2006-12-31 16:11:43 · 20 answers · asked by olie007 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
We had no business to attack Iraq other than OIL.
2006-12-31 16:13:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
I think that we, American's should be proud of all of our men and women over there fighting to help keep peace in that country and to rebuild a much better life for all Iraqi's. Our troops found a mass murder & rapist and free'd his people, that is a blessing for them. If you watch the news, you only hear the bad and none of the good things that are happening over there; which many more good things are happening over the bad. Why don't you ask an American Soldier if they think we should be there after they have already gone, you will hear that a lot of good is going on over there. If you think we are over there for oil, you are stupid; we get most of our oil from our own soil and south america. Oh and one more thing, don't forget 9-11, Iraq has harbored terrorists in their country for decades; personally I would hate to have something like that again.
2007-01-01 00:36:03 · answer #2 · answered by Monica G 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is a pointless war that the president REFUSES to back out of because he thinks it will make him look even MORE stupid than the country already KNOWS he is!!!! Sorry, but my cousin is over there. He had us attack Iraq is because he wanted the oil, and he thought that waging war would make him immortal in history. Well, he certainly will be remembered as the WORST president yet!!!!
Regardless of what he said before, Saddam had little to no connection with 9/11. Bush said that Osama Bin Laden was in Iraq, and was basically being protected by Saddam. Bin Laden actually WASN'T there, and Bush soon changed what he said into weapons of mass destruction...then he said that if we kept pushing forward, we'd win. 4 years later, we're still losing. Something isn't adding up here between the president's words and common sense...
What REALLY bugs me about the war is he LIED about his reasons. He said that there were weapon of mass destruction there, and there weren't. He said Osama Bin Laden was there, and he wasn't. The only slightly positive thing that I can see about this is that Saddam Hussein finally got what had been coming to him for a long time now.
Ok, if you don't agree with me, you don't have to. I'm just saying what I think. Sorry if it's harsh, I have a problem with being overly blunt about some things...And I have another problem of getting pissed off about things REALLY easily. So sorry if I offended anyone, I'm not trying to shove my views on anyone else.
2007-01-01 00:22:27 · answer #3 · answered by Drop of Golden Sun 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
"what u think us attack iraq?" That has to be the question with the least grammar. Do you mean, "What do you think made us attack Iraq?" OH!! The answer: To 'win the hearts and minds of the people'.
amleecdt, you must be republican.
2007-01-01 00:22:29 · answer #4 · answered by ET Dude 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
"Whether we acknowledge it or not, Islamic totalitarianism is at war with America.
These Web pages are dedicated to exposing the wrong ideas that continue to prevent the United States from responding appropriately to the threat it faces—and to presenting the principles necessary to defeat the enemy and defend our freedom."
Tired of trying to explain it to people who refuse to try to understand.
"Destroying Islamic totalitarianism requires a punishing military onslaught to end its primary state representative and demoralize its supporters. We need to deploy all necessary force to destroy Iran's ability to fight, while minimizing our own casualties. We need a campaign that ruthlessly inflicts the pain of war so intensely that the jihadists renounce their cause as hopeless and fear to take up arms against us. This is how America and its Allies defeated both Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan."
The threat here is Iran. What better place for a forward base than Iraq?
It is NOT about oil, nor is it about some silly theory regarding revenge for his Daddy...get a clue.
2007-01-01 00:37:13 · answer #5 · answered by Rich B 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Im really getting tired of answering this so Im going to make this as short/simple as possible.
Saddam got petrolium (proven fact) and after he got it, he wouldnt let any Weapon Inspectors ,from the UN or the US and all the other nations, into his country. So the UN put 17 sanctions on Iraq, which Saddam ignored all of them. So;
A mad man + petrolium + secret operations= WMD
So along w/ that; he commited genocide and killed 100,000 of his own civillians w/ mustard gas and sarin.
--
Those are the two MAIN reasons.
2007-01-01 00:21:37 · answer #6 · answered by I Hate Liberals 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Oil. And to avenge his daddy's failure. And to help Halliburton (Cheney) and others close to him.
@amlee and jen
The only problem with your "logic" is the fact that IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11! THE TALIBAN AND AL-QAEDA WAS BEHIND THAT! YOU SHOULD BE TRYING TO CONVINCE THE US TO GO AFTER THE REAL CULPRIT -- OSAMA BIN LADEN.
@I hate liberals
So we should "free" all the countries in Africa that are suffering from genocides? We have no business getting involved with their affairs. All we did was remove one tyrant and install another.
Also, the only problem with your WMD reason is THEY FOUND NONE.
2007-01-01 00:19:49 · answer #7 · answered by xpertgmer 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think that we shouldn't attacked but we did now we have to win..
2007-01-01 00:46:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It was only because Bush wanted the OIL, he has a lot of shares in the oil companies. Even so, Saddam got what he deserved.
2007-01-01 00:16:12 · answer #9 · answered by Fruit Cake Lady 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
i don't know, ask George W.W.J.D. Bush, because one can not liberate a country that doesn't want to be liberated. (Example-French revolution- they tried to change people to their way, and well, look what happened)
2007-01-01 01:08:31 · answer #10 · answered by bigbruth 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋