Would you believe that Glen Beck is saying that the reason we went to war in Iraq was not for weapons of mass destruction or to stop Saddam, but that Bush is not willing to say the truth. That it was to stop Iran, which is the head of the snake, and is the REAL support for terrorism.
Your thoughts on this issue? Is the real reason we are in Iraq to stop Iran??? Does this even make sense?
2006-08-29 17:59:13 · 15 answers · asked by Searcher 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's called spinning. They went to war for money and oil and can't admit it. When they get caught in one lie, they turn around and make another lie. The sad part is people will agree. Pretty soon you'll hear, "See, now that Iran is causing trouble, we will be able to get to them from Iraq. That's why we REALLY WENT TO WAR". Disgusting, AIN'T it....
2006-08-29 18:04:07 · answer #1 · answered by linus_van_pelt68 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Truth is Dubya doesn't have a real reason for being in Iraq. He just changes the reasons when the last one given is discovered not to hold up under scrutiny.
WMD-until it was discovered that there were none.
Stop Saddam's tyranny-he is now standing trial for crimes committed against his own people.
War on Terrorism-until it was discovered more than three years later, that there is no end to the violence. July was the deadliest month since the war began. We've been told numerous times, this is not Vietnam. Duh. We all know that, it is Iraq. But as time goes on the more similarities there are.
To keep Iran in check-If that were true why did we invade Iraq instead of Iran. Maybe he can't spell? I think what this really means is that Dubya is planning an invasion of Iran soon, and this will leave him an out if he decides to go there.
After that, look for him to start something serious with North Korea. And who knows after that.
How many wars has this man started since taking office?
Afghanistan, Iraq, America
Yes, I said America. No single man has caused such divisiveness in our own country than GWB. You only need to look at questions and answers to discover this. And there are many more out there that don't come here.
Oh, it makes perfect sense. Iran, and Iraq are next door neighbors. War takes strategy, manuevering. With many troops already in Iraq, it would be easy to shift military personnel to Iran, without much more expenditure.
I am just fearful that morale among the military is declining. These men and women are war weary. We are being spread too thinly over a wide region, and the area we are covering is growing. Who will be left stateside to defend us against a terrorist invasion, if they are all deployed overseas? It will be up to John Q. Public. The only weapon I possess are my words.
2006-08-29 19:36:37 · answer #2 · answered by Schona 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Glen Beck's comments are just another cheap shot at Bush.
No one is happy that we are in Iraq but would anyone rather the religious nuts seek us out here in the US. We've had that and I don't know anyone that supported those religious nuts point of view. It's hard to solve a problem of hate. My point of view would be that it's better to fight there than over here. One way or another we are going to have to fight simply because of the hate that is born and bred into some of the people over there.
Who cares if the final biggest reason is oil, Iran, Weapons of Mass Destruction.... we would be there anyway. Put any face on it you want. Here's a couple facts proven, documented by the truckload and you've seen live on TV.
It's really very simple. Saddam was invading and threatening his neighbors because he was the biggest bully on the block. He was killing the citizens of his county with gas and bomb attacks simply because they spoke out against him or didn't share his religious beliefs. He was also making threats against us and kept none of his peace promises he made the first time we put him back inside his borders and into line. HE WAS NO DIFFERENT THAN HITLER.
Glen Beck is just another critic trying to claw his way up the latter by stepping on the back of our president. If the critics put as much energy into finding solutions rather than bashing on the past or the people trying to solve the problem we would probably already have our troops back and the problem resolved. Funny how all the critics get real quiet when you ask them for the solution. Critics love to throw gas on the fire but run like hell when you invite them to man the fire hose. Hmmmm.....
2006-08-29 18:49:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The evidence for invasion was definitely 'sexed up' on both sides of the Atlantic by not telling the WHOLE truth, only the parts that suited.
Bush Junior went after Sadam on behalf of Pappy for unfinished business from the first Gulf War; like the assasination attempt in Kuwait one year after the ceasefire and the using of Senior's face as a doormat in that hotel lobby. I still truly believe that was the main reason for war.
We do not have a reasonable chance of beating Iran on home soil, so we won't be going there anytime soon, whatever Bush and Rumsfeld may dream.
2006-08-29 18:11:12 · answer #4 · answered by Bart S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Democrats have been saying all along that Bush had ulterior motives in Iraq and it certainly can't be the oil we aren't getting so why not Iran and the whole "break Islamic terrorism" thing? Will that only prove that Bush isn't as stupid as the Liberals have thought all along? Remember Bush might not be a 120watt bulb but he has surrounded himself with many very bright Halogens and Metal Halides.
2006-08-29 18:07:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
no, the conflict in iraq isn't the reason for intense gas expenditures. the reason being that the oil companies looove raping u . s . of america of each cent we make. they are making rediculous revenue genuine now. So the conflict might have brought about some upward thrust in expenditures, yet that does no longer clarify the checklist revenue. And by using will strengthen in tax, they have basically better for the undesirable and center type, no longer for the wealthy. they have been drasticly decrease for the wealthy. So the undesirable are procuring the conflict at the same time as the wealthy are bathing in funds because of the fact of it.
2016-11-06 01:08:41 · answer #6 · answered by holliway 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iraq is responsible for the sudden increase in the West Nile virus.
Saddam bio-warfared America with West Nile Mosquito's Bush acting under the advise of God retaliated against Saddam's use of WMD's (Westnile Mosquito Deployment)
Go big Red Go
2006-08-29 18:17:22 · answer #7 · answered by 43 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Of course it doesn't make sense, but what do you expect from a bunch of liars who are responsible for 9 trillion dollars in debt and thousands dead and wounded. These arrogant people need to be turned over to the world court, the USA owes the world an apology, and we need to to either live by the constitution or do what the Soviet Union did, and that is break up into smaller entities. I vote that Western New York be annexed by Canada.
2006-08-29 18:08:32 · answer #8 · answered by Iamstitch2U 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Did you bother to notice that Beck said that in 2003 and just repeated it on his TV show .
Your statement also neglects the statement that Beck claims we are squeezing Iran from both side Afghanistan and Iraq
2006-08-29 18:15:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It makes sense. Iran, Iraq, just one small letter difference. Anyone can make a mistake.
2006-08-29 18:05:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋