2006-10-23 09:29:56 · 8 answers · asked by rosbif 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yes oil, but more important are the 14 bases the US is building in Iraq, Once the US installs a replacement for saddam, than the will be in a position to control the region.
2006-10-23 09:55:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
because Saddam was going to send his entire naval fleet over and attack the U.S. ooops, Saddam didn't have a navy. Must have been the WMD's. Oh, forgot, he didn't have any of those either. It must have been about other reasons our great leader presented us. Oh, that's right, none of those were true either.
I guess it was about profits for Bush and his cronies. To bad that they had to profit at the expense of our young soldiers.
*******
I would love to hear only P explain how attacking Iraq protected our borders.
2006-10-23 16:41:36 · answer #2 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Without even looking at others answers I know that the misinformed will say oil. But it was a pre-emptive attack to keep our borders safe. Although there is no direct correlation between Osama and Saddam, there is a direct correlation to the"axis of evil".
2006-10-23 16:41:11 · answer #3 · answered by only p 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Here is why the US Congress authorized it:
http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html
2006-10-23 16:36:58 · answer #4 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For oil. Or rather so that american oil companies are the ones controlling the oil.
2006-10-23 16:56:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
to stop a mad guy from killing all of his subjects. As it is, saddam's various games killed off some 1,5 milion muslims. Are you suggesting we should have sent him more ammo?
2006-10-23 16:34:36 · answer #6 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
To secure democracy in an effort to protect us.
2006-10-23 16:42:42 · answer #7 · answered by LadySable 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
For oil, for oil, and...oh, yes...for oil.
2006-10-23 16:32:14 · answer #8 · answered by Baggitz 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋