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

I fully support the war on terror. I admire the Allies' role in Afghanistan, where they had to flush out taleban terrorists, while hunting for Bin Laden. But Iraq?

2006-11-26 01:21:23 · 6 answers · asked by Calculus 5 in News & Events Other - News & Events

6 answers

The nameless, faceless sub-humans who actually control our government from behind-the-scenes ordered Bush to illegally and unconstitutionally invade Iraq for only three reasons:
1) The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Hussein ever since Desert Storm George H.W. Bush was humiliated and criticized for not 'finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time;
2) The giant military-industrial complex needed to boost its sagging profits, having not had a 'war' since the early 1990's;
3) Dick Cheney wants all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sand so he and his Exxon-Mobil buddies can get richer and richer and richer as they continue to feed America's dependency on cheap, easily-accessible OIL.

The U.S. has no interest in bringing democracy to Iraq.
The U.S. knows that Iraq had no role in the 9-11 'terrorist attacks' (in fact, it's possible the U.S. knew about those plans and purposely did nothing to prevent them).

The U.S. is building the largest embassy in the world in downtown Baghdad, overlooking the 'new' Iraqi puppet government installed by Cheney. We have no intention of withdrawing troops from Iraq for decades - not until every drop of OIL is sucked out of that land. -RKO-

2006-11-26 04:03:37 · answer #1 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 2 1

Here is the deal --

1. Saddam did in fact have contacts with A-Qaida. That is a proven fact.

2. Saddam also had his own plots going, including one that was to kill Bush '41. Saddam was constantly making threats between 1992 and the invasion, also documented facts. Saddam did indeed have enriched uranium, unenriched uranium, knowledge of building chemical and germ weapons, etc.

In my opinion, what Dubya did (right or wrong) was to end a stalemate like we've had in Korea for 50 years, and had in Germany for 50 years. Part of the reason was Al Qaida, part was the threat of WMDs (Saddam was the only one to have used them since WW2), and part was probably paybacks from the Bush family.

The failure of Dubya was that no one in the White House had read a history of Iraq. What has happened since the invasion was predictable. Worse yet, we fired most of the government, as well as the entire army, meaning that we have to rebuild both from scratch.

Even if there was a tenuous connection between Al Qaida and Iraq when we invaded, there surely is a connection now. If you wanna fight Al Quaida then the best place to fight them is in Iraq -- unless you're an Iraqi.

2006-11-26 09:37:33 · answer #2 · answered by geek49203 6 · 0 1

They had a few contacts in the 90's that went nowhere. In fact, by 9/11, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were looking to destroy each other.

2006-11-26 09:34:51 · answer #3 · answered by someone 3 · 1 0

As the last CIA report showed there was absolutely no connection between Al Qaida and Iraq...

2006-11-26 09:31:15 · answer #4 · answered by Tinkerbell05 6 · 2 1

Absolutely nothing!!!

2006-11-26 10:03:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

look my clip bro a big hug power http://mx.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiJ5QUgqbjathQGrJ5.BKVqY8gt.?qid=20061128165709AAhTdgY

2006-12-01 22:33:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers