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

we went after saddam hussein because no other country cared that he killed thousand's of his own fellow people to test chemicals,,,,,,oil? are we raping themof oil? if so, why are our gas prices high? (do you own a american made suv?) did saddam lined the pocket's of al-quieda? hmmmm???? does iran still do the same????? why focus on media information??? think logicallly.......did govt & politics deliberately ignore hurricane katrina? for what purpose????? lets think people why??????

2006-11-17 21:42:33 · 6 answers · asked by oifgijane 3 in Politics & Government Government

6 answers

There is definite humanitarian side to Iraq in the form of liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's' tyranny. It is not in the interest of liberals and media type to report it this way though because it does not fit the Bush bad agenda. However, it also cannot be denied that we are in Iraq because the country has oil. Protecting the world's oil supply definitely qualifies as a vital national interest due to the fact that our economy is so dependent on it. Just because Iraq has something to do with oil does not make the war a bad thing and protecting it doesn't mean we are there to steal it. You have to balance context though, if we were just interested in humanitarian relief we would also be taking action in places like Dafur, but we are not. Either way the justification talk is just mostly political and should be viewed with complete suspicion because political motives can never be trusted and the truth is often misrepresented in the ends justify the means mentality.

Hurricane Katrina response has also been misrepresented. There is ample evidence to show that President Bush was trying to get control of the situation early on, but his efforts were being resisted by state and local officials in Louisiana. The media has given these people a total pass while vociferously attacking the federal govenment. The question which results is why? People have a misconception about FEMA. They believe that FEMA has unlimited resources and people standing by and ready to go. This is not true. FEMA uses contractor companies for it's labor force, of which my wife's company is one. When there is a disaster they begin mobilizing these resources to act, but it not like flipping a switch and it does take time. There was nothing wrong with investigating the response with an eye towards making FEMA more responsive, but the majority of what happened was more of a political witchunt than anything else.

2006-11-17 21:54:48 · answer #1 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1 2

Wow! Haha! You are REALLY confused. Let me clear a few things up for you:

1. You think THAT'S the reason gas prices are so high? *LMAO* Priceless! Hate to break it to you, but Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron don't love you THAT much. Did you not notice how gas prices got lower and lower in the weeks leading up to the election? And now, after the election, the prices are slowly climbing again? Missed that one, did ya? Sorry, but war or no war...Big Oil is taking America to the cleaners!

2. So we invaded Iraq because Saddam "killed thousands of his own people"??? OK, so if that's a good reason to invade a country, when are we invading Congo? Dafur? Rwanda? North Korea? China? Or any number of other countries around the world that treat their citizens badly? Besides, I thought we invaded because Iraq was involved in 9/11? Or was it because Saddam and Osama were buddies? Or was it because Saddam had WMDs? Or was it to "liberate" Iraq? Pick your favorite lie and get back to me.

3. Did the government deliberately ignore the crisis caused by Katrina? I don't think it was deliberate. It was merely Dubya's legendary stupidity and ineptitude at work yet again.

2006-11-18 07:10:07 · answer #2 · answered by The Man In The Box 6 · 0 0

While Sadam and Bin Laden kind of share the same religion, so do 1 billion other Muslims and the type of Islam practiced by Sadam is so different from Bin Laden's that it might as well be a different kind. Think of all the different brands of Christianity there are. That doesn't mean that the Greek Orthodox church is in cahoots with the Methodists. And, frankly, Sadam was no friend of Bin Laden. Bin Laden and his cohorts wanted to destroy the governments of the Muslim nations led by dictators like Sadam who put down the extremist Muslim elements in his country. Extreme Islam was a threat to Sadam. And there is no evidence that Sadam's people and Bin Laden's ever talked. None. What there is is just flawed intelligence.

Bin Laden played us. He played us good. He knew our weaknesses and we did just what he wanted. He knew that we would go after Sadam after 911 and that the Muslims would be pissed at us when we got rid of him. He knew that we would leave Saudi Arabia for new bases in Iraq, which is what he was calling for for years. He knew that Sadam's destruction would make Iran, a country governed by extreme Islam, the most powerful country in the region. And he knew that Americans can't stay the course and that after a couple thousand dead that we would go the way of Spain after the Madrid bombings and elect a new government to get us out of Iraq. He knew that we would never steal oil from the Iraqis (and he didn't care anyway). And when we leave, the most extreme elements will quickly take over and there will be another country governed by Extreme Islam. And Saudi Arabia will be the next government to fall, which is what Bin Laden wanted all along. And Bin Laden will ride into Mecca on a white horse the conquering hero. And all he had to do was Sacrifice Afghanistan for a while. But the Taliban will be back when we leave there, too.

We got played, because we are an arrogant people who think that everything we do will always end in success.

2006-11-18 06:14:40 · answer #3 · answered by Erik B 3 · 2 0

Yes, Bush started the war. Saddam never attacked the US or UK or any western country. Saddam already paid the price for invading Kuwait. What was the point of imposing sanctions and starving children? What was the point of invading Iraq.

There never were any weapons of mass destruction! Saddam didn't have anything to do with Al Queda, even though some of his associates met Bin Laden once. In fact he bad mouthed Bin Laden, because Islamic extremists were a threat to his power.

Ok, what happened has happened, all those lives and decade long suffering in the context of lies and political deception.

Many of the current leading political elements in Iraq are inspired by an Iranian style revolution (which the Sunnis fiercely reject). That's why all the ethnic groups are at conflict with one another. And the US can't handle it. I advise to the America governent that Iraq be free and don't even think about laying a finger on Iran. I am sure that everyone is aware of the consequences of that.

2006-11-18 05:50:58 · answer #4 · answered by Zabanya 6 · 1 1

I think you are right except for government deliberately ignoring hurricane Katrina.

I don't think we got any oil. All that is propaganda to try to make American look like the bad guy.

2006-11-18 05:55:45 · answer #5 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 1 1

too many questions to think about

2006-11-18 05:56:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers