2007-05-31 14:26:57 · 16 answers · asked by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
its just a convenient argument for the cons one that makes no sense but that never mattered to them in the first place
2007-05-31 14:29:51 · answer #1 · answered by Unfrozen Caveman 6 · 4⤊ 7⤋
Technically, for it to be a valid reason, the UN would have to have approved the action, which, unlike the first Gulf War, it didn't.
It was a reason, it was one of many, none of the stated ones very good, but the War was aproved by Congress none the less, and Saddam is history.
2007-05-31 14:30:34 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Hi,
I am sure you already know that the reason you specify in your question is just window dressing, or the politics of perception, for starting the war in Iraq. The world is running out of oil, and George Bush found a weak-spot in the oil-rich Middle East region and exploited it. Now it turns out that Iraq may be the mother-load of oil that Bush/Cheney knew about in advance. German intelligence reports that Bush/Cheney have a 6 year plan that was worked out in advance of September 11, 2001 for staying the course in Iraq.
A good friend of mine from high school is currently in Iraq working for KBR. He reports to me that billions are being spent on drilling new oil wells, making new pipelines, and purchasing American equipment from the likes of Caterpilliar and others for top dollar. I have read reports that the major oil players in Iraq are essentially stealing the Iraqi oil and sending to America were massive profits can be made and are being made.
Another major reason to start a war in the Middle East for oil was to remove China from the region. They are flush with our dollars and were buying oil concessions like a drunken sailor. The Iraq war removed them from the region, but not the Caspian region, another geographic region that is ready to explode, and they are now buying their way through Africa like wildfire, purchasing oil concessions, loaning dollars to African countries, and superceding the World Bank in loans to Africa. I am sure Africa will be the host to a proxy war between China and America soon enough. There are billions to be made in the stock market if you know what defence corporations to invest in, and so on.
Well, that's all I have to say about that.
Good night and good luck.
2007-05-31 14:44:56 · answer #3 · answered by fenx 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because it's the only global forum for disputes. The US has been pretty adept at getting "endorsements" for action which provide a patina of international legitimacy for our pre-ordained military adventures.
2007-06-01 04:29:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymoose 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The thing I always found interesting was that when the US went to the UN for approval to go to war against Iraq the UN denied it!
So we went AGAINST the UN!
But it's OK for us to defy the UN ...but not OK for Iraq to deny the UN?????
2007-05-31 14:33:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
isreal violates plenty of UN regulations and bush doesn't invade them
"only one nation has the balls to do what is right "
LMAO
Squawks the yellowbellied chickenhawk as he hides behind a keyboard in his momma's basement! Why isn't he in iraq fighting?
2007-05-31 14:34:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
only Republicans argue against the UN
2007-05-31 14:38:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because they are 2 separate issies.
2007-05-31 14:31:55 · answer #8 · answered by goodtimesgladly 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
there is no such thing as UN violations. He broke the treaty that ended the first gulf war
2007-05-31 14:33:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
At times, UN is convenient!
2007-05-31 14:30:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
That is not why we took out Saddam. Do you read?
2007-05-31 14:29:36 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋