and why do they think iraq under sadaam hussien was a terrorist stae? what terrorist did iraq support? iran openly supports terror but no one evr comes up with why we didn't attack iran.
also, how many terrorist were iraqi citizens? it seems only our allies, that being saudi arabia, egypt, the uae, jordan and pakistan produces terrorist that attack the US. why no actions against these countries? or at least a hard look at why can these poeple seem to operate freely in our ally countries without much fear of getting caught from their GOV.
2006-07-23 05:15:54 · 17 answers · asked by mricon 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
al zawqari? in iraq? that the reason? please no one ever heard of him until the iraq war. and also, he was hiding in iraq! iraq didn't support him, thats the same as saying america supported the 9/11 hijackers because they were living in the US
2006-07-23 05:49:30 · update #1
Because of all the spin doctoring and blindly following whatever Bush says
2006-07-23 05:19:07 · answer #1 · answered by Heather 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At the time of the war on terroism, before we invaded iraq, iran was compliant with all UN sanctions regarding weapons of mass distruction.
Both the governments of Iran and Iraq openly support terroism, but we cant just invade places that support terrorists, we have to have just cause, either they were coaberating with the terroists envolved with 911, or they are harboring these known terrorists and not allowing them to be brought to justice.
These are the reasons we ended up in afganistan.
We didnt jump into iraq initially, because first off, The iraqi government hadnt threatened the US since the last war we had with them, secondly, they were complaint up until this war with all UN inspections.
They threatened us, were found to be harboring terrorists, were guilty of humanitarian crimes, but MOSTLY we were able to attack them because they were starting nuclear programs and not allowing the UN to come in and monitor their progress and intent.
We live in a diplomatic world, and as much as we'd love to just run in and disarm crazy civilian killing bozo men like sadam, we cant. We need diplomatic cause, which we had before the war even began.
Theres more to politics than what you hear on the morning news, and its not all evil. Try gaining a broader perspective, the US isnt the only one producing news for the masses.
2006-07-23 12:24:16 · answer #2 · answered by amosunknown 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've heard that Saddam gave money to the families of Palestinian terrorists, but I can't say for sure. The evidence goes back and forth all the time. At this point it's just a matter of what you want to believe.
But these facts are known: Saddam played cat-and-mouse with UN inspectors for years. He violated the cease fire agreement from the Gulf War. This alone was reason to go in there. But I don't agree with doing it so soon after Afghanistan. I don't think he was an immediate threat like Bush said, but it's possible he could have been making WMDs. We just didn't have good enough intelligence to say for certain he was harmless.
2006-07-23 12:21:37 · answer #3 · answered by bush_kills_for_god 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I find all this very interesting, but the reason we are in Iraq has nothing to with the war on terrorism, it's all about oil. It is no secret that the US has been, for years, worried about the security of the Saudi oil fields. How to protect them was a key issue in Pentagon planning for years. 9/11 gave us the opening. The plan was to topple the government, set up a new government and charge it with internal security and then retire to US bases near Iran and Syria to watch over the fields. It has not worked out this way, but now you know what we planned to do keep you in your SUV, have diesel fuel for farming, take you on a jet plane around the world and generally enjoy a life of leisure with the internal combustion engine doing most of our work.
2006-07-23 12:43:00 · answer #4 · answered by wealthmaster 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it is a known fact that the lead hijacker met with an Iraqi intelligence officer one week before the attack and the first Trade Center bombing was carried out almost exclusively by Iraqis. Al Zarqawi setting up shop in Iraq put them square in our sites.
2006-07-23 12:28:50 · answer #5 · answered by JFra472449 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe Bush and I know that Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11. I think there are probably three people that believe that.
Anyhow, Saddam and bin Laden were both fighting for a common goal; the annihilation of Western Civilization. Also, Saddam offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq.
2006-07-23 12:21:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they did. Lets see, what terrorist did Iraq support; How about Bin Laden and all of al-qaeda!
Oh yeah, and Hussein. I think he was considered a terrorist by all the women he allowed to be raped, and all the men he tortured and murdered.
2006-07-23 12:23:45 · answer #7 · answered by carolinagrl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's because of Bush that everyone thinks that he wants us at war. His family own a big percentage of certain oil company. So, at the lost of some Americans he makes money. Which is sick but it's sicker that he actually was voted in and back in the first place.
2006-07-23 12:19:23 · answer #8 · answered by groundbrandon 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What a bunch of dopes so far. It was more a pre-emptive attack. We're not waiting around for this sh_it to happen. 911 brought about this mindset.
2006-07-23 12:19:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
because they are manipulated by the media. subtley fooled into thinking this to express more passionate hate against the iraqis
2006-07-23 12:20:26 · answer #10 · answered by lumwoz 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋