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

Is the protection of the Israeli State from neighbouring agression the main cause for U.S. led regime change in Iraq & possible Iran?
Or is it a combination of ecominic stability (with regards to oil production) & Israel's protection?

2007-01-12 05:39:41 · 13 answers · asked by Diamond24 5 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

13 answers

Good question, I think it plays a part, but you put to much stock into its combination with oil. I think basically why we wanted regime change in Iraq is just to set up friendly, stable governments in the middle east, that would rival countries that work against our intrests, such as Iran. It is just that this policy has so far backfired, and I think the activist foriegn policy also played a part in the decision, I say this meaning that our government wanted to see the lives of people in middle eastern countries improved.

2007-01-12 05:51:53 · answer #1 · answered by asmith1022_2006 5 · 1 0

Go for the latter reason; a more stable economy throughout the region would by default protect Israel and the other nations of the Middle East. Why do other countries not see the domino effect if Israel falls? Considering the U.S. government's current (if obliquely stated) position regarding a "Palestinian" state -- why the quotes? Yasir Arafat could go down in history for founding a nationality. -- the U.S. led regime change was hardly done for Israel's sake. But who's to say Tel Aviv (and Tehran and Damascus and Amman and Ankara) can't benefit from that?

I don't remember who said that a nation never has permanent allies or permanent enemies, only permanent interests, but that's true of that whole region of the world. Not only U.S. policy, but the Middle East nations' policies with each other are dictated by not wanting pyrrhic victories. Marching to reoccupy any land would cost more than the land and assimilatable populations would be worth. Hence the perpetual forefront of Israel and the "Palestinians" -- once that issue fades away, what will the respective leaders have to fight over? It's a vicious cycle.

2007-01-12 05:57:16 · answer #2 · answered by ensign183 5 · 1 0

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has repeatedly denied that Israel has the right to exist and has called for the destruction of the Jewish state. The free world fears that Iran's nuclear program is intended for that purpose.

Today's conflict is between the radical Islamism of the Arabs and Iranians, and the moderation of the West.

Another term for this is jihad.

The Iranians' idea is first to tackle the Saturday people, and then the Sunday people, eventually Islamizing the whole world.

2007-01-13 17:24:02 · answer #3 · answered by Ivri_Anokhi 6 · 0 0

Idiots who yell oil are retarded. Use your brain, Bush has NOTHING to do with OPEC and gas prices, think a little bit PLEASE! We already have enough oil coming from Saudi Arabia.

Now back to the question Israel is the a major political and regional ally. They share the same distaste for terrorism as we do, mainly because they are the #1 target, we are #2. They offer little in the way of natural resources but they do buy a lot of our products. Mainly we like the fact that Israel gives us a foothold on the war vs terrorism.

2007-01-12 05:54:38 · answer #4 · answered by bmw4909 3 · 1 0

usa stole each little bit of land they call usa, do you imagine Israel will end when they have finished with Palestine, like the individuals they are going to commence on Syria etc transforming into america of Israel, Sound now impossible, in simple terms wait and be conscious. they are already blaming Syria and Iran for the same issues they blamed Irak for.ultimately, they could even flow The White living house to Israel. the present occupiers of usa were finally stopped At "The Alamo", the position will Israel end. heritage repeating itself. Ask the yank Indians about Holocaust ???????

2016-11-23 14:21:13 · answer #5 · answered by vannostrand 4 · 0 0

The reason for regime change in Iraq is ultimately to create a liberated, democratic Middle East.

Ideally, this would be a place where people can raise their kids without fearing they'll blown up by suicide bombers, or jailed, tortured, and raped by a tyrant and his sons.

2007-01-12 05:55:33 · answer #6 · answered by Gipper333 3 · 1 0

No. It's called oil.

THe US is the single biggest consumer of oil in the world, and with oil men in and running the White House, the protection, for US consumption, of any and all possible sources of oil tops the list of priorities.

Remember that Israel is just about the only country in the Middle East with no oil reserves.

2007-01-12 05:46:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

with a little bit of research you will find that Israel thru AIPAC controls Americas police in almost every thing they do , and if anyone doesn't do as Israel instructs them to then they are of course not elected or reelected, just ask former gov, Connally from Texas, or senator Percy from Ill, , the other politicians got the messgage strong and clear after what the Jews did to them,

2007-01-12 05:52:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

I think you need to consider your own question from a different point of view. And then actually consider what it is you have said!

If there was no aggression against the Country of Israel and there were no belligerent groups such as Iran and their attempts to arm and fund illegitimate groups of opportunists like Ham-as, would there be any problems?

2007-01-12 05:47:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Yes. The USA gets oil From Africa and South America.

2007-01-12 05:44:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers