2006-10-18 16:37:10 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Because of the three it was the only war we could win.
We always pick on the little guy.
Zeig Heil, Semper Fi, Whatever
2006-10-18 16:40:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
One might want to opt to imagine that the answer is neither. the U. S. decrease back before the Iraq disaster replaced into busy willy waving at Korea who on the time had a sparkling and present chance of WMDs in the variety of nukes that they used to threaten China US and all of us else- Iraq who had no WMDs grew to change into the objective for invasion (they have oil!) at the same time as Korea were given despatched the diplomats who defused the problem- hmmm ask your self if that would want to paintings elsewhere? besides Korea now has nukes, Iran needs them and blimey the united kingdom and US can't run a proverbial pi** up in a brewery scuffling with 2 ****** up conflicts that go away their military stretched to breaking and the lifeless piling as a lot as function to the political embarrassment of miscalculation and different failures. So upload to that peace holding responsibilities and otehr military responsibilities i might want to say in the journey that they wanted to lose on each and every the front that they are scuffling with - %. yet another wrestle - decide on an enemy - all of us and the elements might want to be so stretched that they could be dealing with the biggst disaster the international had seen for a lengthy time period. So hopefully call the diplomats and climb down from the mountain.
2016-12-04 23:52:18 · answer #2 · answered by lot 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iraq has large reserves of oil and N. Korea doesn't. Fighting Iran would infuriate the rest of the middle east. Iraq was the easiest fight. That is why we went after Iraq.
2006-10-18 18:32:51 · answer #3 · answered by jack jr 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We had an agreement after the Gulf War that Saddam ignored. The UN passed resolutions that they refused to inforce. We had to use force. Here is why:
1. We defeated Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.
2. By doing so, we have the right to dictate the terms of his surrender.
3. Since we were the stronger power, what we say goes.
4. Part of that agreement was Saddam was to allow UN weapon inspectors unfettered access.
5. Saddam refused to honor this part of the agreement.
6. Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds in the North.
7. Since Saddam breached the contract, we did not have to honor ours.
8. War is on, we finished the job.
2006-10-18 16:41:10 · answer #4 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The USA is obsessed with Iraq because it wants to win THIS secret "prize"!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm
2006-10-19 08:32:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Becaue hussain was a threat along with the weopens of mass distruction, but both of these terrifying factors together and its a tremendous threat, the other nations with (WoMD) didnt quite have the fearful leader that Iraq had.
2006-10-18 16:45:53 · answer #6 · answered by shaneandrew242 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Oil. Oil. Oil. I agree it was the only country we could win at. But..........I guess we didn't even do that. All we want is for the people to be quiet while we take their resources and rob them blind. Now we are surprised that they don't like us. It seemed to be a nice country before we ruined it. Wake up people and see what is going on.
2006-10-18 16:56:41 · answer #7 · answered by Joanne 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because they wanted the oil.
2006-10-19 03:22:03 · answer #8 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorist training camps, Saddam funding and harboring terrorists.
Iran is next.
2006-10-18 16:42:20 · answer #9 · answered by Kelly T 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because he wanted to finish a war that his dady couldn't.
2006-10-18 16:46:16 · answer #10 · answered by huasquar 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋