If Bush intent was to creat a stable Iraq, why not do that for the rest of the world?

Question

It has been said we Invaded Iraq because we are the most powerful country in the world and it is our job to stabilize countries, MMMM I thought we invaded iraq becaes they had weopons of mass destruction?

There are houndreds of unstable countries in the world, many of them are here on our own contenent/ We have dictators who brutily murder people everday in South America, yet we never hear about it until its on some Hystrory channel special.

So if its americas job to tell the world they are free as long as they live the way we tell them, is it ok for us to invade countries and change there leadership to suit us?

Answer 1

Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein and finish the Gulf War. Cheney reviled and hated Saddam and was instrumental in bringing around the President to the necessity of eliminating Saddam. The alibis proferred as justification for the war such as the alleged weapons of mass destruction, absence of democracy, gross violation of human rights, embezzlement of funds from the Oil for Food scheme were all secondary. These reasons were merely a smokescreen. Iraq was neither a breeding ground for terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism nor a major threat to Israel. In fact, the country had been weakened by different wars it fought recently.
As far as America's apathy to other regimes equally or more despotic, it is because they agree to be America's stooges e.g. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan. These regimes are as undemocratic as Saddam Hussein's Iraq but they dance to the tune of America and do her bidding. Hence, they are branded as "authoritarian" and do not pose any threat to US ambitions.

Answer 2

WRONG! We invaded Iraq to stabilize the world because Saddam was a maniac and needed to be removed from power. With regard to the other dictators in South America. We cannot go invading countries at will because the rulers are murderous thugs who kill their own people. Those evil men do not possess WMD's, therefore we have no reason to declare war on them. To do so would only provide more ammo to the far leftist idiots out there who call President Bush a war monger. If that was true, we would have removed that nut over in Iran a long time ago.

Answer 3

The intent of the Iraq war was to save face after 9/11. No one outside of the US saw the logic in that but there you go. Who amongst us has ever understood what goes through the school bully's head but we've all suffered the effects. There are only 192 countries in the world not hundreds and if the US took as much interest in Africa as it did in nations bordering Israel the world would be a much nicer place.

Answer 4

they could do particularly some issues (from bringing greater food and infantrymen to bringing different international places on the table) yet why could they do it? a million. UN had implicitly rejected the belief of protection stress operations from the very initiating. Is it no longer stunning that Bush did no longer attempt to decide for a 2nd vote and used the 1st vote as an implicit referendum. 2. Bush tried to regulate all the civilian and protection stress operations after invasion (Bush at conflict - Bob Woodwards). 3. Chain of instructions have been so undesirable that even the main trusted best chum (uk) does not get all the information they could request (State of Denial - Bob Woodwards). 4. community communities have been strongly discouraged to take part in any united states construction and fairly the 1st parliament (frequently Kurds' have been asked to flow homestead as quickly as Bremer took value). 5. Bush has consistently given speech to the result that he does not want any help yet all of us is welcome to connect. Now in case you have been head of a sovereign united states, does not you have exciting gazing an smug baby-kisser get slowed down in Iraq (as Kerry had positioned it)?

Answer 5

Iraq has oil! Bush loves oil and money!

At least, my friends and I as outsiders from Asia think it that way. But I'm very impressed that SPC burn... up there who posted that he's proud to be an army and doing it to help his country to be richer and stronger. So he admitted that it's because of money and the oil.

In the Victorian time (British), they invaded many places and make them to be their colonies, because they were strong. It seems that the concept hasn't changed much. But in a little bit modern way because, members of NATO (not a single country) do it together and share the profit.

Answer 6

It is absolutely not okay though it is a dangerous precedent that has been set by this war in Iraq. However if you look at history, America has been quietly doing this to LOTS of other countries. . . only we do it with economic force as opposed to with military force. Read John Perkins Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
Every country has the right to sovereignty.

Answer 7

If Bush was intent on creating a stable Iraq, he would have taken the advice of the experts up front instead of...




well, he has never taken the advice of any experts.

Answer 8

Thats the main problem, we put our nose where it doesn't
belong. We spread our troops so thin we can hardly defend
the homeland front.
Why don't we wait until a country asks for our help then sit
down and think about whats best for THEM.

Answer 9

What economical gain do we have from other countries?

Seriously. I am in the Army, I am proud to be in the Army. But, I do not want to die in some dirtball country if it doesn't nothing to help my country. America is based on it's economy and I am proud to be apart of making it better.

Answer 10

the rest of the world might not be threating to jews / israel and don't have oil.