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

13 answers

It was done for oil. In 1999 the US government predicted that the US economy would need 50 million barrels of extra oil per day if the economy was to keep running. Where was all that extra oil supposed to come from? Iraq, of course. Send in a bunch of weapons inspectors just to make sure they don't have a nuclear deterrent and invent a reason to invade. We put the murdering, despotic, homicidal manic in power in the first place, so it's up to us to get him out.

Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the country has sold $125 billion dollars worth of oil. Where has the money gone? And now, the Americans want to put in place a law that will allow them to exploit the oil industry further, giving the Iraqi's a PSA, an arrangement that will result in very little money from Iraqi oil going to the Iraqis. They can't leave until there is a vast improvement in security, as the big names in the oil industry won't invest until then.

So no. It had nothing to do with 'regime change', after all, if we really cared, why haven't we intervened in Darfur, or ousted Mugabe by now? It's not over.

2007-03-20 04:00:16 · answer #1 · answered by Heralda 5 · 1 0

The USA invaded Iraq in the first place because George W. Bush was convinced that Saddam was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. His other justification was that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

On the first charge of the indictment Saddam was not guilty. In fact, his secularist approach to Islam had gained him the active dislike of none other but Osama bin Ladn, who advocated his assassination and overthrow. Saddam was many things, but not a shiite extremist, and there was no evidence of any kind linking Iraq to 9/11 except that there are a lot of Arabs there.

On the second count, not guilty as well. The USA looked, and could not find any WMDs. We know that because we never heard about it, and you know if there had been even one we would have seen it every hour for three weeks on FOX news.

Despite the lies that the Bush league put out, the only justification we had was we just didn't like him, and we needed to hurt an Arab, or lots of Arabs.

As for an exit strategy, I think George wants to leave only after the poor Iraqis see the error of their ways and ask the Lord Jesus to be their Saviour. Film at eleven.

2007-03-20 00:11:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

The Coalition of the Willing went into Iraq to despose Saddam and establish a stable democracy. Step 1 was easy. Step 2 is more difficult.

2007-03-20 00:11:06 · answer #3 · answered by robot_hooker 4 · 1 0

I believe everyone won't our Soldiers home, all of them, Coalition Forces as well. G.W.B is not going to allow this to take place. Why? Not sure.

I believe we were mis-led into Iraq. Once Saddam was killed, we should have moved out then.

2007-03-24 00:00:08 · answer #4 · answered by NJ 6 · 0 0

It was to get rid of Saddam's so called WMDs, but none were found. The other was to end Saddam's tyrannical rule, and establish democracy, but they're still working on that. These were the reasons we were told about, but the real reason was the oil.

2007-03-20 03:42:24 · answer #5 · answered by nashpaty 3 · 1 1

To chang regime from Saddam to stable democracy. The democracy isn't stable yet.

2007-03-20 00:46:52 · answer #6 · answered by george j 1 · 1 1

The U.S. invaded Iraq because of oil, not WMD.

2007-03-20 03:43:10 · answer #7 · answered by liberty11235 6 · 1 1

To look for Bin Laden...thats what i thought...Bin laden was offered a billion dollars to turn himself in but he sent a video of himself saying "no way dude"

2007-03-20 00:21:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We invaded Iraq because george said god told him to. But if that is the case, why didn't god tell george that there were no weapons of mass distruction...............

2007-03-20 00:07:47 · answer #9 · answered by April 6 · 1 1

I thought you were looking for weapons of mass destruction.. You didn't find any. Why didn't you leave? Better question.... why did Australia follow you in?

2007-03-20 00:09:18 · answer #10 · answered by sconeonamission 2 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers