dont u listen to GW bush ?? for weapons of mass destructoin LMAO !!!! HAHAHAHHA !!!
2007-04-20 20:03:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by lady26 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
To destroy the cradle of civilization and pretend civilization began elsewhere. Iraq is the oldest civilization. Some of it's artifacts were stolen under Bush Sr in 1990. Bush Jr. decided to loot the museum and destroy what his goons and henchmen could not carry.
Killing people who are not the same race, religion or language group.
Killing Iraqis
Destroying Iraq
Destroying evidence that civilize people did not emerge from Europe.
Making his buddies rich, destroying Iraq and "rebuilding it".
Making his brain (Dick Cheney) rich through manipulating the price of oil.
Seizing Iraq's oil and the money generated from the oil is less than inflating the price at home.
Adding military bases in Iraq so it would be easier to perform the same tasks in Iran, Pakistan and the former Soviet regions that have oil.
To achieve Dick Cheney's goal of world domination.
2007-04-21 03:56:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by lostinchicago 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
If it was for oil we'd invade Canada they have potentially more oil than Saudi Arabia.
Bush figured Saddam was a kook with the potential to develop WMD's and wanted to go preemptive on him but Saddam was stupid enough to play into his hands.
Saddam was a has been after Kuwait his intellegence agency had tried many times to get revenge on the US and failed miserably each time. Iraqi Intellegence agents make the Keystone Cops look like James Bond. Saddam could be contained and rendered useless after all his own scientists who were suppossed to be making Saddam bombs were taking his money and lying about new weapons and Saddam fell for it as did the rest of us.
Bush thinks he's doing well and although Iraq is giving "HateAmericawannabemartyrs" another reason to join Al Queda the group is losing resources and getting desperate ,sure everyone wants Osama to get perished but he'll just be replaced right now Hezzbollah is a bigger threat.
If i were Bush i'd have placed Iraqi scientists on the CIA payroll, get rid of homeland security and model a new program after Britain's intellegence agencies, start using the mass media in the Middle East to get some truth out there about us (there are people in Egypt who think the US gives special treatment to Israel when we send the same amount of money to both countries plus they think Jews make up 80% of the US population) help set up more secular schools in Islamic countries and work with Jordan and Israel to eliminate Hezzbollah. I would also work with reformists in Iran to get rid of that countries hardliners when you talk to Iranian youth they're not very happy with a lot of what's going on there and i think that Iran will change from within but a little help wouldn't hurt.
Post Iraq War i would let the Kurds setup a new nation Kurdistan in northern Iraq and like the allies did with Germany split Iraq in two with the US controlling one part and the UN controlling the other.
2007-04-21 03:32:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by sprydle 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
The French and Russians fought us all the way because French and Russian companies "own" the oil. They were afraid that the war would disrupt their profits (which it did big time). If (and only if) oil was one of the reasons, it was because of a fear of nationalization and blackmail via withholding oil to certain countries. While this would have little direct affect on the USA since we use very little Middle Eastern oil, the Japanese, European, and Chinese economies could be crippled in short order (we did that to the Japanese prior to WWII which gave them no choice but to take oil for themselves in Indonesia). That would cause the entire international system to implode and the radical Islamacists could relax because the new dark ages would arrive. That would definitely make oil a proper reason for the war as it definitely affects world security.
2007-04-21 04:49:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Caninelegion 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I used to think oil thing is jus cliche, but it isn't. It really is geopolitcal strategy to secure energy source, but I'm not sure if we're even doing that. With Iraq in such a mess now. Only other reason is that people don't want to be responsible for what might happen in Iraq if we leave. And no one can be for sure what might happen if we leave. It might stay same, get better, get worse. Nobody knows. Lucky for Bush he gets to leave office with 'surge' so he can tell the next guy(or girl) that he did everything he could.
2007-04-21 03:14:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
After 911, the American people (minus a small handful of democrats in congress) decided that it was unwise to leave a madman in charge of Iraq. It was decided that it would be better for humanity and the Iraqis if the people were allowed to run the country rather than a sadistic lunatic. Because most of the American people are willing to sacrifice and take responsibility for their actions, we are trying to give them the opportunity for stability.
2007-04-21 03:28:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by bravozulu 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
there is no such thing as other than oil the american men and women should be sent home let the friends of bush dig the oil themselves.
2007-04-21 03:04:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
it seems to be looking that way because all the other objectives that were stated as reasons for going to war have been proven or disproven and yet the troops are still there... just my opinion, no one has to agree with me.
2007-04-21 03:05:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by Fred K 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
have you seen the movie " Star Wars" just see Darth Vader .
you'll understand why?
its the greed my dear .
2007-04-21 03:06:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by s_fouad 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
we are there to " protect the citizens of america from the very bad terrorists and.... zzzzzzzzzz
lady 26 : u made me laugh....
2007-04-21 03:08:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by killeur killeur 6
·
0⤊
1⤋