Why are protesters protesting the war in iraq but not in Afgahnistan or somlia or darfor or even in serbia?

Answer 1

Here is why we are in IRAQ:

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

Answer 2

This will always be a divisive issue being that there will always be those who will believe that the U.S. had no business liberating Iraq... and that Iraq was better off under a dictator rather than attempting to provide this country with an opportunity to experience freedom, i.e., living under a democratic government. It will probably be at least one generation before history will reveal if the liberation was a good thing or a big mistake. Myself, and many others, presently do not feel that the U.S. went into Iraq with arrogance to the Iraqi people. I believe that the majority of the people do appreciate their chance to live in a free country. This was demonstrated by the large numbers of them who got out and voted... even under the threat of death. As far as the protesting goes, unfortunately this is motivated by politics more so than really caring about what happens to fellow humans through out the world... hey if you hate President Bush who cares what happens to others as long as he can be made to look incompetent. Think about it darlin'.

Answer 3

DM Pete ... Because they're not REALLY anti-war as much as they're anti- President Bush.

These may be serious, peace-loving people. I mean, their concerns may be genuine. However, they're also a bit short-sighted. I think America's policies and military operations are balanced and appropriate.

How many of these loudly-outspoken protesters have written to their legislators or to the embassies of these other countries to express their concerns? I suspect few, if any.

It reminds me of my Dad. He'd complain about not liking the way my Mom prepared a certain dish. I wanted to tell him, "Well, if you're so smart, why don't YOU get up and make it yourself?" And I feel the same about the protesters. They've got a damned complaint about EVERYthing! But what have they done to try and fix things other than to spout off and make a spectacle of themselves?

They need to get their butts in gear and work on solutions other than just complaining. What is THEIR plan, I wonder???

Thanks for a good question, DM Pete.

Answer 4

Because US protesters are protesting that too many US soldiers died.
Playing wars on CNN is probably the favorite game for most of the non-protesting population.

Answer 5

Because there's a point to it. The Iraq War has been fought on cooked intelligence, with arrogance to the Iraqi people, with U.S. incompetence in the attempt to build a new government. Outside the U.S., the U.S. is seen as having instigated the whole thing, badly. Afghanistan WAS connected to 9/11 (based on terrorists involved, Saudi Arabia was the next country to suspect). Iran knew that if they said Iraq did it, Iran would be left alone. The other places have moral reasons for us to be there helping out.

Answer 6

Because protesters don't know what they're doing. They hear all about Iraq in the news so they just go and whine about it.

Answer 7

They are protesting Somalia and Afghanistan.

Ever notice how they are silent about proven enemy atrocities but will mindlessly repeat any slander about our troops?

Answer 8

Well Iraq is Mr. Bush's war of choice, I suppose. Tell me, exactly why DID we invade and occupy that weakly defended country?

Answer 9

Becuase 3000 troops have been killed in Iraq. A few were killed in Afganistan. And none, I think, were killed in other countries

Answer 10

my quess is that our president isn't directly connected to those other wars!