English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

What happened? How did Iraq fit in the equation? Were we on a power trip and thought we could take any opposing regime or was it really a threat to our freedom?
It's like the euphoria we had over the win against the extremist Talibans became the nightmare that this whole mess with Iraq is.....

2006-09-19 04:00:16 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

10 answers

The equation is O I L = P R O F I T
9/11 was an inside job created by the illiminati, which includes the oil and drug barons, to control Afhani oil and opium, and then to control Iraqi oil. Iran is next on the agenda.
The propaganda in the US press is not true.

2006-09-19 16:54:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

To understand what happened after 9/11 you have to look at the things that happened before 9/11. The Bush junta was in talks with the Taliban to build a pipeline through Afghanistan from the southern Uzbek border to the Indian Ocean. Suddenly the Taliban let that deal fall through, and that didn't amuse Darth Cheney.
9/11 certainly gave them a good reason to attack Afghanistan. Before we know it Hamid Karzai was installed by the Bush junta and work on the pipeline started about two weeks thereafter. That Hamid Karzai is former exec of Chevron is merely a coincidence that shouldn't be thought about anymore.

Once we secured the oil flow from Uzbekistan we turned our attention to a real foe. No no ... not North Korea, because there is nothing but a humanitarian crisis waiting for us. They do not have oil at all. So we went to Iraq, an oil-rich country that was contained and isolated, unable to move nor to plot against us. But all that sweet oil... This cannot be left in the hands of the Iraqi people. We have to get our fingers on that one.

The war on Iraq is clearly a war for oil. The WMD's were invented out of thin air and the excuse that we went there to rid them of a dictator and bring them liberty never worked in the first place. If we would have wanted that, there would have been better targets such as North Korea, China, and the better half of Africa. Look at Sudan now... wouldn't it have been better to go there and prevent two million people being slaughtered? Nah... Sudan doesn't have oil.

2006-09-19 04:14:20 · answer #2 · answered by The answer man 4 · 3 0

We are in Iraq because the neocons in Bush's administration (Wolfowitz, Pearle, Cheney) have wanted to take out Saddam ever since they worked in Bush's fathers administration and the gulf war. They cherry-picked intelligence after 911 and the Afghanistan invasion to con Congress and the American people into allowing the Iraq invasion...to create the illusion that both invasions were related.

Current thinking was that the Iraqis would welcome us and allow us to put a military base in Iraq to replace the one we took out of Saudi Arabia to ease things politically for the Saud royal family with their fundamentalist Wahabbi terrorist-supporting backers. They intended to sell ownership of the Iraqi national oil reserves on the open market (Halliburton) to pay for the reconstruction (Halliburton)

2006-09-19 04:21:59 · answer #3 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 0 0

Lets see...Iraq posed a threat to this country. Since the Taliban are in Afgahnistan the access to WMDs ,that could be used against our military and ourselves ,was apparant.

We urge you to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Nancy Pelosi Dec 16, 1998

"We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq's own admissions:

* That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.

* That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.

* That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.

* That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

* That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

* That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.

* That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.

* That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).

Again, this list of weapons of mass destruction is not what the Iraqi government was suspected of producing. (That would be a longer list, including an Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service had concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years.) It was what the Iraqis admitted producing. And it is this list of weapons--not any CIA analysis under either the Clinton or Bush administrations--that has been at the heart of the Iraq crisis.

2006-09-19 04:39:56 · answer #4 · answered by bereal1 6 · 0 0

King George said hey, look over yonder, we need to liberate Iraq and make a weak attempt to iinstall democracy in the middle east. And hey, even though we had Osama trapped at Tora Bora, lets just forget ALL about him. After all, he's not important, is he?

2006-09-19 04:14:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

They have been harboring al-qaeda cells and Osama himself replaced into additionally residing with the Taliban in Afganistan.....even though it sort of feels to me which you purely got here out of the cave with Osama simply by fact those are old information

2016-10-17 06:40:33 · answer #6 · answered by avey 4 · 0 0

"W" has had an agenda for Sadam since his father was in office. He probably knew a little too much about something/someone and simply had to be hushed. What better way to hush someone than to throw them in a cage and put them on trial for genocide?

2006-09-19 04:03:48 · answer #7 · answered by billnted 2 · 3 0

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

EDIT: Wow, i get a bad rating for providing true facts, hilarious!

2006-09-19 04:23:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Don't try to make sense of cowboy foreign policy...

2006-09-19 04:03:19 · answer #9 · answered by Dastardly 6 · 2 0

They have dangerous WMDs that we have to confiscate. Condi said so.

2006-09-19 04:04:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers