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

They obviously made a mistake with the Iraq war, and they are being punished for it through the international hatred towards them. But surely they are still human beings? I just can't believe that they conciously made the decision to go to war on the basis of money-grabbing...

2007-01-17 03:15:33 · 17 answers · asked by tituseast 2 in News & Events Current Events

17 answers

Nope...the Clinton's backed the decision to take out Sadam. This wasn't just an evil Bush administration thought up plan. Bill Clinton suggested taking Sadam out back in 1998. George W. just finished the job.

In 1998, Bill Clinton called for regime change in Iraq by saying the following...

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

2007-01-17 03:27:37 · answer #1 · answered by BAM 7 · 1 1

They went to war in order to find a scapegoat for 9/11 and because they had too many unsolved problems at home.
Remember the Bush election just got him in on a recount in Florida

They are other evil men in the world Mugabe and the Chinese leaders. BUT THEY NEED THEIR TRADE.
They opened up Pandora's Box when we took on the middle east bringing more dangers to the Country.
Now Blair is on his Global Warning trike ,which is only an excuse to increase tax on Cars and Aircraft.Mind you the Media just Fuel his campaign(excuse the pun)

While the Home Office lose track on unofficial immigrant and when we do find them we are not allowed to send them home (see human rights laws from Brussels).
NHS gets rid of Nurses to pay for White collars and Con sultans and Doctors from abroad to work weekends.
Both Blair and Bush have only self interest.

2007-01-17 05:35:46 · answer #2 · answered by cowboy 2 · 0 0

Oh yes they ARE, if not vicious enough, then certainly guilty enough! Not altogether because of oil. The UK and USA believed that Saddam had WMDs because they had supplied them. And executing Saddam before the trial concerning the 100'000 Iraqi Kurds who were killed during the Iran/Iraq war, many of them gassed with chemicals supplied by European countries, must be one of the biggest cover-ups in recent history.

2007-01-17 03:39:16 · answer #3 · answered by cymry3jones 7 · 1 0

No they weren't. And it was all about Sodamn Insane, not oil. The man was nuts, he was a threat to everyone, the putrid UN wouldn't do its job, so we tried. But you can rejoice now; the pro terror party controls congress now and will do every thing they can to ensure America's defeat in Iraq for purely partisan reasons (No Republican must succeed at anything, whatever the cost!!). I take scant comfort in the thought that the coming catastrophe will consume us all, liberal and conservative alike....

2007-01-17 09:00:34 · answer #4 · answered by Mad Roy 6 · 0 0

Punished !!!!!!!!!!
They are both still in power and earning a lot of cash.
This alone would seem to prove they are human beings.
I would hardly call this punishment as thousands have lost their lives both Iraqi and our own soldiers and continue to do so.

2007-01-19 04:06:13 · answer #5 · answered by james j 2 · 0 0

When are soft pillocks like you going to stop mythering everyone about this? You are in the minority. Most people agreed with going to this country to stop the tyranical reign of Hussein and to reinforce this point there has been a general election since this all happened and the same government was returned by the majority, so stop bleating like a traitor and start supporting our troops who are at the sharp end.

2007-01-17 03:29:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

I just cant believe that you are actually taking a stab at a back hand insult your too stupid to pull it off. The majority of us here are smart enough to actually use the Internet to find out the facts and then use them to form our own opinions why do you want to buck that trend? Stop polluting the gene pool and do some real looking for the facts before you try this type tactic again.

2007-01-17 03:26:02 · answer #7 · answered by crawler 4 · 2 2

Take your head out of the sand. Just look where they have built the military bases in Iraq. It's all about the OIL just like in Vietnam. Only thing in Vietnam it was about he rubber.

2007-01-17 03:29:43 · answer #8 · answered by Monty L 5 · 0 1

I think the oil factor was a big motovation, but more in the context of what it would mean in the area.

I think another big issue is that G Bush Snr did not get Saddam removed............

Look who took over (after Clinton) and who was responsible for launching Iraq............

Junior.......finishing of Daddy's work.

2007-01-17 03:44:40 · answer #9 · answered by David 5 · 2 1

Okay, I'm not sure how to answer this question. Bush and PM Blair didn't go to war "for oil." They were/are fighting a war against terror. We are over there fighting the war so we don't have to fight it over here on our own lands.

2007-01-17 03:26:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers