2007-02-20 07:43:18 · 5 answers · asked by Sean 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, George Bush has no agenda. He couldn't even pronounce agenda. He is well meaning but of limited abilities and is mistaken He equates democracy to being pro-American and so hopes to make a pro-American state in the middle east by creating a democracy.
2007-02-20 08:01:30 · answer #1 · answered by Greye Wolfe 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is a tough question to answer.
There seems to be an agenda not revealed to the American public. Whether or not it was imperialistic may be a matter of interpretation. I think for sure that it was a matter of hegemony in regards to petrodollars.
Everyone keeps saying Iraq was over oil. I don't believe so. America can easily invent its way out of the need for oil. America can't, however, invent its way out of the need for a strong dollar. The need for oil to be traded in the international commodities in dollars is important to support the value of US currency.
The US has had hegemony in the currency market until the Euro came along. If you look at the lines draw in regards to US allies in Iraq and those countries opposing US policy in Iraq, all the countries opposed to the USA have converted their currency to Euros.
So, if you come back to your imperialistic question, is it fair for the EU to take hegemony away from the US.
2007-02-20 16:07:49 · answer #2 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It wasn't illegal. Congress saw the same intelligence as Bush did and voted for the war. Bush just didn't just send a bunch of troops into Iraq on his own.
As was as being imperialistic, the U.S. has less than 1% of it's population in Iraq and no plans to settle people into Iraq. If it really wanted to be imperlistic, it would take over Mexico which also has oil. It would destroy the Mexican illegal immigration and drug problem.
2007-02-20 16:03:03 · answer #3 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since when is it illegal for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to do what it needs to do to protect it's interest overseas and eliminate potential threats to our national security? Saddam Hussein was in direct violation of UN Resolution 1441, and was warned of a deadline to comply. Only after the deadline passed, did the US respond with military force. NONE of this would have happened mind you, if Saddam had done what the United Nations told him he had to do. That's the part people like you keep forgetting. All he had to do was comply.
2007-02-20 15:50:26 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yep....it's called the New World Order.
2007-02-20 16:20:17 · answer #5 · answered by TexasRose 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋