Why US leave Sadam alive...

[Faisal_Aslam]

A.A

I think USA can easily killed Sadam 10 years ago but they leave him alive so that they can continue getting money from Sudia and Kewait and also can justify there existance in the area.
Now USA do not have to attack on Pakistan or Afghanistan from USA but their ships are present in Sudia oceans. Remember the attack on Afghanistan that came from those ships.(some of those missile also land in Pakistan by mistake). At that time 3 countries are said to involve Afghanistan , Sudan and Pakistan . Afghanistan and Sudan got attack but Pakistan was left behind because of Nuclear capability. But I do not know how long .......

And one last thing before gulf war, Iraq was USA big partner. In Iran Iraq war USA was with Iraq ... Also some people say that Iraq asked USA before attacking on kewait. Mean that all was USA plain to get the oil money and make a new base in the area ...

Faisal Aslam

[Hasan_Ali_Imam]

Assalamu Alaikum.

Interesting thread. Apparently, it is illegal to kill the head of an enemy state during war, well that's the argument that is often used, but it does sound illogical. If in a war situation the enemy leader is alive and innocent people are killed, then the laws have to be changed. The real reason for keeping saddam alive was given by a Pentagon official when I posed him the question why the Allied Forces did not kill him. The answer was that a vacuum would have been created which would have been filled by Iran. In other words it was a security against an apparent threat from Iran.

However, I believe that the USA miscalulated. Saddam was the real enemy, and they should have realised this when he killed people in Halabja and Iran with chemical weapons. But at that time Saddam was an ally of the USA and UK. Ayatollah Khomeini had the foresight and knew exactly what Saddam was like and he warned Kuwait and other supporters of Saddam to be on guard. And Khomeini was vindicated when Saddam turned against those who were supporting him. The biggest mistake that the USA and the Muslim countries in the middle east made was that they thought Iran was a threat to regional stability. I do not believe that Iran has ever been a threat and unfortunatley there was a lot of scaremongering by the Western media in the hostile press, who made a mountain out of a molehill. I cannot see any threat which Iran could pose, the regimes have used a lot of big words but they have lacked the capability to enforce some of their slogans. Sloganeering is all it has offered so far and is all it can offer.

It is a sad fact that as an Ummah we cannot defend ourselves and that we could not quash Saddam's rebellion during the Iran/Iraq War and during the Gulf War. Whilst I have heard different scholars talk about the validity/invalidity of inviting US troops to the Gulf, I support that decision to invite them given that there was no alternative at that time. But the flipside of that is that innocent people in Iraq were killed whilst Saddam was spared and the use of Depleted Unraniam in missiles are having bad effects on children, who are suffering from cancer and deformities.

The lessons from the Gulf war is that Muslims should do more to unite and take control of its own destiny...not on the basis of hating the West, but on the basis of brotherhood and unity. I am sure it is quite populist and sexy to be anti-western, but that doesn't solve anything and there is no reason why a future Muslim body cannot have good relations with everyone. And if we follow the Quran and the Sunnah, we would know what the rules of engagement are during warfare and be more civilised in conducting war, than what we have observed during the Gulf War.

Wassalam
Hasan