We are there for the benefit of a few profiteers not for the betterment of America or Americans. It was shown at the beginning Iraq had nothing to with it.
So what freedoms are being fought for. If thery are then it is a waste of their time because the C.R.A.P. are taking them away anyways with the Patriot act.
2006-12-15 13:06:09 · 18 answers · asked by Charles Dobson Focus on the Fam 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
the C.R.A.P. love to compare this bullshit Iraq war * ahem* illegal invasion to the nobility of of our effort in WW2.
2006-12-15 13:09:42 · update #1
if they open up a lot of the recently closed refineries that would lower the gas prices but then the profiteers wouldnt be making record profits would they. Peoples use of gas hasnt dropped off so high gas prices mean high profits. Open up some more refineries ........
2006-12-15 13:15:42 · update #2
I think it was to remove a dictator and create somewhat of a democracy with the idea of taking the profits from the oil by giving American owned companies the first access...this flies in the face of what our military should be used for and is extremely colonial...in that a few Americans get rich and someone else pays for it...the Administration doesn't really care about the people of Iraq, look at the bombing...if they really thought it would be easy, then they were fools. name a situation where another country invaded another and actually fixed things...none, that's why I believe it was for their "new world order" crap as "oceansoloflight" said
2006-12-15 13:25:46 · answer #1 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the "freedom" we were speaking of, or Bush was, was the freedom of multinational corporations to make Iraq into the world's first complete free market utopia. Here they would prove that unchecked business would save the world.
It didn't quite work out that way. Hmm...what's the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite? They'll all be exploited equally!
Notice that when we first occupied under Paul Bremer, the repressive Saddam Hussein anti-worker's rights laws stayed on the books. It was always their intention to install an elite that would get paid, just like Halliburton's getting paid now. "Baghdad Year Zero" by Naomi Klein is an excellent article on the subject.
"Freedom" and "democracy" mean whatever someone wants it to mean. Many of us have differing opinions on this. If someone is free and has the vote, he may choose leadership that won't do what we want them to.
2006-12-16 02:02:04 · answer #2 · answered by brian fantana 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"The freedom to not get blown up."
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! That made me laugh!!!
But only on the inside...
...because getting blown up isn't funny...
...and neither is the fact they are more "free" to blow each other up than they were BEFORE we got there!
We have achieved destabilization! That whats we've earned!!
We helped them to "vote", and apparently this little gift of democracy has done nothing to help them in their day to day lives. We can't even count on the leaders that were chosen and we talk about them behind their backs and try to tell them what to do to make us happy.
We can't even trust their leaders to actually LEAD and establish an infrastructure allowing us to step out since we've already accomplished stated mission of bringing "democracy."
Democracy the way the average person thinks of the word isn't exactly the goal our leaders had and have in mind.
2006-12-15 21:25:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
OK try to follow me here. What were doing in the Middle East is trying to establish some type of Democracy to curb the appeal of Islamic Terrorist recruitment.
The reason so many Muslims become terrorists is because from their earliest age they are taught Anti-Semitism and hatred for the West.
By introducing them to the benefits of Freedom the West has to offer them they have an alternative to live for.
It's easy to sit here in Americas comfort and be a selfish bastard who doesn't care about people who don't enjoy the same freedoms we do.
2006-12-15 21:14:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Supposedly, we are there for the freedoms of the Iraqi people. Bush is hoping that freedom in Iraq will influence its neighbors to do likewise.
According to recent news, it doesn't appear likely.
2006-12-15 21:09:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
The freedom for George to do whatever the hell he wants regardless of how many of our young people are criminally slaughtered.
2006-12-15 21:19:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Somebody tell me! Looks like you've been doing your homework. Keep it up. Those of us who know what is really going on must get the word out to those who don't. When all is said and done, what can we really do to stop those guys? They are bound and determined they're going to shove their New World Order down our throats, and what can we really do about it?
2006-12-15 21:15:03 · answer #7 · answered by oceansoflight777 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Our troops are fighting for President Bush's legacy, that's why he is so against our leaving before he declares victory.
2006-12-15 21:15:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The people are now able to vote for their government, better schools, women have more rights although some are still bound by Muslim law, oh and they can disagree with their new government without being killed by Saddam. And yet there is not one shred of proof that the war was about oil. If it were we would notice with a drop in fuel prices. Saying the war is about oil is a cop out to the truth. The conspiracy theories will never die.
2006-12-15 21:11:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 7⤋
Freedom to eventually plunder the oil?
2006-12-15 21:08:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋