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

2006-11-02 13:33:40 · 15 answers · asked by hawaii 1 in News & Events Current Events

15 answers

Becuase we send out a treaty to them that was approved by the U.N. that said that if they didn't give up their nuclear stuff we would invade. they didn't give up nuclear stuff so we asked the U.N. permission to invade. they said no for some reason, but we did it anyway because otherwise the entire world would think that we don't hold up our end of our treaties and walk all over us. Then the world wouldn't have ANY super-powers.


Also (IMHO) because Sadaam is a very bad guy and was a cruel leader.

2006-11-02 13:35:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I have often asked myself that question. Our country has always protected freedom and our rights to be who we are. If we just let other countries attack our people or freedoms, then we might as well tell the people who in the past and the ones that are currently fighting for us and our rights, that there efforts and there lives were wasted. We would not be able to keep our freedom allowing others to attack us without fighting. I don't know that us still being over there is beneficial or not, but the reason we went over there in the beginning was to protect freedom and liberty; and to me there is no better reason, this would NOT be the United States of America without those two things.

2006-11-02 13:48:36 · answer #2 · answered by Faye O 1 · 0 0

Is there a war? Who is the enemy?

US troops are in Iraq because this administration f_cked up real bad and invaded the country on "misinformation." Now that the USA has stirred up a hornet's nest, troops are there to prevent the country from exploding into chaos and shutting down oil production to the US.

Bush and his cabal are responsible for the murder of over 50,000 Iraqi civilians, not to mention US troops.

If there is a heaven and hell, there is no question where God is sending Bush - DOWNTOWN!

2006-11-02 13:43:07 · answer #3 · answered by Ecks 3 · 1 1

now we are fighting the war in Iraq simply because we do not want all the peoples lives who have died to be in vain, we cannot leave the people that are there to fend for themselves like we did the last time and this is partly the reason why they do not trust us

we pulled out and left them to it without finishing the job of last time, part of the problem is that we are training the enemy

it is too easy to infiltrate the iraqi 'police force' army, we need to use greater intelligence in selecting recruits

it is a rich mans war, and definitely a mistake to go to war though but we cannot turn our back on the people now

2006-11-02 13:38:32 · answer #4 · answered by tony h 4 · 0 1

It's Bush's brilliant "rope-a-dope" strategy. All the fanatic nut jobs in the world are flocking there to defeat the great Satan. Attacking Ft Apache. Right where the military might is concentrated and they're getting chewed up. Meanwhile, they're not blowing up embassies in Africa.. isolated ships in ports...clubs in Indonesia... shopping malls in Europe... Anybody else noticiing that?

2006-11-02 13:51:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We are fighting the war in Iraq because we don't want to fight here. The location of the fight is the only choice we have.

2006-11-02 13:40:00 · answer #6 · answered by Ibredd 7 · 1 2

There is a choice of fighting there or here at home.. You and the dems are making the terrorists very comfortable. Thay have no thought of backing off.. just reported this morning.. World domination being the goal.

2006-11-03 11:14:14 · answer #7 · answered by mrcricket1932 6 · 0 1

Well first off weapons of Mass destruction was a ruse from get go, war with Iraq was on the Bush agenda well before 9/11. So lets start by elemaneting officail lies, then examine what is left. Liberate Iraqies? Now even the uttence of such nonsense must sound like cruel sadistic joke. A lot of those poor soul were still willing to put their faith in rheteric coming out of White House, despite 12 years of crippling inhumane sanctions. When Red Cross explained to Madame Albright saction were causing extra half million deths a year of children under 5 she replied " We feel that price is worth it" By the way after being Saddams' beat friend in region for decades, along with Isreal $ the Sauds, supplying chemecle weapons and satalite photos where Irainians were soppused to be. U.S. gave Saddam intel 1 or 2 days off. Iranians had left and kurds had returned home.
Not that Saddam was nice guy, he just never dreamed how under handed U.S. could be. After asking and getting assurrance that U.S. could care less about boarder disputes with Kuwaite, the demonization campagn stated ful time in U.S. once he crossed boarder. Hats off to Bush Sr. gathering sympathy for despised, spiled, rich, little Kuwait. Citizanship requires being family member of emeir. Being born their is not enough. Anyways Europe had been complaining for some time the way Kuwait was messing with interest rates I don't really understand the eceonmics to explain it, but they were makinf fortunes buying seling euros, yens, dollars as markets opened around globe or something like that. One time Saddam Uttered that to show solidairity for the Palistinians he was going to buy and sell oil in euros instead of dollars. This caused panic in Houstin, and ever sinsce he had to go. Nothing Saddam could say or do. It was done deal. They approached Clinton, but he was wary,
So many people had conflicts of interest if their was justice alot of people on winning side should be hung. Defined by Nuemburg Laws. Besides all the implications of the Carlyle group. The fellow who co-authered memoirs book with Bush Sr. who was part of planning, selling and executing war Brent Scrawford I believe, well he just happened to own or co- own and or do most of the contriversial slant drilling Saddam was upset about.
Fastforward 12 years Ever since before Lyndon Jonson actually starting with Rosevelttes' New Deal Halliburtin has always had a man in the white house doing their bidding. That is reason NASA is in Texas Haliburton got bids for bridges, boat building, all sorts of things they had no experience in, only an inside guy inside getting government contracts. Then they would just go to company that should have got bid in 1rst place because of experience, know how and probably wouldn't have balls to overcharge like Halliburton. I forget how, death, democrats coming to power, what ever but sometime in the 1990's Halliburton was without an inside man and they started to sink. Enter new CEO, and practally whithouse ficture. Hmmm Rice also was bigshot executive at Cheron. Bush Jr. tried alot to make it in oil. Yet always lost huge amounts of other peoples money. He did make a bundle however , over $800,000. insder trading. Are you starting to see the pattern. The bigger picture. I could go on and on about the crony capitalism, no bid contracts. The plans for Iraq oil that haven't come to fuition due to the excessive violence and some of the bigger oil Companies now fear if Iraq ever stabalizes. They would lose investment since was illegal. Whatever they had invested could be natiomalized. Further still they fear law suits of wrogful deaths and damages. So they are staying away... That is my short version.... Mary

2006-11-02 16:22:27 · answer #8 · answered by mary57whalen 5 · 0 1

those days, the first branch to commence a warfare are U.S. military planes, or the prevalent USAF. the first to actual strive against on the floor are the Marines, in spite of the indisputable fact that, there are quite some situations the military receives in on the invasion besides. the large pink a million on D-Day operating example.

2016-12-05 11:50:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Orson Scott Card explains why, and much more gracefully than I could. Thus, read the link

2006-11-03 02:46:05 · answer #10 · answered by Thought 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers