2006-09-27 04:30:59 · 14 answers · asked by david c 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
1. Part of a preplanned agenda
2. Ego - to finish off what his father could not
3. Neo con Politics
4. Oil
2006-09-27 04:34:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Actually, the forces deployed to Iraq were separate from Afghanistan, and during Iraq, troop levels in Afghanistan increased. Looks like your theory lacks even the most basic facts.
But look at the world map. Kazakhstan is our ally, Afghanistan has a strong NATO presence, and Iraq has the Coalition of the Willing. Iran sits in between all three.......sounds like a repeat of what Rommel did in Africa, what Otto did in WW1, what Caesar did in Gaul, and what Phyrus did in Italy.
2006-09-27 04:40:47 · answer #2 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This sounds stupid, but you got to remember what a retard this worthless preppy pipsqueak is, despite the college degrees his Daddy bought for him. He actually expected that there'd be no resistance, his buddies from the corporate Mafia would get big contracts to re-build what a decade of American bombing had destroyed, and it would all be paid for with Iraqi oil money. Even better, he could then turn Iraq into a sweatshop, cheap-labor coolie colony just like Indonesia.
2006-09-27 04:38:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
US didn't attack Afghanistan or Iraq to fight against the terrorists.
they did that to occupy middle East and use the precious oil it has. believe me that George bush doesn't care about terrorism.
2006-09-27 09:07:08 · answer #4 · answered by farsh m 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What are you talking about? Trust me from personal experience, we still have a huge military force in Afghanistan! We have more help from the Afghan military so we can subsidize our military forces with some of theirs but we have a crap load of military resources in Afghanistan!
2006-09-27 04:39:43 · answer #5 · answered by jamie s 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Afghanistan didn't attack us either.Terrorists did.Terrorists were hiding in or being funded by both countries.The only mistake we made was not bombing France too.France and Iraq were cohorts along with that weasel,Kofi Annin in that oil for food thing.
2006-09-27 04:46:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here's what's REALLY going on with Bush's obsession with Iraq!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm
It's NOT about a "war on terror" or "fighting for freedom"!...
2006-09-27 06:00:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Call it a "war woody".
Bush had to wave his manhood in the face of Saddam, who survived the Gulf War and later thumbed his nose at Bush's' daddy.
Stupid, wasn't it?
And at such a horrible cost to thousands of American men and women.
2006-09-27 04:34:00 · answer #8 · answered by docscholl 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Clinton had been bombing Iraq DAILY for the 8 years he was in office to enforce the "no-fly zone" but I'm sure you were too young to remember that.
And did you know Saddam Hussein was paying the families of suicide bombers 20K a pop when they attacked US interest targets?
2006-09-27 04:33:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
We're still in Afghanistan.
2006-09-27 04:32:58 · answer #10 · answered by Robert 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋