I mean, I remember the first time was because it was part of the war on terror, until we found no connection between Saddam and 9/11. Then, I remember that shifting over to weapons of mass destruction (again, no credible evidence to cite) What is the deal now? And how will we know when we are victorious?
2006-09-11 06:09:07 · 29 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
marge, you are still not paying attention...
2006-09-11 06:18:52 · update #1
hey Michelle, care to post just ONE?
2006-09-11 06:19:19 · update #2
Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress used the US military to carry out their coup. "We" have "won". "We" have put the INC in power as "we" promised to do. Now "we" should bring our troops home.
According to Dick Chaney on Meet the Press yesterday. The US would have gone to war even if there were no WMDs as the feeling of the administration was that someday Saddam could have restarted his WMD program. He could have the capability to then upset the balance of power in the region which could have lead to future instability. This instability could then result in threats to our national security or the security of our allies in the region. This inturn could have lead to military involvement....
I wonder where in our constitution it states that all those capable of a crime must be assumed to have committed the crime and sentenced according to if they had.
2006-09-11 06:23:18 · answer #1 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The suggestion that securing a pipeline across Afghanistan figured into the White House’s calculations is as ludicrous as the assertion that oil played a part in determining war in Iraq.
That Afghanistan is once again the world’s principal heroin producer is an unfortunate reality, but to claim the CIA is still actively involved in the narcotics trade is to presume bad faith on the part of the agency.
That upon returning to Fort Bragg from Tora Bora, the same Special Operations troops who had been stood down from capturing bin Laden, suffered a unusual spree of murder/suicides, is nothing more than a series of senseless tragedies.
It's true that George HW Bush and Dick Cheney spent the evening of September 10 alone in the Oval Office, but what's wrong with old colleagues catching up? And it's true that George HW Bush and Shafig bin Laden, Osama's brother, spent the morning of September 11 together at a board meeting of the Carlyle Group, but the bin Ladens are a big family.
That FEMA arrived in New York on Sept 10 to prepare for a scheduled biowarfare drill, and had a triage centre ready to go that was larger and better equipped than the one that was lost in the collapse of WTC 7, was a lucky twist of fate.
Newsweek’s report that senior Pentagon officials cancelled flights on Sept 10 for the following day on account of security concerns is only newsworthy because of what happened the following morning.
That George Bush's telephone logs for September 11 do not exist should surprise no one, given the confusion of the day.
2006-09-11 06:12:35 · answer #2 · answered by dstr 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
When the Grand poobahs decree it..Maybe!
CLAIM: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” – President Bush, 5/1/03
CLAIM: The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]
CLAIM “We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet The Press" March 16, 2003 (Source)
"I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, June 24, 2003
When and if the Pooboos have started more conflict, because they don't want out of the Mid East until they have more control of the oil, and by doing this they breed more guerillas, kind of like crapping in someone's home, then being surprised that it attracts flies.
2006-09-11 06:43:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
think about this: iran is develoiping nuclear weapons. if we hadnt gotten into iraq....then saddam who had the capability of making biological weapons and had done so and used them on the kurds. He would have felt compelled to make his own nukes...---so...we would have two countrys which despise each other in the mid east with nukes...that both despise israel that already has them. I think the bigger picture here is--take out the one you can. amongst many other reasons...it isnt about oil---we get almost no oil from iraq...we get most of our foriegn oil---from of all places---CANADA. anyway those that say it was about oil and only oil---are being told so by democrats who dont want anyone to actually THINK for a second...but then again neither do the republicans --an uniformed public is a leadable public...
have a nice day
2006-09-11 06:17:57 · answer #4 · answered by Jack Kerouac 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Wow...good question. I think we may be on the "liberation of the Iraqi people" reason right now. (Notice they started calling it "Operation: Iraqi Freedom.) But then they'll say that we are there to fight the terrorists. That's funny, because I don't remember the old Iraqi government being linked to terrorism.
I don't think they've really given us a reason that has held up to be true yet. If I find out before you do, I'll let you know.
2006-09-11 06:29:44 · answer #5 · answered by bluejacket8j 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well, as you said, we initialy went to war with Iraq because of the so-called weapons of mass destruction. The supposed Saddam link didn't come until later. But since government 'intelligence' has been proven to be false on all counts, we have no reason to be there, but to try and sort out the mess we created.
2006-09-11 06:14:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I honestly can't tell you why we went to war with Iraq. I never from day one believed that country was any more of a threat to us than Greenland is. The reasoning behind attacking them has switched numerous times. Apparently the "deal now" is stay the course and as far as being victorious??? I think that will be when we bring our troops home and letting the Iraqi people run their country as they see fit to.
2006-09-11 06:14:16 · answer #7 · answered by carpediem 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
when u go on a trip where there is no destination, u keep driving around in circles and u just cant seem to make up ur mind and where u are going. we are just camping out in iraq, theres no real purpose for the war at this point except try to help them stay away from a civil war we brought onto them. the govt here is doing a good job of turning it into a soap opera, its giving them enough time to do whatever the hell they are doing there
2006-09-11 06:14:21 · answer #8 · answered by wizzpack 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Because Bush didn't like Saddam and wanted to depose him.
Lots of excuses and attempted justifications have been thrown around over years, changing constantly as each previous one is disproven as an insufficient of invalid reason.
But the bottom like is that Bush didn't like Saddam. And so he convinced Congress to let US armed forces invade.
2006-09-11 06:14:30 · answer #9 · answered by coragryph 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
I think the current line is that we are bringing Freedom and Democracy to Iraq.
It was a nice, idealistic idea- too bad it didn't work out. instead, we're bringing civil war and an hard-line Shiite islamic regime to power there.
It would have been better for the Sunni's to stay in power, so that Iran (Shiite) would have something to train their ire upon other than the west.
2006-09-11 06:12:29 · answer #10 · answered by Morey000 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋