The Bushies decided to go to war even before Bush was elected. War President's, you see, have many special powers (intelligence gathering extras, funding extras, etc.) that president's don't normally have. Plus, Karl Rove knew that wartime presidents almost always get reelected. So, that makes it a win-win.
The Bushy neocons (including Cheney and Rumsfeld) had previously decided that Iraq was the perfect warzone, since Saddam had, within recent memory, invaded Kuwait and was in violation of the UN resolutions. Besides, they were a little chagrined that they (Cheney and Rummy) had had a hand in putting and keeping Saddam in power, and now here he was acting like a tyrant. Go figure.
Then there's the oil in the ground....a win-win-win, I suppose.
So, the Iraq war had and has nothing to do with WMD, or 9-11, or "spreading democracy" or any of the other silly excuses Bush puts forth. We're there as a political ploy for more power and money.
2007-01-22 09:57:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by lucyanddesi 5
·
2⤊
4⤋
9/11 was a nation shaking event that should've been handled through apprehension and prosecution. Instead Bush went after bin-Laden, and couldn't find him. So he began a campaign to "liberate" Afghanistan from from the Taliban. Something the Russians couldn't do in 9 years of trying. So, next he tapped into paranoia and claimed Saddam had WMD. None were found. So he took Saddam, had a phony trial, and botched a couple executions, and here we are. The Iraqi's could've taken out Saddam, but now we have to wonder if his iron fist isn't what held the country together. we have killed a lot more Iraqi's than he did - and in a far shorter time. no one will cry for Saddam because of his murderous approach to peace. what will the world think of us?
2007-01-22 10:06:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Isn't it great to play arm chair quarterback and keep criticizing someone after you know the outcome. H E L L you are all Genesis by doing this. Why didn't anyone stand up and scream this after we were attacked on 9-11. It is so easy to act like you know what is going on after the game is going on. Put your self in Bush's shoes after 9-11 and then tell me what you would do. You just had 3000 Americans killed. The terrorist were able to bring America to there knees that day. We shut down all airlines in the USA. The stock market closed and an entire country was fearful of every step they took. Now what would you do?
2007-01-22 10:12:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by tbird 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Chemical weapons are in the class of WMD and we found lots there.We are there because of the same reason the Bay of Pigs happened....bad intell.We went into Afghanistan looking for the bad guys .We and our Allies are still there,some of the bad guy's captured told us of the evil in Iraq....and the WMD.We still had need of taking out more Terrorists and Saddam WAS ONE.We are still there trying to quick bandage a country that will take years of growing pains to fix........Your hot
2007-01-22 10:17:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
the recent events in the middle east were spawned due to the understanding that radical islamic fundamentilists were a danger to US citzens and property. these fundamentilists come from all over the Arab world, as it stood after 911 there was one direct link to the AL Qeada terrorist network which was Afghanistan. we invaded afghanistan and quickly "neutralised" that taliban goverment (which coincidentally came about because of american politics in the 80's).
the fear that spread throught the united states paralyised the nation, the intelligence sommunites scrambled because no one had paid much attention to this threat coming out of the middle east. later on the invasion of iraq was considered, due to the fact that Saddam Hussien repeatedly borke UN resolutions and was belived to be making WMD's (as he already proved he had in the 80's when he gassed his own citzens). thus combined with the present day attitude led politicans to become fearful they decided to act. thus the invsion of iraq.
albiet were not "still" at war with iraq. were in the middle of a civil war, we had already elminated the Iraqi army, held military control over its cities, as well as removed its legally constitued goverment. we then set about "rebuilding" a new interm goverment was formed in 04-05, and latter a consitution was drafted along with a new goverment elected. right now the only reasons americans are dieing is because were still here amidst a civil war between Shai and Sunni muslims. US soldiers are attempting to stem the secritarian violence but its no easy with politicans dictating orders to us, as well as having to respect the sovreignity of the new Iraqi goverment. (and people who want to argue that point, join the army get over here and find out for yourself they hold deter us as much as the enemy)
one of the other reasons were still here is in 04-05 a mission statement was put out "that all militas in iraqi had to be disbanned" this never happened so thats a main contributor to the instability that now rocks the country. its that there in the middle of a civil war, and once again the soldiers are there on the frontlines trying to restore order to a country gone mad
2007-01-22 10:33:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by trionspectre666 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
first off, your bomb as hell!
to answer your question, Iraq has alot of oil. Iraq was planing on selling all that oil to europe and asia. saddam even switched from the american dollar to the european euro as his regular trade currancy. america didn't like the fact that it's competion was going to get all that oil. so bush decided the best way to control that oil and make america rich and powerful was to take out saddam ( a man who doesn't like america) and install a government that does like america.
that's pretty much why the world doesn't support bush. if america wouldn't have invaded all those other countries would get way better deals on oil.
but to engage in war bush needed a better reason then money and power. so he just claimed saddam has WMD becuase of muslim phobia it was easy to swallow. he basicall took advantage of us to hopefully make sure america stays #1. he had somewhat nobel intentions, but he was ethicaly wrong. and that is why the war is bad.
why we didn't win is a whole nother storey...
but that's just a simplified version. i've been studying international relations and polotics aty aschool for awhile now, if you'd like to know more details feel free to contact me.
ps. i'm not as ugly as my picture suggests.
2007-01-22 09:58:14
·
answer #6
·
answered by sapace monkey 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who mass murdered his own people. He had ties with Al Queida, and his WMD's were probably sent to Iran or Syria before the USA could invade.
2007-01-22 09:54:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Get a brain. I suggest you buy a few books on the subject and read them with an open mind. Clearly this will be difficult as you have been thouroughly brain-washed by the liberal media and the democratic party. Wake UP Hunny. We are at WAR.
2007-01-22 12:01:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by quarterback 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Hmmmm.
I guess for peace in the middle east.
The real question should be, Why are we still at war with Iraq?
Saddam is dead and why are we still there?
2007-01-22 09:56:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by Cuddly Lez 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
This has been reported on the news every single day for over 4 years.
How did you miss it?
IT'S ALL ABOUT SAND.
(The EPA will no longer allow us to use sand from our own deserts. We are shipping it by the tons from Iraq.)
When we get through, Iraq will just be a big whole in the desert.
2007-01-22 09:56:04
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋