2006-09-21 00:48:09 · 26 answers · asked by Kevyboy 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
"Supporting" the war on terror...
working diligently on maintaining law and order in support of the government...keeping tabs on gang violence....providing free health care to villagers in remote areas...helping to train service personnel...and constantly looking over their shoulders for the next sicko suicide bomber
2006-09-21 00:52:23 · answer #1 · answered by Warrior 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The 'Daily Express, a British News paper published an article by ;John Jones,Brian Vine & Philip Finn on the 24.06.1980 in the article it explained that the worlds Oil supplies were practicaly running out but the demand for Oil was constantly rising. The only supply of oil open to the west was in the unstable 'Middle East' the jornalists warned that the only way America could keep its supply was to physicaly take it. As a leader Saddam was no angel but he kept the various religious factions in check. He was certainly not a bad leader. He had co-operated with the west and kept 'bin Ladden' at bay he had got rid of all weapons of mass destruction and was being kept in check by the west. When Bush and Blair decided to carry out the invaision they invaded a well balanced country coming up in the world where people enjoyed a reasonable standard of living and a sustained peace. How many more Iraq people will die before America gives back what is left of the oil the iraq people own. America will run the Middle East dry. Unfortunately many English and American soldiers will die stealing somthing that does not belong to Amrerica or England.
2006-09-21 09:03:35 · answer #2 · answered by Redmonk 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
everyone knows the 'war on Tare' as Bush pronounces it, is a pile of pooh, made up to cover up for the fact that all the countries where the Tare-ists live have lots of lovely oil, and Bush and his friends want it. The troops are there still merely to protect the oilfields from being taken back by the Iraqis into their rightful ownership.
If Bush really invaded Iraq because of 9/11, why the hell didn't he invade Saudi Arabia, cos that's where the 9/11 hijackers were from! None of it makes sense.
2006-09-21 12:06:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reckon that ultimately Oil has driven the War in Iraq, but i wonder if Saddam might have been best left in power and then keep him under tight wraps and control him, as he at least had some sort control of the situation there, he has proven not to be the threat that our Governments had us believe, i think it is questionable that Iraq is now a less violent place now than it was under Saddam, look at the Balkens the amount of genocide and so called"ethnic cleansing " that has gone on there, at least Tito kept it all under control
2006-09-21 08:12:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Supposedly the war is over. What you are seeing is meerly peace keeping. I think the idea is to ensure that there is a stable, Western friendly government in control before pulling out.
Unfortunatly, the only person who really has a lot of support is definately anti West and a Muslim to boot.
America has decided that it is not too keen on Muslims. Unfortunately, they have not learnt from Vietnam. Bulstering a governments power with US troops is a definate no no as far as the locals are concerned.
Solution? Who knows.
2006-09-21 08:02:30 · answer #5 · answered by Alice S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam was supported by US to keep Middle East in frenzy. War and instability persuades Middle East countries to buy arms and destroy each other's infrastructure.
At some stage, US must have thought Saddam was not vicious enough for their turnaround of oil for guns, and created the current disaster, not thinking that we all live in one ecosystem !
It is about time for warmongers to question themselves, what would happen even if they succeed to destroy all countries, just because they can ? Say Middle East is game today, Europe may be next ? China and Japan are probably on their agenda as well !
What did warmongers achieve in history ??
Where is Saddam today ?
Where is Hitler or Genghis Khan ?
2006-09-21 08:17:58 · answer #6 · answered by coolibah_mitch 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
supposedly they are "fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here" while simultaneously our bill of rights is under attack, which is terrifying to Citizens who value freedom or law, from the very people who made a war of choice against a nation that did not attack or threaten the US
War on Terror: bad for the world, and terrorizing US Citizens
instigating more violence and turning Iraq into a training ground
keeps oil prices from ever falling by threatening other nations who sit on oil
2006-09-21 07:51:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The war was started for the sake of corporate profits and oil.
Billions of dollars worth of bombs and other munitions have been used up to attack Iraq. Who paid for all that? You and I did. Our military supplies are paid for with tax payer's money. When a bomb is used, it has to be replaced. Who pays to replace it? You and I do. Who makes a profit on it? The corporations that make them and sell them to the government.
Much of Iraq has been leveled. When the war is finally over, some people seem to think we will write a check to Iraq and say "sorry for all the damage', but of course it doesnt work that way. The US will hire US corporations to rebuild the power plants, hospitals, schools, etc. Who will the US hire? US corporations that will make billions on the deals. Where will the money come from to pay them? From you and I in the form of taxes.
So think of the Iraq war as a giant pump that pumps dollars from the pockets of US tax payers into the pockets of corporations that specialize in war-related industries.
And thats what the Republicans are all about: Moving money from the pockets of the working class people into the pockets of big corporations and the wealthy elite who control them.
2006-09-21 07:49:52 · answer #8 · answered by Phil S 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Project for a new American Century - the neo-con group that included Wolfowitz and Cheney - earmarked a war with Iraq years before it occurred and then used a variety of excuses
(1) saddam's non-existent links to al-qaeda
(2) WMD
(3) saddam tried to kill bush senior
to go in there and get the oil flowing through US companies again.
such an illegal and immoral occupation (as with Palestine) creates more terrorists than ever existed before foreign invasion. wouldn't you be a "terrorist" if someone invaded your country and tortured and killed your countrymen? i would.
2006-09-21 07:52:46 · answer #9 · answered by Boring 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Troops in Iraq are fighting for lasting peace and the liberation of the oppressed people who were beaten, killed, raped and tortured under the regime of the evil that was Saddam Hussain.
2006-09-21 07:53:27 · answer #10 · answered by rusty_2003uk 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its something else, its much more like civil war in Iraq and the alied forces are trying to stop it escalating
2006-09-21 07:50:23 · answer #11 · answered by dopeysaurus 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋