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

based on sure facts here not opinions i promise u anyone who states an opinion will not get best answer.

2006-10-03 11:11:01 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

18 answers

No! It is an Oil war, all the lies Bush and Blair said about WMD was to hypnotize their people. You can see in spite of the USA presence in Iraq the price of an oil barrel jumped from $22 to nearly $75 today, have you ever wondered why? It is to make it difficult for some countries (China, India,..) to easily acquire energy to develop itself and compete with the USA for ruling this world. The result of this war is: 70000 civilians killed in Iraq, 3000 US soldier dead, a sectarian war started in Iraq with an average of 50 killed each day, the so called war on terror just increased the anti US feeling in the mid east and the number of the so called terrorists has increased and the world is less safe than before the invasion, the ugly face of US appeared in human rights issues like Abu Ghreib and Guantanamo.

2006-10-03 11:12:57 · answer #1 · answered by Abularaby 4 · 6 1

When it comes to 9/11 Think Saudi Arabia. Most of the hijacers,Osama Bin Laden came from S,A. They were financed by The Saudi Royal Family & the Bin Laden family as long as they operated out of Afghanistan. So when 9/11 occurried Bush, because his family are very close friends with both-The Royal Family & the Bin Ladens could not attact the real culprets, so Afghanistan having already been set up, he attacked there. Then, in his twisted little mind he tied to come up with a reason to attack. He made up a bunch of lies and attacked Iraq. Pay attention please: IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. OK? GET IT? GOT IT? good.
I will never defend Saddam, anyone the US backs for years, you can rest assured they are no good. However , that being said, Saddam if left alone took his evil out on his political enemies and their families. Ordinary people had it quite good. Education, hospitalization etc.
The 2 major exceptions to this were:
#1- When the US&UK supplied him with poison gas,(Contrary to the Geneva Conventions),To be used against Iran, he used quite a bit on his Kurdish population, which earned him a scathing tsk,tsk, from the US, remember they were buddies back then.
#2- At the end of Gulf War #1, Bushie senior, told the iraqi Shites in the south to rise up and the US would back them. Which they did and the US didn't. Now they are finding mass graves in southern Iraq, Who are they, you asked, you did ask? They my dear little ones are the Shites that Daddy Bush betrayed. By the way, do you know where Daddy Bush was on 9/11. Why he was in N.Y. in a meeting with Osamas brother, the one who had financed Little Bush in his failed oil explorations.
Sorry, to answer your ques. No the US had no justifyable reason to attack Iraq. TheIraqies in general would be better off, the US taxpayer would be far better off, and the over 3000 American and coalition kids would be alive.
There is no way to know how many, mostly non-combattant Iraqis have died, been wounded and left homeless.

2006-10-03 11:30:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Definitley not, if you look at the Bush Administration and it's major officials, along side with Bush from 1992 you will see a huge relationship.....they're the same. As soon as September 11th came about, we knew that it came from Afganastan or Pakistan, yet they thought that this would be the perfect oppurtunity for the war on terror. So they placed Iraq as one of the main countries who were a threat to us. They claimed to have ties to Al Queada, and also claimed to have weapons of mass destruction. Did we find any connections or weapons...none! This was just a continuation of what Bush's father did, he just wanted to finish the job. The whole war is nonsense, but I salute the soldiers, men and woman who are doing there duty, and God Bless them. Holla ~1~

2006-10-03 11:20:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

Maybe , but not at the time that we did . We were to be going after the terrorist that bombed us , not some crazy imbecile dictator that we could ( at that time ) have taken out , when we wanted . By doing what we did , now Iraq is full of terrorist and we have to fight them where we find them . We didn't finish them off in Afghanistan and now they are back there , stronger then before . So what has this Administration done right ??????

2006-10-03 11:35:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Frankly, no. Mr. Bush, I believe, harbored ill feelings toward Saddam Hussein because Saddam expressed a desire to have Mr. Bush Sr. killed. It is true that Saddam was a tyrant and needed to be removed. The US has many ways to accomplish tasks such as that without making a spectacular invasion in front of a world in wonderment at our unilateral (except for Britain and Spain) activity. It was shortsighted and is now a peculiar mess of royal proportions.

2006-10-03 11:17:18 · answer #5 · answered by Mark 3 · 2 1

No way, no how. They were not a threat to us.

By the way, a previous answerer asked "Did they have cause to crash into our towers?", apparently forgetting or ignoring the fact that no one involved in crashing into the WTC was in any way associated with Iraq. In fact, Osama Bin Laden, a religious fanatic, was greatly disliked by Saddam.

2006-10-03 11:18:11 · answer #6 · answered by spongeworthy_us 6 · 3 0

Like I give a crap about best answer.
Let's see, no WMD's.
No Al Qaeda connection.
Why the hell are we over there?
Apparently it's our responsibility to bring democracy to this country even though the citizens there aren't willing to make the same sacrifices.
Lets face it, Bush whipped up a hornet's nest.

2006-10-03 11:19:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

No--

No WMD's
No work with Al Qaeda
Did not pose gathering nor imminent threat
Was contained within borders

btw-- Just Cause is not the same as Common Sense.... we had neither. Bush Sr. knew better-- that's why he didn't go to Bagdad

IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK THE US ON 9/11-- geez lexi-- how stupid can you be?

2006-10-03 11:14:12 · answer #8 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 4 1

False and possibly politically manipulated intelligence led us to support GWBs insistance on invading iraq and finishing the job his dad couldnt finish. There was no just cause. N Korea and Iran are MUCH bigger threats to our safety.

2006-10-03 11:15:53 · answer #9 · answered by islalinda 3 · 4 2

it depends on who you ask. the administration definitely feels it was just... they see the middle east as key to america retaining its status as world leader in the decades ahead and to strategically out -manuever russia and china... the official stated reasons are bogus and there is much more action to come in the middle east.

2006-10-03 11:21:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers