2007-06-05 23:10:17 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We did not invade Iraq to defend our freedom. Saddam was not a threat to us but Bush hated him because he thought his father lost face due to Saddam. Bush made plans to invade Iraq long before 9/11 and after 9/11 used that as an excuse to get even richer by war profiteering and stealing up to $15,000,000 PER DAY worth of oil from Iraq.
Even Bush now admits that Iraq wasn't connected to 9/11 but that "Saddam was evil and the people needed rescuing". Of course now they have no hospitals, no schools, no electricity, no telephones, etc. but we "rescued" them. Hell, we even gave them a civil war. Free. Just out of the goodness of Bush's heart. Or whatever that is in his chest.
2007-06-05 23:22:46 · answer #1 · answered by lcmcpa 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
It wasn't defense of freedom but a fear of being attacked. Does a country have the right to intervene after its been attacked?
A better question would have been: Does a country has a right to imposed its political philosophy on a country it has conquered.
Answer: Freedom and invasion are very difference words; it seems strange to defend freedom by invading.
2007-06-05 23:42:48 · answer #2 · answered by J. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think that this 'freedom defending' is huge bullsh**...
it's just an excuse for the US to invade whatever country they want to...
don't be fooled... this is not about freedom... at least not primarily... look at Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, Sudan (Darfur).. who defended freedom of those slaughtered people?
I'm not saying the US should be fixing other country's problems... but then be consistent... the US can't say... we're all concerned about Iraqis freedom and not Sudanese freedom... the US seems to care only about countries that have oil or something else to offer...
2007-06-06 00:57:04 · answer #3 · answered by bustedsanta 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
well im not sure which country ur talking about but i have a pretty good idea that its the United States so I will base my answer upon that thought. by taking military action aganist other countries we are stopping something that could either affect us eventually or already does or is harmful to our allies or smaller countries that cannot defend themselves. if it wasnt for the United States the French wouldnt be French and the would be speaking german. and what about kuwait if we wouldnt have went there and helped them then who knows where saddam would have stopped he could have turned into another hitler. United States is a powerful enitity with top of the line technology so we feel its our responsibility and duty to help bring peace to all. and sometimes bringing peace means u have to fite the ones who dont want peace.
2007-06-05 23:20:19 · answer #4 · answered by queeniez71 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
In the case of the U.S. I think it was a very astute move. Islam is a blight on the world and is the root of it's destruction.
It is a religion delivered by Satan to a pedophiliac killer with no conscience.
2007-06-06 00:53:18 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
for example, Turkey wants to enter the North Iraq because of PKK Terrorism, but, the US refuses it. on the other hand, the US invaded Iraq without security reason. Al qaida or other islamists did not live in Iraq
2007-06-05 23:36:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think a proactive country like that is probably still free and serious about protecting its citizens.
2007-06-05 23:36:51 · answer #7 · answered by tttplttttt 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hitler did it to ensure the preservation of German "lebensraum", and we didn't think too much of them when he did it.
I guess it's okay though when it's us doing it.
2007-06-05 23:19:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Terroists came to America Kill innocent working people deserve invasion.
2007-06-05 23:14:19 · answer #9 · answered by ThorGirl 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋