Do you think that the war would have started if our leaders were less greedy?
2007-02-21 11:33:34 · 6 answers · asked by oneworld 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I think Greed is somewhere at the heart of all wars... I hope that Our President didn't send thousands to fight and die for selfish reasons, I pray he is not misusing his position to fatten the pockets of his already rich friends... I hope that our soldiers are not seen by him as something that is disposable in saving his legacy as president... I really hope that he really believes everything he is saying to the American people!! I would rather believe him dense than a selfish manipulator!
2007-02-21 13:54:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't see greed as the motivation in being at war in Iraq or Afghanistan. What does Afghanistan have that we could possibly want, poppy plants?
In Iraq, it's true they do have oil, but it's wells have not been up to speed since this whole thing began, so that shoots the greed theory right square in the @ss, too!
As long as the US is as dependent on oil as it is, we will protect this resource, so from an American economy standpoint, this war was necessary. This is not to say that the political leaders who had any say so in this war, also had financial gain! This is my opinion!
2007-02-21 11:48:04 · answer #2 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only reason "greed" is even mentioned is because the liberals dont want to admit that they were against removing from power the biggest killer on the planet, one who was acting like a potential bigger threat.
Saddam already had 1-2 million dead bodies to his credit.
It was time to stop him even at a cost to the USA.
Did Hitler teach you nothing?
Probably never even heard of WWII, where more than 3000 Americans died in a week, NOT over 4 years.
2007-02-21 11:52:47 · answer #3 · answered by Dr Fred 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This has nothing to do with greed. At least not on America's part.
It is due to Saddam gassing the Kurds, (which he had to have WMD in order to do), it's about Saddam not letting UN inspectors in for YEARS. Which nobody else did anything about.
If we had let him continue - he would have gotten worse and worse. If we leave now, all that will happen is another evil dictator will be in charge and our children and their children will end up having to finish this.
2007-02-21 12:00:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
oh puhlease...is that what the pelosi ites are being told now?...you liberals never quit. perhaps open defiance of the un, the no fly zones, invasion of kuwait to take over the oil fields, the ethnic cleansing of the kurds from the face of the earth and the merciless tortue of the iraqis on an ongoing basis might have had a "little" more to do with it...
greed...LMFAO....thats rich.
2007-02-21 11:39:02 · answer #5 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
personally i think this war is about oil. bush could have picked any counry in africa that needs to be freed more than ira but none ove then had oil...... oh ya what the hell happend to afgnistan
2007-02-21 12:17:14 · answer #6 · answered by Ben 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋