2007-05-26 14:22:22 · 13 answers · asked by jimmy j 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because we are supporting the UN Multional Force in Iraq.
UN Security Council resolution 1546 (2004)
extended by
UN Security Council resolution 1637 (2005).
and extended again by
UN Security Council resolution 1723 (2006).
Isn't that what the left said they wanted Bush to do, Go to the UN and support the UN ???
2007-05-26 14:31:22 · answer #1 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
We have been at war with radical Islam since Iran took our embassy people hostage during the Carter administration. We chose to ignore this disease known as international terrorism for decades. We finally realized that we are at war after the attack on 9/11. The only reason it ended up in Iraq right now is Saddam overplayed his hand. He would still be in power if he had cooperated with the UN inspectors. He liked making everyone believe he had horrible weapons. After 9/11 we could not take the chance that he did and might provide the technology to terrorists. Since we were still at war with Iraq since Dessert Storm, we took the opportunity to take out his perceived threat.
The terror supporting countries in the region realize the threat to them that a Free Iraq would pose, have been supporting the insurgency with money and sophisticated weapons. The disease of fundamentalist Islam tyranny cannot abide the cure that liberty brings to the long suffering people of the Middle East.
.
2007-05-26 21:44:22 · answer #2 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
well what is the justification of amnesty (liberals). We all thought and some still think that freedom isn't just another word for nothing else to lose but is for establish democracy in a land full of hate, slavery, and killing of people just because they don't believe in their GOD. Well these are very good reasons to be over there.
To bad people over here care more about global warming instead od millions of people being killed by the insane over there because of their beliefs which is in a bigger scale on it's self then just IRAQ. One step at a time my friend one step at a time.
2007-05-26 21:39:17 · answer #3 · answered by AFIN 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I am french...and some people say that it was necessary because of sadam=tyran and to save the world!!!... So why Bush doesn't go in north korea??? the biggest tyran of the world!!!
Maybe because there is not petrol??? no...???
2007-05-26 21:41:51 · answer #4 · answered by segostar 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋
at this point there is no justification
2007-05-26 22:10:25 · answer #5 · answered by Lindsey G 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
to take out Saddam. to take over the oil Fields and attack Iran. oops sounded like a liberal. to over throw Saddam find the wmds that everybody said he had. and kill the bad guys. but liberals say we must get along with them. let us be like the french. whops they voted in a gwb type. who says he will fight. kind of funny we have become what the french were.
2007-05-26 21:33:09 · answer #6 · answered by tentieooo 3 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Jacob W nailed this one - I have nothing further to add.
2007-05-26 21:53:35 · answer #7 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If you don't know by now you won't ever get it, untill it is too late!
2007-05-26 21:36:09 · answer #8 · answered by and socialism 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
strategic positioning.
2007-05-26 21:36:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
A lucrative business venture for defense contractors and big oil companies.
2007-05-26 21:29:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 7⤋