iran is holding. And the latest 2003 report I read was amazing. Plus Saudi's offered to join forces to gain Uranium. Scary world we live. CIA sez 5 yrs to be functional for Iran. tis what I sez mahalo edit: Sorry I got off subject. Worth the money no WAR is never worth the money nor sacrifice of human lives. Yet... we have to consider the alternatives. No one really ever wins.

Answer 3

I know the question space is limited, but i'm sorry you did not include the hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqui civillians in your enumeration of the cost of the war. Although i'm unclear why you believe this waste was only for the removal of Saddam--the project hatched from far greater evils in the minds of the Bush Crime Family than this singular objective.

Answer 4

No, if he was that bad, would rather have just pushed a button to solve that problem. But you've again underestimated the costs. The money could have been spent to purchase a completely new infrastructure here that would eliminate our need for oil (nearly) and get the $$$ out of the hands of terrorists.

Answer 5

HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY THE MONEY THAT HAS BEEN SPENT TO FORCE AN IDEAL ON A PEOPLE THAT CAN'T SEEM TO GRASP THE CONEPT? IF KILLING SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS THE GOVERNMENTS GOAL,IT WAS OBVIOUSLY WAS REACHED. THE LIVES THAT HAVE BEEN LOST ON BOTH SIDES CAN'T EVER BE JUSTFIED.YOU CAN'T PLACE A PRICE ON AN INNOCENT LIFE.AND IT'S NOT JUST THE LIVES LOST; OUR ECONOMY IS IN A SHAMBLES,PEOPLE ARE LOSING EVERYTHING THEY OWN, OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS IN A SHAMBLES,AND OUR LEADER WANTS MORE MONEY TO DUMP INTO A"WAR" THAT CAN'T BE WON. THAT PROJECTED TWO TRILLION DOLLARS WOULB BE BETTER SPENT HELPING OUR OWN COUNTRY REBUILD. THE ONE THING I HOPE IS THAT THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY REALIZE THE MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE AND NEVER ELECT A MANI LIKE GEORGE BUSH AGAIN.

Answer 6

Saddam was trialed and executed very quickly, and while he was in jail no independent reporter was allowed to interview him !!?? That's bcoz he knew too much, and he could have uncovered, the truth about bush, cheney and rumsfiled , and the US dirty politics which is terrorizing the people Middle East !!??

Best Regards.

Answer 7

No. Consider that he could have been assassinated, instead, much more cheaply and efficiently (oh, /if/ that were legal). Or his palaces and suspected WMD sites could have been nuked to radioactive vapor more cheaply and with fewer casualties (even considering fallout) - but that would have been a crime against humanity.

For that matter, the entire country could have been pacified by a more determined occupation in half the time. But, again, that would involve 'human rights violations.'

So, because we want to be the 'good guys,' we waste lives and money in ill-advised wars of half-measures.

Answer 8

Still lost, confused and looking for affirmation eh? Gosh, let's see, who else supported Saddam? Kennedy? Johnson? Nixon? Ford? Carter, Clinton? The U.N., the French? The Russians? The Germans? Shall I keep going? Pitty.

Edge, I tend to agree with you, but then, Carter outlawed political assassination. *sigh* Oh, what to do? What to do...

Answer 9

You and I are kindred spirits. Of course it was not worth it. The 2 million displaced refugees in and out of Iraq and the rising oil prices created mainly by taking the Iraqi crude off the market. You put that with the damage we have created in the psyche of those people which will last for generations. The poison and birth defects cause by uranium depleted munition both there and back in the states. For those that did it yes it was worth it. They are rich. I heard that Cheney was even thinking of buying a house in Dubai for he can live out his billions with his company Haliburton. For the rest of us we will soon have to pay taxes and get nothing while they laugh at us idiots all the way to their off shore accounts.

Answer 10

If you will not read your history, then you cannot expect to be taken seriously.

Q: Who was the biggest threat to the US in the Middle East in the 80's?

A: Iran, who was in a war with Iraq. Why wouldn't we help Saddam in that war?