Isreal for the attack on the USS Liberty?
The Solamli war lords for the "Black Hawk Down" Incident?
Saudi Arabia, for 911 (when all but one highjacker was Saudi, Bin Ladden is Saudi and still earns an income from his construction company)
North Korea for the USS Puelbo?
Cambodia for the Muya Guez?
It seems to me that we are too eager to take a fight to countries that haven't actually physically fired upon us, but are proposed threats, while we have a history of allowing those that do get awya scott free, notice after 911 we still have less troops on Bin Ladden's trail then we have in Iraq.
2006-12-24 03:02:15 · 8 answers · asked by paulisfree2004 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That is a very good question. The REAL question that should have been asked is, why do we have government officials making secret agreements with foreign powers? Whatever happened to the idea that the people are sovereign, and politicians work for us?
2006-12-24 03:36:17 · answer #1 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
First, the word is "whether," not "weather."
The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was a grievous error, largely attributable to the fact that it occurred in the midst of the confusion of a full-scale war in 1967. Ten official United States investigations and three official Israeli inquiries have all conclusively established the attack was a tragic mistake.
As for Saudi Arabia, every US President since 1945 has been in bed with the House of Saud.
2006-12-24 03:19:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The easiest answer to all those is about the USS Liberty. America would never attack the country who is the biggest purchaser of American weapons. That would be like biting the hand that feed$ you.
2006-12-24 03:06:38 · answer #3 · answered by Cherry_Blossom 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Contrary to what liberals would have you believe we did not go to war with Iraq and depose Hussein for just one incident or reason.
Read the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. You will find paragragh after paragraph of valid reasons that all together add up to the justification of the use of our armed forces. Our Congress overwhelmingly agreed and voted for it.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
2006-12-24 03:13:42 · answer #4 · answered by Azriel 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
i think of the physique of suggestions in usa is that if we bypass to conflict we are able to assist those we ask to combat and attempt to end the pastime as quickly as started. this may be an instantaneous effect of the the Vietnam conflict that replaced into fought and paid for with the lives of 58000 American infantrymen and limitless wounded with out attaining strategic victory over North Vietnam or the NLF. ..
2016-10-18 22:53:59 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Saudis have admitted that they are paying the Sunni in Iraq.
Bush is so stupid and so are his cronies, they don't even know what country the jihad is really being waged. It is not Iraq, there it's Shiite killing Shiite and Sunni. That is civil war. The jihad is in Somali and also in Afghanistan. We just killed there leader Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Osmani. Afghanistan is a mess now.
2006-12-24 03:12:28 · answer #6 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bin is dead. the entire middle east is more unstable than ever...it will be a huge mess when all breaks loose !! business is what seperates the others you talk about. Sadam was trying to persuade OPEC into converting to the Euro...that would have hurt the american dollar BAD !
2006-12-24 03:08:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The "reasons " for War ..remain top secret,as well they should be...It's hard to make a mountain,from a mole hill,after all.......
2006-12-24 03:05:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋