2006-08-27 03:46:05 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
To remove a business man/ dictator that we empowered years ago to watch our business prospects in the Middle East after we suspected that Saddam was making business ventures independently of us. We occupy Iraq now because if we leave it alone the Iraqi people will make it more difficult for us to reclaim what we stole the first time, their country. So now we are attempting to colonize the sovereign state of Iraq in the name of America to ensure that we don't lose any business there in that region of the world.
We are not at war with Iraq, we are attempting to deploy soldiers to hold down an already oppressed people now that we have eliminated the middle man we hired to do it for us. Oh yeah and we're pretending it's in the name of democracy...
We are indeed fighting the Iraqis but they are doing the same thing we would do if some tyrant ten thousand miles away decided to invade us because they thought that we didn't have the capacity to defend ourselves from their pillaging and raids. And now we're pi$$ed because we're realizing how wrong we were about it.
As for the warring factions in the Middle East, we started that too. After WWI we got together with Britain and other European powers and began imposing political boundaries on the region we now refer to as the Middle East. We did this because we saw the potential for revenue and business opportunities in that area but we needed to create a political agenda and enforce a government so that they could say, "well this belongs to my nation I want to give it to you"
Before that there were no nations in that region, if people had problems with one another they confronted it on their own terms and there were no political borders to confine them. Which is also why we forcibly established every nation in the Middle East so that there wouldn't be all that red tape to cut through when we decided to take their resources.
2006-08-27 04:34:53 · answer #1 · answered by Rick R 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The reason as submitted to the UN, was none of those, it was in fact that the US government believed Iraq had Nuclear Weaponry, and other such armaments that according to the agreement Saddam signed to the last time he was defeated he shouldn't have. Or as they called them "WMDs"
Without having "proven" that Iraq had them, the US government would hardly have won the consensus to attack.
Iraq had no terrorist ties, and was probably the victim of occasional terrorism by muslim extremists himself.
That's it, if you want to be EXACT.
2006-08-27 10:59:29 · answer #2 · answered by dane 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To remove a dictator from a wealthy country where they have the financial potential to become a strong democratic, government. It wasn't WMD's, connection to Islamist or anything else. Bush and his advisors just believe/believed that Iraq was an opportunity to democratize the middle east and remove a bad dictator in the middle of the Middle East.
2006-08-27 10:52:38 · answer #3 · answered by coach_pearce 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It's an excuse to say we're just trying to fight terrorism, but we all know the Iraqis are not terrorists. It was some saudis and al quadas. So there you go, the answer that no one is willing to acknowledged. If you do, chances are you are a terrorist yourself that's the new slogan since 9/11.
2006-08-27 12:03:37 · answer #4 · answered by FILO 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oil and $$$ for halliburton.
2006-08-27 13:52:31 · answer #5 · answered by Mysterio 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
http://www.bushwatch.com/iraqevidence.htm
2006-08-27 10:48:55 · answer #6 · answered by BT 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋