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

2007-05-28 06:10:28 · 18 answers · asked by Gypsy Gal 6 in Politics & Government Military

18 answers

We unconstitutionally and illegally invaded another sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States. We did so for three arrogantly 'lame' reasons:
1) The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein ever since the days of Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was ridiculed, criticized and humiliated for 'not finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time;
2) Dick Cheney and his Exxon-Mobil buddies wanted all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands so they could get richer and richer and richer feeding America's chronic addiction to cheap, easily-accessible foreign OIL;
3) Ever since World War II, the giant U.S. military-industrial complex (which Eisenhower warned about) recognized how profitable 'war' can be. So it bought up all the politicians, hired pricey lobbyists and formed special interest groups to encourage and promote more 'war. Thus, the U.S. got involved in the Korean Conflict; the Cuban Missile Crisis; the Cold War; Vietnam and Desert Storm. A 'new' war was necessary to boost the profits of corporations like Lockheed-Martin; McDonnell-Douglass; Sikorsky, and those two 'newest' government contractors, the Carlyle Group and Halliburton (both of whom have direct ties to the Bush-Cheney White House).
The Bush administration has allowed 675,000 Iraqis and 3,400 U.S. soldiers to DIE for the sake of OIL and WAR PROFITEERING.
On this Memorial Day, we honor all of our fallen heroes - and we should be condemning George W. Bush and his associates for the atrocities, high crimes against humanity and murderous activities they have plotted ever since the very first day they assumed Office. -RKO- 05/28/07

2007-05-28 06:26:48 · answer #1 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 2 3

For about the first month of this invasion that is now called Operation Iraqi Freedom - it was actually more honestly entitled:
O peration
I raqi
L iberation

The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11 (President Bush stated this clearly in a press conference this year), Saddam is no longer alive and there were never any weapons of mass destruction (see Downing Street Memos)...so the reasons we are there, although not altogether clear, are certainly NOT for the sake of the Iraqi people.

I do not know enough to give a wise opinion, but I do feel that oil is a huge factor as well as strategic positioning in the Middle East for a possible attack on Iran.

Namaste,
Tina Louise

2007-05-28 13:41:26 · answer #2 · answered by tinalouise 2 · 0 1

There are numerous reason.

1. Saddam needed to be removed from power. He was a hindering voice against america in the middle east.

2. Saddam was also interested in genocide in his own country to keep himself in control.

3. Iraq is wealthy in oil. Not the most but have another oil wealthy ally is good.

4. It is located right next to Iran. This will help us in keeping an eye on a possible nuclear threat.

5. To have a great presence in the middle east.

This is only to name a few. Any number of answer is right but ony one is wrong.

2007-05-28 13:23:15 · answer #3 · answered by Big Stan 2 · 3 0

There are a number of reasons and perceptions about reasons about why we went to war in Iraq. In the end, it seems unlikely that any one factor will prove to be "the reason."

Of course, the President outlined a number of factors that went into his decision making. Many of which have proven incorrect (e.g. weapons of mass destruction, links between Iraw and the terrorists who attacked the U.S.). In the end, it seems likely that the most obvious answer will prove to be the correct answer (as usual). Specifically, after September 11, the President and his administration decided to "go on offense" against terrorism. Their first actions into Afghanistan seemed largely useful and still condoned by most Americans. As for Iraq, it seems likely that the President decided to expand his efforts against terror from the specific group which attacked the U.S. to include a more global notion of terrorism and terrorist sympathizers. Using this logic, at the time Iraq seemed a logical "next step." In the President's thinking, any number of terror groups would have loved to attacked the U.S., and they would love to attack the U.S. using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). If any country seemed especially likely to hand a WMD to a terror organization, at the time, Iraq seemed a likely candidate. With this in mind, the President decided to quash the threat before it manifest iteself in a WMD attack on the U.S. or U.S. allies. Clearly, the assumption that Iraq had such weapons drove much policy making. In the end, it seems a disasterous mistake.

Of course, a number of individuals suggest other motives for the President's actions (manifest in the multitude of conspiricy theories that can be found most anywhere). For example, some suggest that the President knew that Iraq had no WMD, but wanted the oil reserves of Iraq for America. This seems possible, but unlikely (Though it seems likely that if Iraq had no oil at all, the U.S. would never have concerned itself with such a country). All of the assests of the Iraqi oil industry, while valuble, would likely not have made up for the initial monetary costs of the invasion for years. Further, if the President was aware that Iraq had no WMD, he must have also been aware that his weapons inspectors would find no WMD after the war... and the lack of WMD would be a major embarassment for him right before his re-election campaign.

In the end, the reason we went to Iraq seems sadly simple. We made a collosal mistake based on errors in judgment, fear of a further attack, hasty thinking, bad or incomplete intelligence, oil, revenge, and a number of other factors. To suggest that any one of these reasons is "the" reason would be mistaken. This conflict is far more complex than most people desire.

2007-05-28 13:38:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Yes, after being defeated in the first gulf war when Iraq invaded Kuwait, they signed a peace treaty with the US in which they stated they would adhere to the stipulations put upon them in the treaty. After, a short period of time, Iraq immediately went back to it's previous ways and thumbed it's nose at the world. Refusing to allow UN inspectors to do their job and eventually kicking them out of the country. Violating the no fly zones and firing missles at US aircraft patrolling the areas, This in itself is an act of war. But the US went to the UN and a number of sanctions and acts were passed upon Iraq. After violating all 17 sanctions passed upon them and given warning after warning by the US, Iraq and Saddam were given a final ultamadem to comply or face military action. They chose to not comply yet again. Thus, the US invaded and removed Saddam from power.

2007-05-28 13:22:15 · answer #5 · answered by booman17 7 · 4 1

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.

If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it."

Howard Dean, Democratic Presidential Candidate
During an interview on "Face The Nation"
September 29, 2002

2007-05-28 13:30:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Because the Bush family is all about oil, where do you think they got their money from? Georgie just wants more money at the expense of our young people. They need to get him out of office and keep all the Bush's out of any ind of office. He is a scam artitist, or doesn't anyone remember all the voting problems that just suddenly poped up??? We never had those problems in all the history of voting. It is also a bit funny that it came down to the state his brother was also running in.
Hasen't anyone wondered why we needed 2 bushes in office at the ame time? One controls the greatest import area of illeagle drugs and the other controls everything else.

2007-05-28 13:35:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Here is my take on it ( all I ask is that you think about it you don't have to agree with me just think about it)

While in Afghanistan fighting the war on Terrorism, we found our backs to Saddam's regime, so to help the people of Iraq rid them self's of a madman who perpetrated horrendous acts on his own country men, and protect the backs of OUR service men and women we took him out. During this time we made certain promises to the IRAQI peoples that we would have their backs until such time as they could protect themselves from out side influences.

Please Support Our Troops and Civilian Contractors

These People have a job to do and are doing so with as Much Dignity, Morality, Duty, Honor and Self Sacrifice as they can Muster.

2007-05-28 13:28:10 · answer #8 · answered by ฉันรักเบ้า 7 · 1 1

Duh...evbudy knos u got their to get oil out of their land. This woz tactfully dun by tellin the wurld that u r goin to b their for the end of dictatorship n settin them free of any imposd rule. Wot woz happening to u when a country woz being dictated. U dint do any gud their either, they r same n havin even worse problems than before. Definitely no gud can b dun by hanging the president of any place..!

2007-05-28 13:28:29 · answer #9 · answered by Amy 2 · 0 1

Well of course I do. It was for money and control over natural resources, mainly oil. God bless the troops! It's not their fault.

2007-05-28 13:18:31 · answer #10 · answered by ambergail1 4 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers