Did Sadam Hussein know that a war with Iraq would be a catch 22 to himself and Bush?
141610
Did he start this war ? And don't natter about 9/11.  We know there was no connection concerning Iraq.
364704
Do you think the war in Iraq is a mistake?\n\nUm, YES!
601640
Gee....could it have been Saddam Hussein?  He did kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and openly threaten both the United States and Israel.  How can you blame George Bush for starting the war?  I mean, can you blame the cop for arresting a murderer?  Nope, you blame the murderer!
756169
Sure. The guy is a hero. He brought peace to Iraq and united the country after decades of conflict. He had to be harsh and rule with an iron fist but look at the place now he's gone. The US invasion has cost tens of thousands of lives and wreaked civil war on that nation. Saddam can stay at my place anytime but President Bush can stay in the kennels with the rest of the dogs.
911480
No, I think that they believed what they were told by the CIA.  A few legislators may have been in a position to question those facts, but most of them are as in the dark about this as an ordinary American.  Before this happened, I would have trusted the CIA on a matter like this if I were a legislator.  (I probably still would--I'd just read the reports more carefully and critically.)\n\nI think everyone on both sides agreed that stopping someone with Sadaam's human rights record from acquiring WMDs was important.  Opposition to the war didn't gain momentum until it was evident that what they were told was not based on reliable intellegence.  It didn't become a majority opinion until much later--when we failed to find significant WMDs and realized there was no way to stop a civil war in the power vacuum we created.
771732
Saddam had the know how to keep control of his people.  He was successful in keeping his enemies at bay, as well, particularly Iran.\n\nThe one thing that Saddam didn't control was his own family.  His two sons were simply evil people.  They murdered, maimed, raped, tortured simply because they could.  Saddam did very little to change their uncontrollable behavior, and eventually it came back to haunt him.\n\nSaddam's own arrogance was his worst enemy.  Why he thought the US wouldn't come after him a second time was a poor calculation.  His own defiance did him in.\n\nDon't do a disservice to the men and women of the armed forces by suggesting the Saddam ran a tighter ship, because he didn't.  Today, much of the blame for Iraq's quagmire can be blamed on Syria and Iran.  Ahmadinejad as much as admitted that he could stop the fighting with the snap of his fingers.  This also means that he's the one who is causing Iraq's civil war.\n\nFor this, he should be punished, severely!
985361
In light of Bush's insistence that we should stay the course it seems plausible that the USA also conducted sectarian bombings to drum up domestic support for a bogus 'war'.\n\nSaddam understood what some cannot  - that  democracy is almost impossible to achieve in 'tribal' nations.  Military rule is the most effective.  Something that Bush, as commander in chief,  should have known. \n\nI think he deliberated went in to cause civil strive but not a full blown war as a distraction from and justification of his true intent - control of the oil fields.  \n\nThen he tried to control the escalation of discord and with the cooperation of the media hide it from the American public. \n\nNow we know but we still don't grasp the full extent of what this man did to the Middle East and more importantly -  world stability.\n\nAnd no, I'm not paranoid - I'm analyzing.
1090762
Yes, I think so. I’ll give you a few reasons, but first let me give you a little history. I don’t know how old you are, but you may recall that Saddam Hussein had a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction during the first Gulf War. In fact, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he actually used these weapons in battle. That’s where the whole WMD scare came from.\n\nThe United Nations ordered Saddam to stop the invasion, but he refused and eventually the U.N came to Kuwait’s defense. Saddam’s troops were beaten back to Iraq, all the way to Baghdad. But rather than invade Baghdad and remove Saddam from office, the U.N. called a cease-fire on the condition that Saddam give up his WMDs and not re-invade Kuwait. Saddam agreed to these terms, and so the Gulf War ended.\n\nIn 1992, Clinton was elected and over the next two terms he discovered just how dangerous Saddam was. For starters, Saddam broke the condition that the cease-fire was based on. U.N weapons inspectors were repeatedly blocked as they attempted to verify that the weapons had been destroyed. When the inspectors went to a location where they thought WMDs might be stored, Saddam basically told them to wait at the front door. Satellite images taken while the U.N. weapons inspectors were forced to wait show convoys of military trucks slipping out the back door. It’s not clear whether there were WMDs in these trucks, or if he was just trying to make everyone think there were. But either way, everyone thought he still had WMDs. \n\nIn 1998, Saddam raised the stakes even higher by completely kicking the U.N weapons inspectors out of the country. He no longer made them wait at the front door; he didn’t let them come into the country at all. This was a clear violation of the agreement that he made that the Gulf War cease-fire was based on, and President Clinton didn’t like that one bit. In that same year, he ordered the U.S Air Force and Navy to bomb Iraq, because Saddam refused to let the weapons inspectors back in. That softened Saddam up a bit, and he finally agreed to let the U.N weapons inspectors back in. Clinton told Saddam that if he tried anything like that again, the U.S could bomb him without warning.\n\nWhat’s sad is that at the time, Republicans accused Clinton of trying to distract the U.S from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, instead of crediting him for doing what was in the best interest of security – both for our country and other countries around the world. Why would Republicans do this? Anytime you credit the opposing political party for doing something well, you increase the chances that they will be re-elected, which obviously reduces your own party’s power.\n\nAfter Clinton left office, Saddam started playing the “wait at the front door” game again. Bush now had to make a decision as to how to deal with Saddam, and since we were already “next door” in Afghanistan it made sense to remove Saddam from office. Saddam was still playing games to make the world think that he had WMDs, and that coupled with the genocide that Saddam committed were two darn good reasons for invading the country.\n\nIt turns out that we never found WMDs; Saddam was only bluffing, but we did find mass graves of people that Saddam murdered. If anyone ever opposed him, Saddam had him or her killed and dumped into a pit. This is why there was enormous support for the war right when Saddam was removed from office. He was a mass murderer, and a huge majority of Iraqis were thrilled to have him removed from power because they could not do it themselves. They ran out into the streets and danced and celebrated. \n\nSince then a lot of support has eroded because of the ongoing war. Even though the original invasion was justified, “war is hell” and people start to get tired of all of the bloodshed. \n\nThe majority of the insurgents are Saddam loyalists - Sunnis that are no longer enjoying the power that they had for several decades. Sunnis only make up about 20
89825
well, the environment of this wasn't created by Bush, he mearly reacted to the situation, the only way he could. He of course was first provoked into it by 9/11.  Then the bad intellegence he got, didn't help matters any.  Everything that Saddam said he wouldn't do, he continued throughout the Clinton era, because he knew there would be a blind eye turned his way.
829224
Yes, I know the difference. Does our president is the question. There was the invasion of Normandy during the second world war, operation Overlord. A valid invasion in the course of a declared war. What our president did when he sent our troops to invade Iraq was an act of war, as it is anytime a country invades another country without declaring war. Saddam wanted Kuwait's oil. Bush can't find Osama, so this was a diversion to placate America after 9/11, and just like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and George's of Iraq, many innocent people were and continue to be killed.
1145129
Sadat was the president of Egypt. If you mean Saddam, I'm quite sure it was the U.S. But I think you already know that.
696572
Yes. I'm surprised to hear that he made such a common sense suggestion, but yes, I totally agree. We've been told repeatedly by this administration that the Iraqis want and need us there and are thankful for what we're doing, so why not find out straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak?
257543
The Iraq war was obviously a mistake and will end with them having a civil war.\n\nBush is my president, but he is not a good president. I support my president, but hope he leaves soon and doesn't fuck anything else up.
830145
President Bush might be last because of his misadventrures in Iraq.
843791
All I know about Bush is he stole the election in 2000 and he lead America into a disastrous war in Iraq.He'll go down as a mediocre leader.
884291
While i'm sure Mr. Bush has indeed had conversations with countless people who are considered experts on the Iraqi situation. He has failed to act on any advice that would alleiveate tensions in the region. The situation has now become so bad that the solution will probally cost many more american and british lives there. Good question.
629205
There is no declaration of war filed with congress, and George bush cannot use the military rule. He says we are peace keepers now, although everyone knows that America is really occupiers of Iraq.