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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SjrQklXHxw

2007-02-06 01:07:49 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

20 answers

Hey its for the oil and always has been .

2007-02-06 01:10:45 · answer #1 · answered by -----JAFO---- 4 · 4 5

If this is all about oil, explain why we haven't started "looting" it by now. We are gaining NOTHING from the Iraq oil reserves, that money is going straight to the Iraqi government. You need better proof that youtube before you can present a good arguement.

2007-02-06 01:17:52 · answer #2 · answered by Amer-I-Can 4 · 3 1

newsflash: the US doesn't get any oil from Iraq.

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

SNIP
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

SNIP
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

SNIP
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

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. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort.

SNIP
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

2007-02-06 02:55:16 · answer #3 · answered by political junkie 4 · 1 1

The war for oil argument is disingenuous as it neglects one thing. When Iraqi oil was embargoed there was an artificial restriction on a highly in demand product, that meant US oil reserves were more valuable. Once the embargo was removed the artificial cap came off and US oil reserves became less valuable.

It is simple supply and demand. The reason we are in Iraq was because of the WMD and the 17 violations of the conditions placed on Iraq after Gulf War 1.

2007-02-06 01:19:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

it truly is glaring that typically the alternative of the gov has no longer something with the folk. notwithstanding the classic and popularity of election's result exhibits the nationwide majority's favor. So reintegrate the relation to carry the majority occupied contained in the international of a few countries.

2016-11-02 11:37:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It is called a preventitive measure.
Before G W Bush got elected, the Clintons stated flat out that Sadam Husien, was the most direct threat to the world, that he had and had used chemical, biological and other agents against his own people, and had no compunction agains using it on the world.
And let us not forget that Iraq was the THUG only a few days before we went in to Iraq.

2007-02-06 01:22:53 · answer #6 · answered by greggypoo1968 1 · 3 2

It is a terrorist breeding ground and we are there to abolish them.
If we do not try and stop them from forming a united terrorist group, we will be in major trouble here in the USA. If you think it is bad now, watch what is going to happen if we get out of IRAQ. They will then have a chance to get together and plan some major attacks AGAIN on the US. Right now we have them all scattered out and on the run so they are working in small little units!

2007-02-06 01:18:59 · answer #7 · answered by tbird 3 · 3 2

The answer is simple.

It is known as an armed reconnaissance in force. The object is to take possesion of something so valuable your enemy must sacrifice itself in total in order to regain it, or surrender the war. We have chosen the battleground, and Al-Qaeda must come to us or loose face among it's supporters.

We own the high ground on the Arab peninsula. We have divided our enemies (Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia) now all we have to do is sit and wait while Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda's supporters feed their forces peacemeal into the grinder that is the Coalition Occupying Forces until they are defeated in detail.

The invasion of Iraq is to the war on Arab Islamic Imperialism and their terrorist tactics what the invasion of Guam was to the war against Japanese Imperialism. It is a bit of land that is so close to the enemy that they cannot protect themselves unless they regain it.

2007-02-06 01:11:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Don;t they play for you on the fake news terrorists saying they are going to take over the world?
Or how they have blown up wedding parties in Pakistan and bombed places in Spain a few times
England had to ban piggy banks to not offend terrorists.
BY 2009 when the democrats are in office people are going to be crying about them bringing their terrorism over here

2007-02-06 01:14:57 · answer #9 · answered by sapphire_630 5 · 3 2

This is why:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

I think I have posted this literally a hundred times by now.

2007-02-06 03:19:28 · answer #10 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0 1

Simple - Bush wanted to finish what his father started back in 1991. (Because for reasons only known to Bush senior, he stopped us from going into Baghdad and cleaning it out the first time.)

2007-02-06 01:16:23 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers