Why is it that we had to get rid of Saddam for being such a bad guy, but...?

Question

we do NOTHING about the genocide, starvation and death of millions in East Africa?

Jack -- I don't mean to say that it is Bushes fault that people are starving even though we could feed the entire reagion for a year for what we spend in one week in Iraq. It seems you are not familliar with the situation in East Africa. But just to let you know, there is a millitant group that is killing everybody in every village in the entire region. Kidnapping small childeren to make them fight, raping all the women before killing them like unwanted dogs on the street ect......and we attacked Saddam partly on the basis of the "attrosities" he was commiting. I

Answer 1

because east africans do not have a valuable natural resource that we can exploit for our own profit under the guise of 'democratizaion'.

Answer 2

Don't you know our bad guys are chosen way ahead of time. War means profit. Our government has a habit of building up a country's army so we can fight them later. This pattern seems to go all the way back to WWII. May be East Africa has nothing to offer (nothing the govt. wants). There's some scary articles out there about prominent people talking behind closed doors about population reduction. When you look at the big picture it seems like very selective population reduction taking place around the world. You see all the pictures of the people starving with flies on them. Wouldn't It be a lot cheaper to make a couple hundred food dropping missions rather than 50 expensive smart bomb drops somewhere else. A C-!30 could hold A LOT of food they can hold enough crap to stock a Super Walmart.

Answer 3

How long must we hear this drivel about OIL being our motivation for being in Iraq?

Just answer one simple question. If our reason for going to Iraq was to take the oil---why didn't we simply go in, bomb everything AND TAKE THE OIL?

Why do you suppose 2,000 sons, daughters, father, mothers, brothers etc have died in this cause that has now went beyond 2 years. The problem with Bush haters or Republican haters is that they never bother to consider facts when forming their arguments----nope, just plain raw emotion. Don't like something? Just make up a reason for not liking it (like we went for oil) stick to it, and deny the reality of a very complex picture.

As for your real question regarding East Africa..... The people who should be most ashamed of this genocide are all of those who support the United Nations. Consider how difficult it is to get 100 Senators to agree on something in the United States. Now consider how difficult it would be to have 192 member states (nations) with all of the diverse culturally unique practices and thoughts that we all come with come together and agree on anything except what time to go home for the day. Many of the countries are openly dictatorships and clearly corrupt.

Regardless, they all represent their own interests and with few exceptions (code for Democratic 1st world societies), have no interest in doing what is thought of by the ordinary citizen as "right".

East Africa is "wanted" by nobody. It is chaotic at its best and hell on Earth at present. Its people are forgotten because there is nothing perceived to be in it for the countries that might help.

While it is true that the US and many other countries are making a half hearted effort to help with humanitarian aid and the like, it is also true that it is just that, half hearted.

The United Nations and every country in the world (to include the US) should be ashamed of what they continue to allow to happen to the millions of affected people.

Answer 4

Saddam was more of a threat. The U.N. is the one to respond to the African problem, but as you see its doing nothing. The U.N. is worthless, and so is the E.U. The E.U. seems to care most about economic matters, or how to make itself richer. It cares nothing about starvation, or the human condition elsewhere. Just follow the cash and you will find corruption.

So you blame america for starvation and genocide in africa? Yeah, blame us for everything and let the other countries off the hook. Thats how the world thinks nowadays, just blam it all on Bush. I suppose if a meteor crashed into earth tomorrow you'd blame Bush for that too?

Answer 5

Saddam was got rid of because Bush and Blair told the world they had firm evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction despite the fact that the inspectors on the ground hadn't found any at the time Iraq was invaded. Once it was clear that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, Bush and Blair started trying to justify the invasion by saying that Saddam was a bad guy. So Saddam wasn't got rid of because he was a bad guy - that is just the reason they give now after it was shown their real reason for going to war was baseless.

Answer 6

LOL we didn't got after Saddam for being a bad guy. And the simple answer to your question is that there is no Oil in East Africa.

Answer 7

Basically its because George Bush (an oilman) and Rumesfield wanted all Iraq's oil for the west.Energy supply has been a tennet of US doctrine for over 50 years.

Answer 8

We got rid of Saddam for being a bad guy but we still have Bush and Bin Laden free running around....Go figure!
If you had a brain tumor, would you get the bunnion on your toe operated instead of the brain tumor? I know you won't but Bush would....

Answer 9

the answer to that question ought to all remember on which fringe of the fence you're searching from... Castro became a inventive who had to carry monetary equality to Cuba's human beings. regrettably, that in contact upsetting those who held monetary dominance (eg US) as he attemepted to dislodge those who he talked about a taking each and each and every of the money and employing it in ordinary words to empower themselves and left the indiginous Cubans undesirable. there have been also some wealthy Cubans who did not like Castro's millitant attitude and obvoiously felt threatened. for this reason their alignment with the U. S.. after all, it became a Cuban businessman (terrorist) who blew up Air Cubana over Barbados in 1979. on the different fringe of the fence you've trouble-free and undesirable individuals who ought to certainly see the great thing about Fidel's needs. the position issues became for the more serious became even as Castro felt the possibility of the rustic, CIA in certain, he began to seek allies considered one of whom were the Soviets. the U. S. also embargoed Cuba inflicting Cuban to struggle through extra simply by lack of imports/commerce. Now that is a precis. All i will claim although, is that because of Cuba's association with the U.S. and communism, that's been labelled as undesirable. In my humble opinion, Communism is large in theory, yet terrible in practice. The beliefs are large regardless of the indisputable fact that the execution is undesirable and individuals struggle through for this reason. tutor me a effective communist sort and that i will reassess. In my books Fidel Castro became a strong guy who, simply by all styles of issues, were given a foul result.

Answer 10

acctually im in the military and just returned from deployment to africa its not telivised because its over shadowed by the war but we are there and we are doing a lot however most of our support is met with unwelcome hands

Answer 11

The East Africans are not currently a threat to our existence.