Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?

by ☆ElenaDiamond☆ Posted 2012/08/21 15:15:54

Related Topics: George H. W. Bush, Bush, President

Read More

76 votes
Read all 90 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	55 votes	72%
	No	21 votes	28%

+10

Add a comment above

jgh57 2012/08/21 16:52:12

Yes

+4
Had the first George dealt with Sadam then George jr would have had no reason to start the second war.
>> See Replies

More polls by ☆ElenaDiamond☆

JonDeniro 2012/08/23 16:37:00

No

He was wrong for allowing U.S. troops to fall under the U.N. command.

He was wrong for illegally engaging in military actions against a foreign nation when they posed no threat to the U.S.

reply
Iamfree 2012/08/22 20:51:43

Yes

I thought so at the time, and still believe it today.

reply
Jeff Smith 2012/08/22 12:50:02

No

These decisions are not made by the President one must look to the UN for their answers they decide who lives and who dies

reply
vdehl 2012/08/22 07:55:37

No

If he could have he would have.

reply
XZQZQ 2012/08/22 07:11:20

Yes

If memory serves, the Arab members of the coalition threatened to bail if Iraq was invaded, and Saddam overthrown....

reply
Pedalpusher 2012/08/22 04:24:17

Yes

I certainly felt he was. If we had finished the job we started than things may have been different. Who knows how it would've turned out, as the way they talked the bombing of the World Towers was already in the planning, but maybe with our presence already in Iraq, we would've had enough Intelligence people working on the issues in the area to have stopped it. But we'll never know, will we?

reply
mwg0735 2012/08/22 04:10:23
ajracestables1 2012/08/22 03:41:12

Yes

Yes, he most certainly did, but I think they went after him but could not find him. If he would have killed him, he might have made another term as president.

reply
hawk Semper Fi 2012/08/22 01:50:20

No

I ans. No to this question as as this is not a yes or no question . The fact is This was not his choice to make as the gulf war was a coalition of many counties that was backed by the UN which only authorize the removal of the Iraq military out of Kuwait and nothing more. They were not authorize to enter Iraq which would have broken the coalition .

Semper Fi

reply
exhon2009 2012/08/22 01:34:33

Yes

Yep George the First screwed the pooch on that one.

reply
KAREN JAMES 2012/08/21 23:23:26

Yes

+1
I just checked yes because for me it isn't a yes or no because he, Bush, helped to put Saddam in power in the frist place.

reply
Patriot Unit 2012/08/21 23:06:11

Yes

It would have prevented a lot of things from coming about. It would have been the right thing to do. Instead of blustering Saddam's advances. He may have very well been lying about his abilities or his desires, but the sad thing is the world bought it. And that lead to the Second go around. There is a old military proverb " Never fight over the same ground twice" As it oft times comes back to bit you in the ass. We should have learned that way back in the late 60's early 70's in Vietnam. In fact we should have learned it from WW II on. If your going to fight a war, no matter what reason we go to war, once we go to war, we should fight it to win.

reply
Red 2012/08/21 21:35:26
Golden Panther 2012/08/21 21:14:49

Yes

He was wrong ,and this is not Monday AM quarterbacking. Saddam was evil and, despite what our inane radical left cretins would have you believe , he did have WMD's at his disposal. Any reasonable person will tell you they were shipped to Syria and, or still buried in the desert. Now to fast forward, we have our evil despot to bounce out of office and that is, no less than our far from esteemed, odumbo.

reply
TuringsChild 2012/08/21 20:14:09

Yes

He was also wrong to be involved in the assassination of JFK.

reply
Callaway 2012/08/21 19:48:33

Yes

This along with FDR knowing about the Japanese attack before Dec 7th, not hitching a ride on the Titanic, filling a blimps with hydrogen being dangerous, buying Apple or Microsoft stock early........ lots of 20/20 hindsight what if's too late to do anything at this point. The whole conflict was so based on holding the coalition together I doubt if there would have been much support through the Useless Nations for going into Iraq unless we did it unilaterally.

reply
Che Guevara - Hero 2012/08/21 19:45:23

No

+1
No Saddam Hussein was wrong to leave George Bush Jr. In Power. lol

reply
Golden ... to Che Gue... 2012/08/21 21:17:37

+1
And to think, a good condom would have prevented your birth...as if we did not have enough inane lemmings to deal with.

reply
Che Gue... to Golden ... 2012/08/21 21:20:46

+1
If you don't like a post then move along. Have a little self respect and don't whine.

reply
Mark DeBarbieri 2012/08/21 19:25:43

Yes

+2
That is why we had to go back to finish the job that we started. In reality, we had absolutely no business there, in 2003, because the problems were internal and we were told lies to support a so-called war that made a very few people very rich. Many people do not know that the Bush family is part of the original 13 bloodlines of the Illuminati. The illuminati make money from the fraudulent banking system world wide and money from blood being spilled. Always remember, anything political is planned!

reply
Che Gue... to Mark De... 2012/08/21 19:46:10

+1
You had to go back and finish the job ? When did you serve ?

reply
Mark De... to Che Gue... 2012/10/13 03:36:00

I was never in the military, but I do understand some of what military minds are thinking as well as protocol. If I understand your question to me, I would guess that you are either in the military or have put in your time. I will say this to you and all others that serve in the military... thank you for your service, but understanding what you are servicing is another matter. Type this into your browser; "War is a Racket", a speech given by a general back in the 1930's. If that does not infuriate you, then type this in your browser, "Pawns in the Game", by William Guy Carr, 1955 and your blood might boil like Fearless Felix might come this Sunday.

reply
Lanikai 2012/08/21 19:22:57

Yes

But I do give him credit for bowing to the pressure of the public to end the war fast.

All of hollywood and the DEMS wanted a fast end to the war, he gave them that.

So, can't blame him entirely.

reply
umapathy Krishnamurthy 2012/08/21 19:18:03

Yes

+2
Big mistake

reply
moomoof 2012/08/21 19:02:20

No

+1
He was wrong in running for president tho and having children

reply
johne37179 2012/08/21 18:51:12

No

+3
In hindsight, it would have been better if he hadn't done so, but the facts on the ground at the time did not enable us to act otherwise. What most people don't realize is that the First Gulf war never ended. There was simply a ceasefire that was negotiated -- and subsequently violated thousands of times by Saddam. We never should have tolerated the violations. If we had escalated early in the game after the first dozen or so of the violations, we could have saved many lives and about a trillion dollars.

reply
Lanikai to johne37179 2012/08/21 19:25:11

bravo

reply
Space Invader 2012/08/21 18:45:16

Yes

+2
But; according to him; and Colin Powell; it was a UN action; not US..

reply
UnusualSuspect 2012/08/21 18:43:39

Yes

+2
Just as wrong as his boy was wrong to not pursue bin Laden more strongly right after 911. He forgot about him.

Instead, the boy went after the same guy his father should have done something about 16 years earlier...Saddam Hussein.

reply
Patent1 2012/08/21 18:37:29

No

No. He was smarter than his dumbass kid who blew his brains out on cocaine at Yale. Bush2 didn't just experiment with cocaine, he went whole hog and was addicted. Even after he was safely squirreled away during Vietnam in the National Air Guard, where he flew trainers and believed he was a "fighter pilot", bush2 said he eventually "gave up flying" when in reality his flight status was revoked because he refused to take a drug test. Bush2 is also the only president arrested for a crime, DUI. And his wife, Laura, murdered her boyfriend when she told him she was pregnant, and he dumped her, although some in Texas at the time would consider that justifiable homicide. For all the death, destruction and human misery bush2 brought to the world, he can only be considered the Devil.

Saddam was the only thing holding Iraq together as a country. Everyone who lived there will tell you that. Sure, he was a dictator and killed people, but there were far worse dictators in the world at the time. In Africa for instance. In Iraq under Saddam, if you didn't engage in politics, they left you alone. The only reason we went there, twice, was because the oil companies thought they could grab the oil. That's why Halliburton and Brown, Root and Kellogg had exclusive, no bid contracts in both w...

No. He was smarter than his dumbass kid who blew his brains out on cocaine at Yale. Bush2 didn't just experiment with cocaine, he went whole hog and was addicted. Even after he was safely squirreled away during Vietnam in the National Air Guard, where he flew trainers and believed he was a "fighter pilot", bush2 said he eventually "gave up flying" when in reality his flight status was revoked because he refused to take a drug test. Bush2 is also the only president arrested for a crime, DUI. And his wife, Laura, murdered her boyfriend when she told him she was pregnant, and he dumped her, although some in Texas at the time would consider that justifiable homicide. For all the death, destruction and human misery bush2 brought to the world, he can only be considered the Devil.

Saddam was the only thing holding Iraq together as a country. Everyone who lived there will tell you that. Sure, he was a dictator and killed people, but there were far worse dictators in the world at the time. In Africa for instance. In Iraq under Saddam, if you didn't engage in politics, they left you alone. The only reason we went there, twice, was because the oil companies thought they could grab the oil. That's why Halliburton and Brown, Root and Kellogg had exclusive, no bid contracts in both wars. They even tried to build a secret pipeline, but the Iraqis kept blowing holes in it and the project was abandoned. Now, Iraq is a splintered country constantly on the edge of a civil war. It will eventually turn into a bloodbath with more blood in the sand than oil.
(more)

reply
Iamfree to Patent1 2012/08/22 20:54:14

Your rant just sounds silly.

reply
Patent1 to Iamfree 2012/08/23 03:21:58

The truth is stranger than fiction. Look it all up.

reply
Golanv (Raven) BN0 2012/08/21 18:20:45

Yes

+2
No. He had no business starting a war in the first place and we had no business supporting Saddam before that. Offers of peace talks were ignored. At least he had the sense to say that attempting to occupy Iraq would be a 'quagmire'. Too bad W didn't listen to him. Saddam was a valued CIA asset for years. The whole mess was & is fubar.

reply
CODE 11 2012/08/21 17:47:24

Yes

+1
We were rolling over their army...we should have never stopped

reply
Wayne TH G 333 2012/08/21 17:42:58

Yes

+1
An opportunity was missed and the World paid for it later!

reply
CODE 11 to Wayne T... 2012/08/21 17:47:49

+2
We are still paying for it.

reply
Mel 2012/08/21 17:28:22

Yes

+2
The US helped established Hugo Chavez, The Shah of Iran, Pinochet, Federico of Spain and other we late had to help take down. Hussein was just another example of failed policy, in the interest of oil. Everyone of these people, the US had financial dealings with.

reply
Redneck Gal 2012/08/21 17:01:35

Yes

+3
First, I don't believe the U.S. has the right going around snuffing out world leaders. That being said, it was in 1991 and prior years that Saddam was the serious threat. So if we were going down that path that would have been the time to take him out. GW Bush going to war with him years later was just wrong on many levels.

reply
Jackie G - Poker Playing Pa... 2012/08/21 16:57:19

No

+3
He followed the vote of Congress and the UN agreement - Honorable man who did not flout the Congress. Now, would it have been good to get him then - sure but we deserve Presidents who do not over step their power.

reply
Kane Fernau 2012/08/21 16:54:07

Yes

+3
Saddam was a known sponsor of terrorism.

reply