Saying the US had nothing to do with saddam being in power are quite ignorant, or naive. I'm not saying that they gave him his position, but at the time, Saddam was pro-american, exhiled, and was an assassin, who had a great percent chance of being connected with the disolution of the former regime. After that regime collapsed, there was a vacuum of power, and there didnt seem to be anybody better to replace the government. Since he was in power, he has proved himself as 100 times the better candidate then his predecesors, which isnt saying much. However, as soon as the US funded his operations against iran, and the old regime, they stopped. To add insult to injury, there is a conspiracy thats most likely to be true, that reagan supplied iran with weapons to use against iraq. This is why saddam turned anti-american, in fact who the fuck wouldnt? And another point, the US did instate the shah as dictator of iran(u can in no way prove me wrong about this), and fucked that up as well, and they instated another dictator in kuwait. The US also had TRAINED key al queda members, to fight off russia, once again, they abondoned them to fight a bloody civil war. I have nothing against americans, just the bullshit what there leaders do, and try and justify it. There is NO proof of terrorist links to iraq, rumsfeld did admit that, no proof of wmd's...And liberate a country? ITS AN OCCUPATION. If ANY1 says that the best way to liberate a country is by occupation has severe competency issues. An old saying, the words 'liberation' and 'occupation' should never be in the same sentence without the word 'end'.
There were better ways to get rid of saddam. In fact, if the UN had did the SAME thing as the US had done, it STILL would be better because the UN answers to the world(well not exactly, but still better then the latter part), while the US Army answers to 1 man, the commander in cheif.
'We can dance if we want to, we can leave your friends behind, cause they dont dance, and if they dont dance they aint no friends of mine.
