Forget about Saddam...there are far more worse dictators than Saddam, so what do you think? would we have invaded Iraq if there were no OIL there?
2006-09-13 14:57:37 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
oh yea, and there were never WMD found in Iraq..so please don't use that argument.
2006-09-13 14:59:24 · update #1
If there was no oil there we would not have ever gone. You are correct in your assessment that there are far worse dictators in the world than Saddam, yet we do not go there and rid the world of those. In Africa there are many that are worse but since they do not have the oil we are not there, the dictator of Korea is a serious threat but they have no oil so we did not do anything when they tested weapon of mass destruction. Yes it was for the OIL>
2006-09-13 15:21:59 · answer #1 · answered by billc4u 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We went in Iraq for Geo-Political reasons. A free and democratic Iraq will be a valuable asset in bringing peace to the Middle East.
Contrary to many of the blogs we never stole any of their oil. Although stocks of chemical weapons were found in Iraq that is not the main reason we are there.
The reason that other WMD's were not found is that we gave the Hussein regime too much warning. The Russians and French made sure that they were removed along with any evidence that those countries supplied them and were paid with Oil for Food dollars.
2006-09-13 15:37:57 · answer #2 · answered by Answer Man 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it really is a nasty analogy. Kuwait had finished not something to ask the invasion. It develop into only in an opportune spot geographically, and Saddam invaded it strictly to operate it to Iraq's territory and plunder it. the U. S. invasion of Iraq got here about after Saddam refused to abide by employing the words of a treaty he had signed finishing Gulf warfare I. The refusal of not permitting unfettered get entry to on my own develop into justification for resuming hostilities. without unfettered get entry to, there develop into no way shall we danger not understanding even if he had WMD's or not. That being stated, Saddam has been lengthy previous for a lengthy time period now. I agree thoroughly at the same time with your statement about submit Saddam Iraq and the debt we are mounting up with the chinese. it really is time to get out.
2016-11-26 22:16:31 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So how many oil fields have we taken over in Iraq so far?
2006-09-13 15:06:15 · answer #4 · answered by Michael 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes!!!! because if you get a grown up to help you do some research you will find a list of damnocrats that agreed to invade iraq!!!!!!
2006-09-13 15:03:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
They might have if Iraq had large opium fields, or some other product valuable to the Illuminati.
2006-09-13 18:10:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
GAWDAMIT!!! Saddam blew up our buildings with his WMD's!!!
THAT IS WHY WE INVADED IRAQ and we are still there because he might blow up another one of our cities if we leave!!!!
DAMIT! DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO THINK LIKE A REPUBLICAN!!!
2006-09-13 15:04:05 · answer #7 · answered by mikeygonebad 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
oil had NOTHING to do with the war. Saddam refused to comply with the un resolutions that is why we went to war, nothing more
2006-09-13 15:06:36 · answer #8 · answered by mikeb721 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO,i thought we went over there so the Iraqi people would greet us WITH OPEN ARMS,OH WELL BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD!!!!!
2006-09-13 15:03:37 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the answer is clearly YES!.. and sadaam is clearly the worst dictator.
2006-09-13 15:07:16 · answer #10 · answered by bushfan88 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋