2006-10-28 04:13:52 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
They made you believe that saudi nationals were on those planes and they made you believe that iraq had WMDs… exactly when they made us believe that an airplane hit the pentagon. Something big is going on this planet to please a group of people who wants to achieve something on the expense of others!
2006-10-30 11:04:01 · answer #1 · answered by Ralph65 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Supposedly 9/11 had nothing to do with America's invasion of Iraq. Instead we invaded Iraq because Hussein was thought to be amassing weapons of mass destruction to be used against us (..at least that's what Bush and his cronies told us). Even if the war in Iraq was accomplished because of 9/11, the nationality of the scum who slaughtered 3,000 Americans would not have and should not have had anything to do with it. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist, no matter his/her nationality.
2006-10-28 11:19:33 · answer #2 · answered by Chug-a-Lug 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because Bush and his people made false info to make it look like Saadam had something to do w/ 9/11. It's just an excuse for him to attack Iraq-
2006-10-28 11:31:41 · answer #3 · answered by Annie 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The idea behind invading Iraq was with good intention, but bad politics. Sadaam needed to be taken out of power and the people freed from an oppressive government. But we went about it all wrong. Bush went on the assumption that America would support any war that was against evil and oppression, but he didn't account that we would want it done in the right way and under the right laws of war. The Saudis on the plane had nothing to do with Al-queda and the invasion of Iraq. In fact, Iraq and Al-Queda had nothing to do with eachother, except for Al-queda militants training and living in remote parts of the country. Of course they didn't ask Sadaam for permission to do what they did, but they knew he wasn't going to go out of his way to stop them. Just because he wouldn't let us inspect his weapons manufacturing doesn't give us the right to barge in and take him out. I mean, if we had went about it right and publicly announced his evils and rallied for American support for an invasion to free that nation, very likely Democrats and everyone would have backed it fully. We just went about it all wrong and the American people see it. We know whats wrong is wrong, and that very sentiment that should be put on Sadaam should also be put on our leaders if they do wrong.
2006-10-28 11:25:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Going into Iraq had to do with weapons of mass destruction that were supposedly there. It didn't have much to do with 9/11
2006-10-28 11:18:51 · answer #5 · answered by Erin 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Iran was with us in WWII, and up to the 70' we had the Shaw of Iran in our pockets, he was overthrown and they have been chanting Death to America ever since, we turned and went with Saddam, he was waging war on Iran but he bite the hand that fed him. The US overthrew him and secured oil for America, we fond no WMD and did not release Saddam, yet we say he committed mass murder, well I tell you this in the early 90' Rwanda was in a civil war and man women and child was slain by the thousand and we did not step in, I hate the war but also know we have to have a fuel supply and share it with China and Russia, if we hoarded the oil for just America the china and Russia would be up in our business so the three power are ensuring oil for everyone
2006-10-28 11:24:22 · answer #6 · answered by blue_eyed_southernman 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because Iraq was an easier target. Bush wanted to park in the mid east and fight over there-rather than in the US. So, he decided to attack a country that would not be able to defend it's self......... or so he thought. ... but then intelligence was never one of his strong points.
2006-10-28 11:20:58 · answer #7 · answered by duality 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do you recall who blew-up the federal building in Oklahoma? Based on your synopsis, we should attack America. I've been over there, you probably haven't. The first gulf war was righteous and needed to happen. The second needed to happen to the point of getting Sadam. He was breeding people to hate and kill us (though that is still going on, he was doing it at a greater level and faster than before him or since). So, he needed to be dealt with. However, I don't agree with us still being there.
2006-10-28 11:18:56 · answer #8 · answered by philrobeson 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because Democrats demanded it. Remember?
And Bush agreed.
You've been told a thousand times. Try to retain.
2006-10-28 11:16:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because USa want Iraqi Oil and secend they can beside iran.They could not attark Saudia arabia because it would being ww3 because saudia arabia is where holy places of muslim but saudia arabia is good friend with usa. PLus all of saudia arabia money is in usa.So they want to control Iraqi Oil
All because of Oil O il Oil
2006-10-28 11:25:03 · answer #10 · answered by Mr Single 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋