y is it that US invaded Iraq "to change the regime" but r doing nothing bout R Mugabe in Zimbabwe- no oil ther

Answer 1

There are a lot of BS answers here. Iraq was in no way a threat to the United States. No Airforce, No Navy, a couple of missles that couldn't reach us that they had begun to destroy when we invaded, a lousy army that we beat in about a week.

There were 2,500 people looking for WMD after the invasion. No evidence was found that there were WMD or that they had been destroyed or moved. Do you really believe US wouldn't have been able to find evidence if it existed?

The "Bush" people wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11. They wanted to overthrow Sadam and put in a "democratic government" freindly to US and US oil companies. They believe that if you have "democracy" in Iraq it will spread to other countries in the Middle East. While they talk about "freedom" they really only are interested in countries with oil.

If Iraq was a threat to its neighbors, why did NONE of them join our coalition? Turkey wouldn't even allow just to use them as a base for invasion.

Someone says above that Saddam had programs in 1992. 1992?
That's eleven years before we invaded! Ten years later, Saddam was totally contained and had no WMD programs to speak off, and no capicity to develop nuclear weapons.

Answer 2

There was also the belief that Iraq had a credible threat through WMDs. This link has not been proven (it hasn't been disproved, either, since it is possible all WMDs were destroyed), although we know Saddam had chemical munitions (supplied by the U.S. during the Iran-Iraq war) and previous UNSCOM inspections in 1992 revealed development toward a nuclear weapons program. Saddam also posed a credible threat to regional neighbors through military action (he had invaded Kuwait in 1990).

Mugabe's regime is equally despicable, but poses little military threat to neighboring countries. Also, the possibility of Mugabe acquiring any sort of WMD is significantly lower as his regime hasn't the technical prowess nor the resources to construct one.

Oil is an issue, but indirectly; we don't make friends with countries who can't do anything for us; the U.S. government cannot afford to be as magnanimous as StarFleet Command and assist every developing nation; it is far easier for us to open our economic benefits to them in exchange for what helps our economy. Thus, we will have interests where an economic presence develops.

Zimbabwe does have mineral deposits, particularly precious metals, but these are in no danger of being cut off (and if they were, it wouldn't impact us severely) due to the significant commercial interests in the region, a la De Beers.

Answer 3

That is correct ..... we have no vested commercial interest in Zimbabwe and, believe it or not, we were never elected to be the police of the world. Why is it that you feel the US should be the ones to solve Zimbabwe's problems if there is nothing in it for us? What, are we like the big military charity or something? Iraq was making open threats against the US and the world in general ... Zimbabwe is just a festering hell hole dangerous to little but themselves.

Answer 4

Actually, both Condi and Colon paid visits to the thug, and were not cordial in their press conference about the matter. Both meetings were about seeking a diplomatic solution to his thuggery and allowing for autonomy for ALL his people. Also, several deputy directors have also attended Mugabe, as has members of our regulatr diplomatic delegation. Remember, this mumbo jumbo with Iraq started in the presidency of Bush I, Clinton bombed Saddam and spoke of invasion, and then Bush II invaded. That is 16 years of presidencies, and about 10 years of failed diplomacy. We have not been engaged in diplomacy for that long with Mugabe yet. The engines of war are a slow steam-roller.

Answer 5

Because the Iraqi regime was a threat to U.S interests and security. Zimbabwe's regime isn't. Where are the free Europaen nations that do have interests in Africa? Waiting for U.S. to do everything?

Answer 6

The US is not the Mother Teresa of countries... we're the Ann Coulter of coutries because we only react to entities who are against us BUT who can provide us with monetary rewards. If we can't profit from them, there' no reason to get involved.

Answer 7

Isn't that the place where the people killed the white farmers and stole their land? Screw them. Let Mandela help.

Answer 8

they are doing that the their own people. they are not hurting the us in any way. WE GO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES to be every where they is something wrong in the world. we have to protect our self's first.

Answer 9

they didn't try to kill Bush senior either.