Do you believe removing Saddam from power made Persian Gulf Oil supply safer and was the right move?

[U2Edge]

Do you believe removing Saddam from power made Persian Gulf Oil supply safer and was the right move?

YES OR NO?

How was it less safe when he was in power? Until recently, ISIS had control of some major oilfields in Iraq. We had Sadaam on lockdown after the first Gulf War, there was no need to invade and then occupy Iraq.

False, Saddam was not on lock down. Starting in the year 2000 Saddam was successfully selling Billions of dollars of oil on the Black Market. China came in and set up a new Air Defense System for Saddams military with fiber optics. Russia and France also violated the Sanctions. Jordan, and Syria were also violating the Sanctions. Saddam was not on any sort of lock down but was rebuilding his military and strength. He needed to be removed before he grew stronger and the cost of removing him would prove greater.

Kuwait was invaded and annexed within days back in 1990. Iran and Saudi Arabia suffered invasions. Israel was attacked with Ballistic missiles. Saddam was the first world leader to annex another country since Hitler did it in the 1940s. Those are all the reasons why were less safe and it become US policy under Bill Clinton to find a way to remove Saddam from power. George Bush succeeded in doing it in 2003!

 

[blackhawk]

Difficult question as both the Bush and Obama administrations made mistakes in dealing with Iraq post Sadam. The Bush administration did not deal well with the Sunnis after Sadam was gone which brought us Al-Qaeda in Iraq after they did get the Sunnis on board and ran them out the Obama administration for whatever the reason could not work out a SOFA extension which allowed ISIS which is just Al-Qaeda under a new name back in.

 

[Pheonixops]

Do you believe removing Saddam from power made Persian Gulf Oil supply safer and was the right move?

YES OR NO?

How was it less safe when he was in power? Until recently, ISIS had control of some major oilfields in Iraq. We had Sadaam on lockdown after the first Gulf War, there was no need to invade and then occupy Iraq.

False, Saddam was not on lock down. Starting in the year 2000 Saddam was successfully selling Billions of dollars of oil on the Black Market. China came in and set up a new Air Defense System for Saddams military with fiber optics. Russia and France also violated the Sanctions. Jordan, and Syria were also violating the Sanctions. Saddam was not on any sort of lock down but was rebuilding his military and strength. He needed to be removed before he grew stronger and the cost of removing him would prove greater.

Kuwait was invaded and annexed within days back in 1990. Iran and Saudi Arabia suffered invasions. Israel was attacked with Ballistic missiles. Saddam was the first world leader to annex another country since Hitler did it in the 1940s. Those are all the reasons why were less safe and it become US policy under Bill Clinton to find a way to remove Saddam from power. George Bush succeeded in doing it in 2003!

I don't care if he still sold oil, they should have been allowed to do so. Having a "No fly zone" was good enough to contain him. That was having him on lockdown. He invaded Kuwait but he wasn't successful in his annexation attempt.

 

[healthmyths]

The biggest problem as was in Vietnam was the mainstream media tremendous bias to present the USA in the worst light.
The MSM has since Vietnam worked to present the USA as the bad guys. Consequently whatever ground was gained with our
great military was lost both in Vietnam and Iraq due to people in the MSM that constantly believe the USA is the bad guy!
As a result the majority of people that were ultimately against Vietnam/Iraq were convinced by the extremely biased MSM that
Vietnam/Iraq was a bad move by bad guys i.e. Johnson/Bush both of which saw the enemies of mankind in the Chinese and
in Iraq.
Now today thanks to the MSM we have the truly bad guys ,the guys that behead, use kids for suicides, hiding behind mosques
terrorizing the world.
Thanks to the MSM we have the MSM going after Americans who made cartoons BUT at the same time don't consider these
extremist Islamist as the bad guys!
I took journalism classes in the 60s with guys that are now editors/news producers and those guys in my classes in the 60s were
anarchists...Students for Democrat Society, weathermen and they grew up hating the USA! Constantly reminding via their headlines and sound bites how bad the USA was...like Michelle did recently in her last speech. Instead of being encouraging she was divisive.
She and the MSM both believe the USA and especially white people are the bad guys and the good guys are the ones that want to
tear our country apart.
The MSM believes this... and I've got the MSM's words to prove it!

 

[U2Edge]

Do you believe removing Saddam from power made Persian Gulf Oil supply safer and was the right move?

YES OR NO?

How was it less safe when he was in power? Until recently, ISIS had control of some major oilfields in Iraq. We had Sadaam on lockdown after the first Gulf War, there was no need to invade and then occupy Iraq.

False, Saddam was not on lock down. Starting in the year 2000 Saddam was successfully selling Billions of dollars of oil on the Black Market. China came in and set up a new Air Defense System for Saddams military with fiber optics. Russia and France also violated the Sanctions. Jordan, and Syria were also violating the Sanctions. Saddam was not on any sort of lock down but was rebuilding his military and strength. He needed to be removed before he grew stronger and the cost of removing him would prove greater.

Kuwait was invaded and annexed within days back in 1990. Iran and Saudi Arabia suffered invasions. Israel was attacked with Ballistic missiles. Saddam was the first world leader to annex another country since Hitler did it in the 1940s. Those are all the reasons why were less safe and it become US policy under Bill Clinton to find a way to remove Saddam from power. George Bush succeeded in doing it in 2003!

I don't care if he still sold oil, they should have been allowed to do so. Having a "No fly zone" was good enough to contain him. That was having him on lockdown. He invaded Kuwait but he wasn't successful in his annexation attempt.

His Annexation of Kuwait was successful. Saddam annexed Kuwait in mid- August 1990, less than two weeks after his military invaded and overran the country. Kuwait was apart of Iraq from August 1990 until March 1991. The no fly zone only stopped aircraft which was not Saddam's most effective means of military power which lay in his ground forces. The no fly zones also did not stop other countries from flying into Iraq and breaking the sanctions. Goods moved across the border freely breaking the sanctions just before the US invaded in 2003. Iraq was allowed to sell oil, but only through the UN and only for humanitarian supplies. Selling oil on the black market went into Saddam's pocket and the money made from those sales were being used to rebuild Saddam's military strength which would eventually threaten what left of the containment and the no fly zones themselves. The no fly zones were not able to prevent Saddam from invading Kuwait again or from attacking the Kurds. They were a hinderance, but never anything that would stop a full fledge invasion. In addition coalition aircraft flying in the no fly zones would soon come under threat from more sophisticated anti-aircraft weaponry and systems. China broke the arms embargo by designing a new air defense system for Saddam. Had this become fully operational with new weaponry, coalition aircraft in the no fly zones could be shot down, and the pilots killed or captured. New ballistic missiles systems if Saddam were to obtain them could target the air bases and aircraft carriers the aircraft were launching from and based at. These are just some of the things the US had to look forward to in the near future with Saddam. That were far worse things to be concerned about with Saddam after that. This is why the time was right to remove him from power. It was the goal of the US government since 1998 to remove Saddam from power and a ground invasion was the only way to do it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

jw 11391289

WHY IS IT DIFFERENT THAN IRAQ?

We had what is called an "inherent right of self defense" to remove the Taliban regime in Afghanistan following the attacks on September 11, 2001 that originated on Taliban controlled soil. And yes, responding to an attack including regime change in the attacking nation is considered an act of self defense.

We were not attacked by Iraq or under attack and no attack was proven to be planned in Iraq. That is a huge difference.

 

[U2Edge]

jw 11391289

WHY IS IT DIFFERENT THAN IRAQ?

We had what is called an "inherent right of self defense" to remove the Taliban regime in Afghanistan following the attacks on September 11, 2001 that originated on Taliban controlled soil. And yes, responding to an attack including regime change in the attacking nation is considered an act of self defense.

We were not attacked by Iraq or under attack and no attack was proven to be planned in Iraq. That is a huge difference.

Saddam had invaded Kuwait and attacked Saudi Arabia and Israel. The United States and other member nations were authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 687 to use all means necessary to remove Iraq from Kuwait as well as get Iraq to comply with all other resolutions. Iraq was not in compliance with 17 UN Security Council resolutions at the time of the invasion in March 2003. Saddam was in violation of the 1991 ceacefire agreement. So there was overwhelming justification for a ground invasion. Military action had already commenced against Iraq and had been steadily continuing from 1991 through 2003 in the form of limited military action primarily through airstrikes. So the United States was already engaged in a military conflict with Iraq prior to the March 2003 ground invasion!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

U2 11392347

False, Saddam was not on lock down. Starting in the year 2000 Saddam was successfully selling Billions of dollars of oil on the Black Market. China came in and set up a new Air Defense System for Saddams military with fiber optics. Russia and France also violated the Sanctions. Jordan, and Syria were also violating the Sanctions. Saddam was not on any sort of lock down but was rebuilding his military and strength. He needed to be removed before he grew stronger and the cost of removing him would prove greater.

Sorry, on the sanctions issues GW Bush bound the US to UNSC 1441 which gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with all relevant UNSC resolutions that he had been violating for years. Your argument does not work as any kind of basis for justifying protecting the national security of the USA and our allies by militarily forcing regime change in Iraq.

Bush admitted in writing at the UN when voting in favor of 1441 in November 2002 that Saddam Hussein was not a threat and could be left in power if he allowed UN inspectors to return and submit to inspections as required to have all those sanctions lifted.

Your China thing is something new so could you provide the source that put that tidbit in your mind.

As far as Saddam's "stronger" military Bush let that go away as justification for are aerial bombardment, ground invasion, regime change and occupation, also when he sought, received and agreed to UN Resolution 1441 which was a legal means under international law to leave Saddam Hussein in power simple by letting UN inspectors in and allowing them to do their work.

Any Iraq violation of 1441 was to be resolved within the UN Security Council.

If what you are claiming to be justification for a preemptive war against Iraq in March 2003 is correct, moral and lawful. Why did Bush agree to 1441's language that went only for WMD disarmament and not the regime change that Bush later decided was necessary as the 1441 inspections were ongoing?

Your argument is very flimsy and falls apart when confronted by the reality of Bush's acquiescence to UN Res 1441 in November 2002 that definitely reads that Saddam Hussein can remain in power.

Why did Bush commit the US to 1441?

 

[paulitician]

Removing Saddam Hussein was all about the West installing a Puppet Government so they could plunder Iraq's resources. But hey, most dumb American fat asses still believe it was all about the 'Freeeeedum.' Western Corporations are in there right now making money hand over fist.

The same thing was done in Libya and Ukraine. It's all about the $$. But not for the average Citizens of those nations perpetrating these war atrocities. For example, American Taxpayers were forced to spend several $Trillions on the Iraq nightmare. They'll never see penny one in return. Because the $$ is only for the Globalist Elites.

Americans see the return every time they turn a light on their house, go to put gas in the car, by petroleum based consumer products like anything that has plastic in it, and go to the store to buy their food. All of those things are impacted by the price of oil and natural gas coming out of the Persian Gulf, as well as that oil and gas's security, and ability to get to market to support the US economy and the global economy, and keep the price of everything down and in reach for the average citizen.

So far, a little less than 1 Trillion has been spent on Iraq, less than about $100 billion dollars a year making it a much cheaper war than World War I, World War II, Korea, or Vietnam.

Sadly, an Iraqi baby's life isn't worth shite to an average greedy fat American. Maybe when or if a nation decides to burn and maim Thousands of their babies, they'll finally get it. Murdering just one Iraqi baby is an unforgivable atrocity. Shame on all Americans who cheered it on.

There should have been Nuremberg-type trials for the U.S. and those who carried out one of the worst crimes against humanity in history. But since the U.S. owns the International Justice System, that'll never happen. Many of its leaders should actually be behind bars.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

U2 11393154

Saddam had invaded Kuwait and attacked Saudi Arabia and Israel. The United States and other member nations were authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 687 to use all means necessary to remove Iraq from Kuwait as well as get Iraq to comply with all other resolutions. Iraq was not in compliance with 17 UN Security Council resolutions at the time of the invasion in March 2003. Saddam was in violation of the 1991 ceacefire agreement. So there was overwhelming justification for a ground invasion. Military action had already commenced against Iraq and had been steadily continuing from 1991 through 2003 in the form of limited military action primarily through airstrikes. So the United States was already engaged in a military conflict with Iraq prior to the March 2003 ground invasion!

All true, except this: "Iraq was not in compliance with 17 UN Security Council resolutions at the time of the invasion in March 2003" that's because Iraq was in compliance with 1441. You forgot to mention that 2002 UNSC Resolution.

So why did Bush commit the US to UNSC 1441 in November 2002 which said in clear legal terms that SH can stay in power if he lets inspectors back into Iraq - which he did in fact do one month later.

 

[paulitician]

Removing Saddam Hussein was all about the West installing a Puppet Government so they could plunder Iraq's resources. But hey, most dumb American fat asses still believe it was all about the 'Freeeeedum.' Western Corporations are in there right now making money hand over fist.

The same thing was done in Libya and Ukraine. It's all about the $$. But not for average Citizens of those nations perpetrating these war atrocities. The $$ is only for the Globalist Elites.

quite acrimonius there------do you let neighborhood kids step on "your grass"??? You remind me of every embittered
housewife in my childhood neighborhood who was suspicious of the people who worked to fix the sewer system. How can I get to be a "GLOBALIST ELITE"??

Just remember, you the Taxpayer paid for the Iraq nightmare. And you'll never see penny one in return. However, the Globalist Elites are set to make $Billions in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, and so on.

The nightmare would have been to leave Saddam in power given what he did to the region from 1979 to 2003.

You've made things much much worse. You've brutally maimed and murdered far more Iraqis than Hussein could have ever imagined. You've brought nothing but horrific carnage to the Iraqi People. And for what? So some Globalist Elite bastards could get richer?

 

[healthmyths]

Removing Saddam Hussein was all about the West installing a Puppet Government so they could plunder Iraq's resources. But hey, most dumb American fat asses still believe it was all about the 'Freeeeedum.' Western Corporations are in there right now making money hand over fist.

The same thing was done in Libya and Ukraine. It's all about the $$. But not for average Citizens of those nations perpetrating these war atrocities. The $$ is only for the Globalist Elites.

quite acrimonius there------do you let neighborhood kids step on "your grass"??? You remind me of every embittered
housewife in my childhood neighborhood who was suspicious of the people who worked to fix the sewer system. How can I get to be a "GLOBALIST ELITE"??

Just remember, you the Taxpayer paid for the Iraq nightmare. And you'll never see penny one in return. However, the Globalist Elites are set to make $Billions in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, and so on.

The nightmare would have been to leave Saddam in power given what he did to the region from 1979 to 2003.

You've made things much much worse. You've brutally maimed and murdered far more Iraqis than Hussein could have ever imagined. You've brought nothing but horrific carnage to the Iraqi People. And for what? So some Globalist Elite bastards could get richer?

Who has maimed and murdered more then 1 million Iraqi?
"According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million,[10][11] including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion.[12][13] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.
Human rights in Saddam Hussein s Iraq - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Once again idiots like you deal with suppositions, guesses and out right LIE!
FACTS!!!
Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project
found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013,
with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants...TERRORISTS!!!
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

DICK HEAD!!!
Where are the "MORE Iraqis maimed and murdered "? then 1 million by Saddam???
FACTS......FACTS!!! Deal with it!

 

[U2Edge]

U2 11393154

Saddam had invaded Kuwait and attacked Saudi Arabia and Israel. The United States and other member nations were authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 687 to use all means necessary to remove Iraq from Kuwait as well as get Iraq to comply with all other resolutions. Iraq was not in compliance with 17 UN Security Council resolutions at the time of the invasion in March 2003. Saddam was in violation of the 1991 ceacefire agreement. So there was overwhelming justification for a ground invasion. Military action had already commenced against Iraq and had been steadily continuing from 1991 through 2003 in the form of limited military action primarily through airstrikes. So the United States was already engaged in a military conflict with Iraq prior to the March 2003 ground invasion!

All true, except this: "Iraq was not in compliance with 17 UN Security Council resolutions at the time of the invasion in March 2003" that's because Iraq was in compliance with 1441. You forgot to mention that 2002 UNSC Resolution.

So why did Bush commit the US to UNSC 1441 in November 2002 which said in clear legal terms that SH can stay in power if he lets inspectors back into Iraq - which he did in fact do one month later.

Saddam Hussien and Iraq were never at any time from 1991 through 2003 in compliance with all the resolutions passed against the country. Iraq NEVER complied with resolution 1441 from 2002. To this day, Saddam's government has never accounted for thousands of missing materials from its WMD program that Saddam was required to account for as well as dismantle. Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States military over time discovered and collected over 10,000 artillery shells filled with Sarin Gas. These were old shells left over from the Iran/Iraq War, some too degraded to be a danger, but others still able to kill human beings or injure them. These shells were found all over Iraq in weapons depots mixed in with normal conventional artillery shells. In addition, to this the United States after the invasion found multiple WMD related manufacturing capabilities that were banned and in total violation of resolution 1441.

Resolution 1441 threatened Serious Consequences if Iraq did not comply and reaffirmed resolution 678 and 687 which authorized the United States and other UN member states to use all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance with all UN Resolutions. Saddam's Iraq NEVER complied with resolutions that required Iraq to repair and repay all the damage he did to Kuwait as well as locate or explain what happened to several thousand Kuwaiti citizens who to this day remain missing. As of 2015, there remains unaccounted for WMD and WMD related weapons and production facilities, missing Kuwaiti citizens, property, and money that needed to be repaid to Kuwait. Saddam's Iraq was never in compliance with all the resolutions, and is still not today!

It was a necessity to remove Saddam from power, and the world and Persian Gulf region is much safer because it was done. Anyone that would argue against that would also likely have argued against removing Adolf Hitler from power in Germany prior to World War II there by saving 10s of millions of lives.

 

[healthmyths]

U2 11393154

Saddam had invaded Kuwait and attacked Saudi Arabia and Israel. The United States and other member nations were authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 687 to use all means necessary to remove Iraq from Kuwait as well as get Iraq to comply with all other resolutions. Iraq was not in compliance with 17 UN Security Council resolutions at the time of the invasion in March 2003. Saddam was in violation of the 1991 ceacefire agreement. So there was overwhelming justification for a ground invasion. Military action had already commenced against Iraq and had been steadily continuing from 1991 through 2003 in the form of limited military action primarily through airstrikes. So the United States was already engaged in a military conflict with Iraq prior to the March 2003 ground invasion!

All true, except this: "Iraq was not in compliance with 17 UN Security Council resolutions at the time of the invasion in March 2003" that's because Iraq was in compliance with 1441. You forgot to mention that 2002 UNSC Resolution.

So why did Bush commit the US to UNSC 1441 in November 2002 which said in clear legal terms that SH can stay in power if he lets inspectors back into Iraq - which he did in fact do one month later.

Saddam Hussien and Iraq were never at any time from 1991 through 2003 in compliance with all the resolutions passed against the country. Iraq NEVER complied with resolution 1441 from 2002. To this day, Saddam's government has never accounted for thousands of missing materials from its WMD program that Saddam was required to account for as well as dismantle. Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States military over time discovered and collected over 10,000 artillery shells filled with Sarin Gas. These were old shells left over from the Iran/Iraq War, some too degraded to be a danger, but others still able to kill human beings or injure them. These shells were found all over Iraq in weapons depots mixed in with normal conventional artillery shells. In addition, to this the United States after the invasion found multiple WMD related manufacturing capabilities that were banned and in total violation of resolution 1441.

Resolution 1441 threatened Serious Consequences if Iraq did not comply and reaffirmed resolution 678 and 687 which authorized the United States and other UN member states to use all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance with all UN Resolutions. Saddam's Iraq NEVER complied with resolutions that required Iraq to repair and repay all the damage he did to Kuwait as well as locate or explain what happened to several thousand Kuwaiti citizens who to this day remain missing. As of 2015, there remains unaccounted for WMD and WMD related weapons and production facilities, missing Kuwaiti citizens, property, and money that needed to be repaid to Kuwait. Saddam's Iraq was never in compliance with all the resolutions, and is still not today!

It was a necessity to remove Saddam from power, and the world and Persian Gulf region is much safer because it was done. Anyone that would argue against that would also likely have argued against removing Adolf Hitler from power in Germany prior to World War II there by saving 10s of millions of lives.

All Saddam had to do was comply with 16 UN resolutions.... certify there were no WMDs... But he wouldn't and in doing so if he were
still in power nearly 1.2 million Children would be starved as the below SANCTIONS would not provide aid...AID that Saddam only needed
to CERTIFY his WMDs were destroyed and the sanctions would be lifted! That's all!!!

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

• Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
  
• Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
  
• Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
  
• Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
  
• Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
  Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Saddam Hussein s Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

Regardless of what position one takes on the U.S. invasion, the world could not abide by large quantities of nuclear weapons precursor in the hands of the genocidal tyrant in Baghdad.
As we are seeing with the current, seemingly endless negotiations with Iran, the millionaire mullahs of Tehran are using the pretext of “peaceful” nuclear power generation in order to assert that the denial thereof is a direct assault on a nation’s sovereignty.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/carter-andress/why-the-world-did-not-know-about-wmd-in-iraq/

 

[Slyhunter]

Do you believe removing Saddam from power made Persian Gulf Oil supply safer and was the right move?

YES OR NO?

Yes and No.
It did not make the oil supply safer.
It was the right move.
If making the oil supply safer was the only criteria for grading we would be inhumane assholes.

 

[BlindBoo]

I wish I could say it was a good idea, but Iraq was more peaceful with Saddam in power. It's almost as if the people in that region can only be ruled by tyrants. It's time we stop propping them up at taxpayer expense.

Tell that to the 1 million Iraqi's and Iranians killed in the Iran/Iraq war from 1980-1988. Tell the Kuwaitis that Saddam was a peaceful man. Their country was overrun, raped of everything of value, and then completely annexed and wiped off the map. Tell the Iraqi shia's who revolted against Saddam in 1991, and saw 300,000 of them murdered in fighting before the start of summer of 1991. Then the Kurds were pushed into the mountains in the Spring of 1991 with thousands dying. Far more people died under Saddam and because of Saddam from 1979 to 2003, than have died there since 2003.

The Gulf War was our business only because Kuwait is an ally. The rest is none of our concern. What was our concern are the thousands of US soldiers killed in Iraq since 2003. All we accomplished was dead soldiers, and a power vacuum ripe for groups like ISIS to take advantage of.

Kuwait was not an really an ally but was a key trading partner who's natural resources were vital to the global economy and US security. So what level of threat Kuwait is under is vital to United States interest which is why the United States was involved in Iraq every year from 1991 through 2003 and bombed Saddam's Iraq every during that time. Sanctions and an Embargo meant to contain Saddam fell apart which meant the USA had no choice but to remove Saddam before he rebuilt is conventional military capabilities and WMD capabilities. By invading in 2003 with ground troops when Saddam was weaker, the United States avoided fighting a far more costly war in the future that would have killed many thousands of American lives. The United States had a responsibility to prevent Saddam from regaining his past capabilities and the only way to do that proved to be removing him from power.

We had no mutual defense treaty with Kuwait at the time and The Bush Administration considered Iraq a favorite trading partner in the region. This was a hold over from the support we gave Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war. The crisis with Kuwait had been building for months after the end of that war. When asked about what the American response would be if he were to take military action, Saddam was told that we had no interest in Arab/Arab conflict by the Bush Administration. President Bush lied to the world when he said it was a surprise attack as documents prove he was well aware of the troop buildup along the Kuwait border. I'm sure Saddam felt betrayed after all the support Reagan and Bush had given him over the years. Why would they snooker him into invading Kuwait only to turn on him like he was the next Hitler(he wasn't)?

The invasion in 2003 was not necessary. Iraq was not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower and was not involved with the 9-11 attacks.

 

[mudwhistle]

Do you believe removing Saddam from power made Persian Gulf Oil supply safer and was the right move?

YES OR NO?

Do you think removing Qadaffi and Mubarak from power helped?

 

[paulitician]

Removing Saddam Hussein was all about the West installing a Puppet Government so they could plunder Iraq's resources. But hey, most dumb American fat asses still believe it was all about the 'Freeeeedum.' Western Corporations are in there right now making money hand over fist.

The same thing was done in Libya and Ukraine. It's all about the $$. But not for average Citizens of those nations perpetrating these war atrocities. The $$ is only for the Globalist Elites.

quite acrimonius there------do you let neighborhood kids step on "your grass"??? You remind me of every embittered
housewife in my childhood neighborhood who was suspicious of the people who worked to fix the sewer system. How can I get to be a "GLOBALIST ELITE"??

Just remember, you the Taxpayer paid for the Iraq nightmare. And you'll never see penny one in return. However, the Globalist Elites are set to make $Billions in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, and so on.

The nightmare would have been to leave Saddam in power given what he did to the region from 1979 to 2003.

You've made things much much worse. You've brutally maimed and murdered far more Iraqis than Hussein could have ever imagined. You've brought nothing but horrific carnage to the Iraqi People. And for what? So some Globalist Elite bastards could get richer?

Who has maimed and murdered more then 1 million Iraqi?
"According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million,[10][11] including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion.[12][13] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.
Human rights in Saddam Hussein s Iraq - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Once again idiots like you deal with suppositions, guesses and out right LIE!
FACTS!!!
Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project
found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013,
with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants...TERRORISTS!!!
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

DICK HEAD!!!
Where are the "MORE Iraqis maimed and murdered "? then 1 million by Saddam???
FACTS......FACTS!!! Deal with it!

Murdering one Iraqi baby is an unforgivable atrocity. Your Government murdered and maimed Thousands of Iraqi children. The bloody carnage it's caused in Iraq is a crime against humanity.

And like i said, if the U.S. didn't own the international justice system, there would have been Nuremberg-type trials held. Many of its leaders would be in prison right now.

 

[healthmyths]

quite acrimonius there------do you let neighborhood kids step on "your grass"??? You remind me of every embittered
housewife in my childhood neighborhood who was suspicious of the people who worked to fix the sewer system. How can I get to be a "GLOBALIST ELITE"??

Just remember, you the Taxpayer paid for the Iraq nightmare. And you'll never see penny one in return. However, the Globalist Elites are set to make $Billions in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, and so on.

The nightmare would have been to leave Saddam in power given what he did to the region from 1979 to 2003.

You've made things much much worse. You've brutally maimed and murdered far more Iraqis than Hussein could have ever imagined. You've brought nothing but horrific carnage to the Iraqi People. And for what? So some Globalist Elite bastards could get richer?

Who has maimed and murdered more then 1 million Iraqi?
"According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million,[10][11] including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion.[12][13] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.
Human rights in Saddam Hussein s Iraq - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Once again idiots like you deal with suppositions, guesses and out right LIE!
FACTS!!!
Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project
found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013,
with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants...TERRORISTS!!!
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

DICK HEAD!!!
Where are the "MORE Iraqis maimed and murdered "? then 1 million by Saddam???
FACTS......FACTS!!! Deal with it!

Murdering one Iraqi baby is an unforgivable atrocity. Your Government murdered and maimed Thousands of Iraqi children. The bloody carnage it's caused in Iraq is a crime against humanity.

And like i said, if the U.S. didn't own the international justice system, there would have been Nuremberg-type trials held. Many of its leaders would be in prison right now.

YUP! We did kill some and maimed some! NO question.
BUT YOU dummy!!!!
with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants...TERRORISTS!!!
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Plus what about Saddam allowing this to happen:
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com
Of course idiot lovers of the terrorists that think ANY of us that are the good guys WE are the bad guys would NOT blame Saddam!
All that dictator need do was certify there were no WMDs! He didn't. Children starved!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Do you believe removing Saddam from power made Persian Gulf Oil supply safer and was the right move?

YES OR NO?

Anyone who answers YES is a total idiot.