Why?
Is it because of oil?
Please respond with logic.
2006-12-28 06:34:08 · 19 answers · asked by myd1ck4youra55 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
In Afghanistan most of the American troops are under NATO command, although some units are independent of NATO and still under US command. Other NATO member country's have troops in Afghanistan, working alongside American units under NATO.
NATO has no representation in Iraq, therefore the burden is mainly on US and British troops and not linked to NATO.
2006-12-28 06:41:33 · answer #1 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Folks still don't get it, the war in Iraq is not about OSAMA and it sure as hell isn't about oil. Cheney was banking on several contracts in the restructuring of Iraq that would have insured billions in the private sector and companies that he owns. The idea behind Iraq was to decimate it from war and then rebuild it with American resources, pretty clever huh? Haven't you noticed the huge influx of tradespeople and suits to the Middle East lately? The only thing they didn't bank on was the Iraqi insurgents fighting back. That's the wrench in the plan. The war is under such scrutiny Cheney can't move on anything that may make the war look like an ulterior motive. Cheney used Bush like a puppet to perpetrate a terrorist threat to justify it to the American people. It's not a conspiracy or CIA initiative, just the government talking its way around an obviously unjust situation. What's the advantage of attacking Afghanistan? There's no money there. There's no infrastructure or civil services to rebuild or improve. When the U.S. first struck Iraq in 91', it cost Saddam BILLIONS to fix, why not do the same thing and keep the money for yourself? Simple economics from a simple government.
2006-12-28 15:01:21 · answer #2 · answered by Denny M 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Troops have been over there since 9/11 and I don't understand what's the point. It went from finding Bin because he was accused of the attacks, to Sadaam, then back to Bin, then weapons of mass destruction, and all the while, gas prices have continued to rise. It's like what are we over there for now? It's not about oil. It's about MONEY, POWER & RESPECT. Bin is not over there because I don't think it takes 6 years to find someone with all the bombings and troops we've sent over there. Bring the soldiers home now to their families!! Haven't they suffered enough?
P.S. Check out that movie Farenheit 9/11 if you haven't seen it already.
2006-12-28 15:33:24 · answer #3 · answered by cutelashon 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everyone got the same intelligence and they did find some
WMD's in Iraq (not what they thought), so Bush didn't lie and
all the Democrats in Congress got the same info and they
okayed military action in Iraq. So, there's no lying here...just a
media that wants you to think so. What has oil got to do with
it? We're not getting any more or less oil since the war began.
I think we'll eventually still get to OBL and wipe him out and
that will be good like Saddam. Let's just see what happens.
You all may be surprised.
2006-12-28 14:41:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Can you provide irrefutable proof of any LIE? You need to build a bridge and get over it. If it were about oil and only oil I think we would have done this 25 years ago. Better yet enlist and go find the proof. I am tired of people making allegations that cannot be backed up. Is that logical enough for you?
2006-12-28 15:27:48 · answer #5 · answered by Jim G 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a war against terrorism. Period. Afghanistan and Iraq are just two battles in that war. The oil argument is just..well..stupid. If it were a war for oil then gas would be 25 cents a gallon. Use your brain!
2006-12-28 14:47:20 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because we are not at war with AFGHANISTAN. There was no lie. Bush was given intel from the CIA and others. And if we are in Iraq for oil then wouldn't the prices be lower.
cj-Since you are so smart you should fill us in on your brilliance instead of your bulls*** answer.
2006-12-28 14:44:33 · answer #7 · answered by only p 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We don't have the support or the troops to worry about Afghanistan. As far as Osama, I don't really think he will ever be caught. He will be discovered when he has died all on his own.
Something odd about the Osama business.
2006-12-28 14:43:03 · answer #8 · answered by MG 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your question makes as much sense as asking why did we invade North Africa in WWII when it was the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor.
Iraq and Afghanistan are simple two campaigns in a larger war.
Besides - if we were to kill OBL today it would make no difference at all from a strategic standpoint. From a military perspective OBL is simply irrelevant.
2006-12-28 15:34:30 · answer #9 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Firstly , layoff the brown acid man, its bad .
secondly , there was no " lie"
why do you not consider sadumb violating the un sanctions over and over , a lie on HIS behalf ? and why cant we support the beloved Un in this case ?
stop listening abc,, nbc, cbs
2006-12-28 16:43:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋