The true nature was 1; settle a vandetta against saddam because he supposingly tried to have Botch I killed. the second was to have a puppet government friendly to the US in the Middle East with oil. then maybe they would get down to the hard questions for the Saudies they have not asked for fear of getting the tap cut off. Like why were 15 of the hijackers Saudi?? As for the second half of the question. It is moot. There will be no victory. there has only been one insurgency ever put down in modern times by military might. when the North Vietnamese regulars put down Pol pot and the Khmer Rouge. If you can even count the Bay of Pigs, then you have 2. The IRA in the UK were not beat by the military, they came to an agreement with the Crown. In Sri Lanka the Tamil Tigers have been fighting for 25 years. And the only thing to slow them down was a tsunami(do the Pentagon have one of those to deploy?). FARC in Columbia have been fighting more than 17 years, not broken. The Soviets faught the Mujahadeen for 17 years and when back to the Kremlin empty handed. the US was run out of Viet Nam, no win there. And there will not be any here. The neocons are just to prideful and stupid to see that. They just want to keep throwing gas on the fire until everyone great great great grand children will be paying if off.
I think what the rest of the world need to do is place an imbargo on US good until this asinine government in all their arrogant megalomatic nonsense step asid and we start working with the World instead of trying to bully it.
2006-07-01 14:13:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
As many who read know the Bush family and the Bin Laden family are close, The Government provided Bin Laden family a jet after Sept. 11th to leave the USA. That jet was the only private jet in the air that day. Bush Sr. is tight with lots of Saudis. He always has been.
Iraq is about oil and money, from the start, oil and Money. The Republicans want the control of the Oil. Money from Government contracts goes to the wealthy who own stock in the Defense Contractors. Halliburton gets no bid contracts, easy money for Cheney and others who invested in Halliburton, short term gain for Republicans, long term pain for the working class who will be asked to pay the $2 trillion cost of war. BTW, it is a bare face lie that we are fighting terrorist in Iraq. It is also a lie that if we did not fight there we would fight here. A terrorist would never face our Marines in a fight, they do the dirty work behind our backs. Just like in Nam. Many Republicans like to use that lie. Iraqis hate Democracy and they prefer a Islamic Republic like Iran. In the end no matter what we do Iran will control Iraq.
The Iraqi civil war will last 10 years because all sides want control of the oil and money.
2006-07-01 21:24:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by jl_jack09 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The objective was to remove Saddam Hussein and it was accomplished. The problem is that our C Student from Yale did not study his history. He has single handedly removed the one stabilizing force in Iraq. Saddam was vile, but he kept that mess in control and he acted as a very strategic check to Iranian lunacy.
The pragmatic man deals with realities no matter how grim and keeping Saddam in power served American interests far better than what is going on today.
Did anyone watch Lawrence of Arabia?? The Arab peoples had their chance to unify and they didn't. The beginning of this movie shows in total the problem that will always plague these people. Watch it and learn.
All we must do is leave...remove the thorn from their eye and they will readily fall upon one another and forget us just as quickly.
Let's let them.
2006-07-01 21:17:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by KERMIT M 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Many members of Bush's administration were also members of his father's administration. They considered Iraq to be 'unfinished' business from the first Gulf War, and intended to push Saddam Hussein out of power at the first opportunity.
9-11 gave them the opportunity. They built cherry-picked and weak tales from Iraqi exiles into a false claim that Saddam was linked to Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan and plotting to attack America. (They were actually enemies and Saddam had no weapons)
They have believed for 15 years that if they got Saddam out of power. Iraq would become a western-favoring 'foothold' in the middle-east. Since the Saudi royal family has a difficult time holding on to power without the Wahhabi fundamentalists that want the US out of their country -- this new foothold would replace the base that was taken out of Saudi Arabia, and allow the US to respond quickly to attempts by any country to block oil sales to the US.
So far - it's been a complete flop.
Saddam was holding several ethnic groups in submission. In the vacuum of his removal, these groups have shown themselves to be warlike and unruly, with no liking for western culture or forms of government. The Iraqi public admires a tough control of troublemakers and violence above freedom and democracy.
The best solution to the situation would be the emergence of another strong-man ruler to re-unite the country and force the other groups to quiet long enough for the country to rebuild it's infrastructure.
2006-07-01 22:18:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by oohhbother 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The motivation was threefold: One, to pay Saddam back for the attempted assignation of the President's father when he was President. Two, to gain control of all the oil fields there and cut the price of gas at the pump to $.50 a gallon. Lastly, it was to give you yet another reason to think that everything is a conspiracy and that the government is lying to you at all times, except if the government is run by a liberal.
2006-07-01 21:39:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The definition of "victory" keeps changing. Currently it's "when the Iraqi army can take over security". Watch that change over the coming months.
2006-07-01 21:00:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
don't watch a movie for the reason, the reason is to liberate the people of Iraq, and establish a democracy. establishing a self-sustaining government there would be a victort..
2006-07-01 21:01:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by woody m 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
George needs to honestly answer this question instead of asking us about Al Gore.
2006-07-01 21:37:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by davi h 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
when bush has messed up the economy to the point of continueous riots. or until someone bashes him over the head and puts him into a coma.
2006-07-01 21:08:56
·
answer #9
·
answered by nonyerbusiness 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
when iraq can defend itself against the terroist,,,it will be a long hard road but one we now have to take!
2006-07-01 21:22:35
·
answer #10
·
answered by baseball_23_04 1
·
0⤊
0⤋