I believe we could have dropped sanctions and bought the oil for far less then we've spent on the war. I think it was an idealistic crusade. If we built a pro-American democracy in the center of the Middle East, then the other countries would soon follow suit, liking what they saw. This is of course after the terrorists were killed there instead of here in America. It worked at first. Look at Libya who gave up their weapons. Iran on the other hand offered to make nicey but Bush turned them down which is probably going to turn out to be the biggest error made. Also, it may turn out that the Iraqis will throw away their chance at a peaceful nation.
2006-08-21 04:28:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by MEL T 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
To fuel the coming American Empire. The world is running out of oil and there are other nations who will simply outbid us for mid-Eastern oil. This way we control the countries (which is why Iran and saudia Arabia will also become American client states/puppets) with the proven reserves. When China becomes the next enemy (after IslamicFascists) they will need oil and where will it be? In our gas tanks and power plants. It may cost you 15 dollars a gallon but you will have it.
Second reason? This is part of the attempt to solidify the Bush legacy.
2006-08-21 11:22:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by Edward K 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Except for saving your life or the lives of your family, people usually have more than one reason why they do things.
Oil may have been one of the reasons and there may have been others but the main reason seemed to be because Saddam was a violent guy with absolute control over his people and he was making sounds like he had something powerful in his closet.
Remember he tried to take over Kuwait when George senior was presiding over our country. We made a mistake by not following through during that engagement and maybe he thought we were afraid of him.
Maybe his trial will expose some of the reasons.
2006-08-24 22:39:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mr.Been there 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Faulty intelligence. The same sources that Clinton didn't trust and didn't act upon are the same sources that Bush and his cronies trotted out. Bush was looking for any reason to invade and they gave it to him. To say that the intel was skewed is an understatement. I personally know of 2 people that worked on the 9/11 report. And both of them had their reports rewritten to support the BushCo fanatsy. One, who would have retired in 2008, got out after 15 years of naval service. The other, who was up for Rear Admiral, resigned his commission.
2006-08-21 11:44:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by darkemoregan 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
the same reason we invade any other country. you realy don't know? or you just wanting to here others take on this? the same with ww-1 ww-2 korea VN and all the others. They were trying to take over the smaller countrys around them and we don't want any of that s@it. we can barrley beat the small countrys much less if they were all one then we would be in a world of s@it. we are trying to keep the world in check but we cant do it for ever one of these days and its comming soon were all in a world of hurt
2006-08-21 11:26:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
1) To avenge Dubya's Daddy for screwing up the job when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
2) To get votes for Republicans
3) To rub Saddam's nose in the dirt
4) To get control over Iraq's oil
2006-08-21 11:17:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Larry 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
My personal opinion is that the invasion of Iraq was an economic stragedy, the oil companies and their subsideries have made a mega-fortune and continues to do so. We have released the fox into the henhouse.
2006-08-21 11:18:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by Bobbie E 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Only for Oil.
2006-08-21 12:09:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Our leader was anxious to be a war president.
2006-08-21 11:17:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by nothing 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Three letters: O I L
2006-08-21 11:22:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by Bostonian In MO 7
·
1⤊
2⤋