Lets face it Iraq and Saddam, were never a threat to us, but they were to Israel.
During the next fifty years we will do the same to Iran and Syria, guaranteed because they also pose a threat to Israel.
Obviously American media and government wont tell you this, including people in this very question. However masses of people in other countries already know this, but they cant do anything about it. That’s why its important to research for yourself.
Front Page Mar 31, 2004
Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official By Emad Mekay
WASHINGTON - Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States, but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.
Inter Press Service uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the US in September 2001 - the 9/11
http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/title3.htm#GREATER%20ISRAEL
2007-02-28
04:43:50
·
19 answers
·
asked by
crimson f
1
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
if youre going to joke about this, dont bother responding.
2007-02-28
04:44:21 ·
update #1
Bush is a total idiot, useless waste of space. the US dient invade to protect anything. this war is useless. and we all know it. hope the next guy that takes the presidency isnt as stupid and stops the killings of innocent young that thought signing up for the war was the right thing to do.
2007-02-28 04:48:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
i think oil, and "dubya" finishing what his old man started, also played a part in the invasion of iraq.
the world is probably a better place without saddam hussein, but is iraq really any better off? the place is a mess now.
one thing i don't understand is rebellion and militia ... if they want the soldiers out the best thing to do is lay low and behave, once things appear stable the soldiers will leave, but if you keep attacking them they'll just reinforce and stay longer. duh!
iran and syria are definitely potential targets next.
isn't it interesting that north korea was identified in the axis of evil, but thus far the west have been less willing to pick a fight with them because they now have a nuclear deterrent.
also, afghanistan was reputedly all about reprisal for 9/11 however it also has strategic oil potential ... how convenient.
look at how iran is sandwiched between iraq and afghanistan ... america now has two prime staging posts for a double headed attack!
personally i think israel is the biggest threat in the region, look at all the trouble it's caused ... if it wasn't there i'm sure the other countries in the area would just go about their business.
2007-02-28 04:56:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by brightspark 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
you need a little one to bring back the confidence in the ability of the administration to conduct a well executed invasion.
I would say the Falkland islands. It would be a war won in an afternoon. While everybody is cheering in the streets and celebrating you can break the news that Iran is next. The American people need to be brought back to the glory of war ideology before accepting another one.
2007-02-28 04:56:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by smedrik 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
We are poised and ready to strike Iran at the click of President Bush's fingers. My best guess is that we will have fighter planes there hitting targets by the end of March. I HOPE I am wrong. Tune into BBC News to learn more.
2007-02-28 04:52:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by Elizabeth J 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Saddam was also a threat to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
He invaded Kuwait during the gulf war.
Please tell me something, why is it a problem to you that we might want to protect the national interests of isreal from a genocidal dictator? If it bothers you that we liberated Kuwait, you never mention in it. If it bothers you that we helped the 8 years war reach a stalemate, that is also not mentioned.
So, with so many other countries in the region, why isreal?
2007-02-28 04:49:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by The_Music_Man 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
How about invading Aruba?
We can do this on the pretext of trying to locate that missing blond girl.
What was her name Holloway - or something like that?
And they don't have any Army, Navy, or a Police Force that amounts to anything!
2007-02-28 04:51:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
How about some more "humanitarian" bombings on the Serbs? You dems get off on blasting people into oblivion for those "causes". Hmmm,I don't seem to recall Milosevic attacking us.
2007-02-28 04:51:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by Got a light Leo? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Now that 0bama is in the White homestead,all invasions are directed by utilising the UN and ecu Union.we at the instant are formally the lap canines of the "international community",that's the sole reason we are in Libya. August
2016-10-02 02:58:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by borgmeyer 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe that Iran is next on the list.
2007-02-28 04:48:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by flieder77 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Is ther one that we haven't invaded?? Maybe Finland. Maybe Taiwan. Let's just spin the globe and point...
2007-02-28 04:47:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋