English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Conflicts can be resolved in a manner other than war. Besides up until now they haven't proven anything yet. Since they talked too much why not used it to persuade! I hate the $@#&%! WAR!

2006-08-12 00:26:47 · 12 answers · asked by Toffee 1 in Politics & Government Politics

12 answers

The Bush dynasty is tightly entwined with the oil-rich Saudi Arabian government. When Hussein invade Kuwait, Bush saw it as a threat to the Saudis, so he started a little skirmish known, affectionately, as "Desert Storm". Unable to "finish the job", many people saw Bush, Sr. as a failure, and characterized the whole mess as Hussein having humiliated our 41st U.S. President.
So the Bush family went into action and got Bush, Jr. elected (at any cost, financially, legally or morally). Bush, Jr. obviously had a personal vendetta to settle with Saddam Hussein. Set. 11, 2001 gave him the opportunity. The 'secret leaders' in this country who control everything (of which Cheney is a member) persuaded a dim-witted President to unconstitutionally and illegally invade Iraq on the pretense of there being weapons of mass destruction stockpiled all over the country.
The only other reason Cheney ordered the invasion of Iraq was for OIL - it had nothing to do with bringing democracy to Iraq. If that's the Bush mission, why haven't other dictatorial regimes and evil despots been invaded and attacked? Because they have no OIL.
PREDICTION: There will NO TROOP WITHDRAWAL from Iraq until Cheney has a rock-solid, iron clad arrangement to get all of Iraq's oil (with the cooperation of the new 'democratic' Iraqi government he helped install).
PREDICTION: We will use diplomacy to settle our differences with North Korea. Why? Because North Korea has no OIL!
PREDICTION: As soon as Bush and his bosses can figure out a plausible reason for illegally invading Iran, it will happen. Why? Because Iran is rich with OIL!
Cheney wants to make all his Exxon-Mobil buddies richer and richer and richer, all at the expense of the American taxpayers (who have already spent 1.27 TRILLION DOLLARS on this senseless "war" [that's a million dollars a day for 3,487 years] and at the "collateral" cost of tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and almost 3,000 U.S. soldiers.
You're right: "conflicts can be resolved in a manner other than war." The problem is: the Bushites believe conflicts can only be resolved with guns and ammunition (because that keeps their buddies in the military/industrial complex fat and sassy while they, too, suck off the taxpayers' teat). -RKO-

2006-08-12 00:44:01 · answer #1 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 0 1

Here is one reason, and it's a case of truth being stranger than fiction. In the 1990's two or three American Jews who were living in Israel wrote a think tank paper that said that Israel should invade Iraq, and install a pro-Israeli, democratically elected government. This, they said would stabilize the middle east, remove a dictator who threatened Israel, and start a chain reaction which would create several new democracies in the middle east, which would all be friendly to Israel. Descendants of the 750,000 Jews who had been kicked out of Iraq by the Baath Party in the early 1950's could return to Iraq to visit and perhaps to live. The authors of this paper tried to sell the idea to Israel, but the Israelis thought it was totally crazy.

The authors of this paper, I believe were Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle may have had a hand in it also. They later got high posts in the Bush administration; Wolfowitz was assistant Secretary of Defense at the time of the Iraq invasion. Feith was an undersecretary, Perle was on the Foreign Policy Board. They resurrected their old pet theory, had the clout and access to convice the President to go along. WMDs in the form of an imminent risk of a "mushroom cloud" were not reason, this was made up. Why? Bbecause the Bushies knew the American public would buy it, but would reject the unproven theory of spreading democracy. So once it began to look like WMDs in the form of chemical or nuclear weapon would not be found, they started talking about spreading democracy, which was one of the real and main reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

2006-08-12 00:50:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Following the 9/11, George W and alongside with different authorities politicians like Dick Cheney began the warfare in Iraq. It has never been shown that Iraq or any neighboring international places replaced into in the back of 9/11. 1000's of youthful American infantrymen have died over there for merely about no longer something because at the same time as right now Iraq remains residing in additional effective turmoil. similar scenario is repeating in Afghanistan. we could continuously no longer actually have despatched our infantrymen contained in the middle east. the military needed a warfare and the Bush administration gave it to them. In wartime some human beings make billions of money. in the previous Dick Cheney grew to change into vice-president he replaced into operating an particularly huge catering (between different issues) employer in Texas. Then our troops were despatched to Iraq. that similar employer were given finished settlement to provide all nutrition necessary to the U. S. military in Iraq. It replaced into stated with the help of a few experts that there has been a "total" of $20 billions charged to the U. S. goverment on the topic of that express catering settlement.. I personnally suspect that our provider men and women folk were despatched to Iraq to guard the state of Israël who were threatened many situations to be destroyed with the help of Sadam Hussein. for sure there is also the oil aspect.

2016-11-24 21:27:53 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

It's not just Iraq. They hate everyone.

2006-08-12 00:48:39 · answer #4 · answered by itsmeee2006 6 · 0 1

Simply because Iraqis are very clever people, therefor Bush don't want to a third world country to developed and get benefit of its natural, industrial and human resources ,now all these resources destroyed and he is saying (WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS ?????!!!!!!)

2006-08-12 00:35:24 · answer #5 · answered by R.M.IRAQI 2 · 0 2

Saddam was a mad dictator who enslaved his people. Rape and torture were common as was the use of poison gas against the Kurds.

2006-08-12 01:00:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

You are not right. They both LOVE Iraq and its OIL.

2006-08-12 00:31:14 · answer #7 · answered by xxxxx 2 · 1 0

they don't hate iraq, infact they love iraq so much they decided to invade and occupy iraq. they especially love the oil in iraq!!!

2006-08-12 00:31:23 · answer #8 · answered by nucknuck 1 · 2 1

Because they are from Texas cow boy. They have to keep the image of being in charge. Anybody tries to do similar things,,,, oh ! oh ! careful ! here they comes.

2006-08-12 00:34:34 · answer #9 · answered by dotab 4 · 1 1

Powerr trips

2006-08-12 00:31:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers