If it was to liberate the iraqi's, then why not go into Cuba and do the same or into Liberia or some place of the like?
2006-09-14 08:37:13 · 12 answers · asked by ? 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
i agree with you 100%... the iraq war was a waste of time and resources... but now we have to clean up bush's mistake and help our fellow soldiers out.
2006-09-14 10:26:25 · answer #1 · answered by john s 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes there are a lot of countries around the world who could use "Liberating". I can think of Dozens in Africa alone.
We cant save the whole world so we have to chose what fights we can.
Iraq IS about liberating the Iraqi people. but in doing so we also remove a threat to the entire Mideast region as well. Saddam DID have WMD's. What happened to them all is unknown but he did have them.
By removing Saddam, we freed the Iraqis from a dictator, we stopped a rogue nation from gaining WMD's We gained an Ally (Free Iraq) in a very troubled area (Persian Gulf). We stopped a potential source of support for terrorists (Yes I know Saddam and Bin Ladin were not friendly). Saddam may not have had ties with AlQaida but he was very supporting of anyone who hated the US and/or Israel.
Also we had other legal justifications to go into Iraq that we didn't have with other nations that could use liberating.
Saddam Failed to comply with multiple UN resolutions to Get rid of his WMD's and to cease attempting to get more WMD's. He was also required to cooperate with the weapons inspectors.
Saddam created the mess he was in and he gave us every reason to go in and remove him from power.
Yes there are other countries that could be liberated.
But as I said. we cant save every one so we pick those we can and for which we have justification to do so.
2006-09-14 15:57:38 · answer #2 · answered by CG-23 Sailor 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's been explained a thousand times to you why we went into Iraq. How could you miss it?
But you may have a good idea to attack Cuba. Start a campaign. You might well be a good war monger. Go for it.
2006-09-14 15:43:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Golly! I thot it was because Saddam was making a monkey of the UN (Useless Nuisance) having bribed them all to let him do whatever he wished, and Bush, after unsuccessfully trying to get all the people who were profiting from Oil For Food to enforce the UN resolutions, decided to act with a small coalition of other concerned countries, to make the b#st#rd comply or die with coming clean as to whether he was actually trying to make WMDs or not.
Silly me!
2006-09-14 15:53:14 · answer #4 · answered by Mad Roy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Non-compliance with cease-fire rules. And in a world where a guy in a cave is capable of destroying huge building and killing large amounts of innocent people, a dictator that has a history of genocide shouldn't be given any slack.
2006-09-14 15:40:34 · answer #5 · answered by Chris J 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
cause it really had nothing to do with liberating an oppressed people..thats just the line they used to sell it to us. There have been oppressed people as long as civilization has existed what makes Iraqis so special?
2006-09-14 15:40:31 · answer #6 · answered by Random Nimrod 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It was on the Bushite adgenda long before 9/11- they got the excuse and now 100,000's of thousands are dead.
Meanwhile in Afganistan its becoming another Viet nam with NATO taking the brunt.
2006-09-14 15:40:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld Trio
2006-09-14 15:39:09 · answer #8 · answered by Fitforlife 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It was Bush Jr's personal vendetta against Sadaam. He used lies to wage his war in to fruitition to avenge what his father could not.
2006-09-14 16:52:15 · answer #9 · answered by Lissa 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
For personal gain, not necessarily for americans even though we may reap some of the rewards, but for the stupid man in the oval office. black gold, texas tea.
2006-09-14 15:43:17 · answer #10 · answered by solid132 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋