First, it was WMDs:
Iraq had no WMDs, nor did the CIA or NSA have credible evidence that they did. Iraq's longest range missile had a range of 112 miles, with only a 300 kg warhead. North Korea admits to having nukes, Syria has chemical warheads. But Iraq had oil...
Second, the al-Qaida connection:
Saddam and bin Laden hated eachother. Saddam, a secularist, feared al-Qaida's growing influence in the region and the potential threat against his own regime. A congressional investigation concluded that there was not Iraq/al-Qaida connection. So what other excuse can there be?
Third, Iraq was in need of liberation:
After all the other lies, this is the best they have? Plenty of countries need liberating. North Korea, where a million people have died in a recent famine. Pakistan and Myanmar are under undemocratic military rule. Everyone has forgotten about Tibet. Somalia has no gov't at all to speak of. But Iraq has potentially the 2nd highest oil reserve in the world.
Whats next?
2006-09-25
13:33:28
·
23 answers
·
asked by
?
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
loofa: You say the attempt on Bush Sr.'s life was an act of war, what about the CIA's involvement in the death of Chile's President Allende?
2006-09-25
13:43:00 ·
update #1
Of course it didn't have anything to do with the fact that Bush and Cheney are oil guys, that's just a coincidence of course.
It's also a coincidence that Dick Cheney's halliburton got a no-bid contract for Iraq, and Cheney has made over 8 million from halliburton since Iraq.
It's also coincidence that a fire fighting firm linked to Bush got a no-bid contract for Iraq.
Nutcase inbred Conservatives just try to use any excuse to try to get their boys Bush and Cheney off the hook. Too bad nobody is buyin it.
2006-09-25 13:40:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
2⤋
1
2016-12-24 05:18:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because they don't have one .
Oh what tangled web we weave
Then first we practice to deceive
As the years go by we will slowly find out the truth about why we went into Iraq and I'm afraid that Bush will look the totalitarian that he is and that starting a war in Iraq was a sham .
2006-09-25 14:15:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
G. Bush is trying to create a historical legacy for himself that he changed the Middle East into a democratic area that lives in peace with their neighbors. But people do not want the younger generation to be killed and crippled for his legacy so he and his group had to invent a reason to invade Iraq.
He thought Iraq would be a push over and he would be the hero. I think it backfired - big time. Unfortunately, you cannot change some cultures, especially with violence. Now he will not admit he was wrong and while he is running around soliciting money for the Republican Party our troops are in the midst of a civil war. How do you protect the Iraqi people against each other? We had our own civil war. They have to figure it out for themselves.
2006-09-25 13:45:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by madisonian51 4
·
6⤊
0⤋
Because they're all big fat liars but they're keeping the powers-that-be happy with their tax cuts and government contracts so good luck getting any accountability. The media never cut Bill Clinton slack on anything even though the only problem with Clinton was the relentless assault coming from the far right but the media is deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to Bush. Its all about corporate fascists - call it collusion, conspiracy, whatever; the American people are the losers.
2006-09-25 13:52:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by Babs 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think as faulty intelligence regarding WMDs and connections to Al-Qaeda became known to the population, they needed a noble-sounding reason for invading Iraq. And though many people I know (even who originally supported the war) see right through it, it seems that some people buy it and completely forget why W. Bush originally said we were going to war.
2006-09-25 13:37:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by Joy M 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
Its all a bunch of lies. Bush was put up to this by his PNAC Neocon handlers who saw a chance to do some empire building that would make a lot of them even wealthier - and scare people into abandoning their First Amendment Rights.
2006-09-25 14:01:14
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Because USA has treat to bomb Pakistan if Pakistan do not help USA in preventing terror war.
And Pervez already admitted that USA government has gave bribe to Pakistan government as for sent out the suspected of al-qaeda members in Pakistan.
USA is the terror now.
The world should disarm the USA to ensure the world much safer.
2006-09-25 13:43:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
It's a war about the oil. What did the US military secure first in Iraq? was it the water? was it the hospitals?education facilities? was it the oil? Bingo it was the oil ministry of Iraq. Bush wants to take over and own the Iraqi oil supply.
Collin Powell quoted to Bush and Bush took it to heart; "If you broke it you own it". Bush believes just that!!!
2006-09-25 13:40:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
Invading Iraq.
Public law 107-243 passed by Congress 16 Oct 2002 you can find it at:
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
You should read the whole thing.
Bush was strongly reminding Congress of the law "they themselves had passed" and He was going to use it. This is but 1 of 24 whereas`s that the "Congress" used to authorize going to war.
Bush`s letter can be found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
This is the letter that accompanied the report to Congress. The report
(the part 2 never mentioned by the Left) it is at: http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/Report107_243.pdf
(see paragraph 2)
The Stalinist style State of Iraq responsible for the deaths hundreds of thousands had terrorist living there. Had terrorist traveling through Iraq. Had terrorist training in Iraq. Abu Nidal, the infamous Palestinian terrorist, was murdered by Saddam Hussein after refusing to train Al-Qeada fighters based in Iraq. You can find that at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/738758/posts
This has been further backed up by documents seized during the war and after. This is undisputed.
Saddam had been in a state of virtual war with us for the last 10 years. Shooting at our people. 24 killed in 2 helicopter shoot downs. Shooting at our planes as we enforced the no fly zone at the cost of Billions and billions of dollars. Iraq would obviously become the second target as 20% of our Air force was tied up there with the no fly Zone enforcement. Our pilots flying over it destroying missile sites that shot at them. One or 2 a month for 10 years. Saddam put a bounty on their heads, $50,000 for any American pilot shot down. They sponsored terrorist and it would give us strategic advantage over Iran and Syria. Saddam had tried to assassinate the first President Bush. Saddam was making billions under the table with the rest of the world off the UN oil for food program. Your tax dollars. We had Photos and Intel about Sal man Pak where terrorist were trained to hi-jack airliners on real commercial airplanes parked there. you can read about that at; http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
I have lost track of the Sat. photos of the planes at Sal man Pak but they are out there somewhere.
Our Government never said there was a 911 connection. The press did. Our Government did say this was about the global war on terror and taking out somone that should have been taken out in the first gulf war.
So you would rather have another war with N Korea? A nuclear power? or you want us to go into Pakistan? another nuclear power? OK how about Tibet? We will take that away from China another nuclear power?
Nuclear bombs don`t just kill cities they kill Armies too.
Go to goggle earth and put in the coordinates 38,15,56N and 105,57,06E and you will see the most amazing thing in China. Its Kashmer at the war college, you can even see the officer corp training.
Of course its about oil too. It was so for the Clintons also but even more so. FAILED POLICY ON IRAQ, Feb 25, 1999
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/nickles-s1996-2-25-99.html
However Bush gave the oil to the Iraqi people when we could have had it for free.
2006-09-25 14:27:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by Gone Rogue 7
·
1⤊
1⤋