Quoted from Wikipedia, "Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon" Why did we have to go to war and the why the hell with Iraq?
2007-07-11 16:13:05 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
No WMDs. Why not Saudi Arabia? Wait Bush has friends in Saudi Arabia. Oil dudes.
2007-07-11 16:15:19 · update #1
Here in Australia recently the 'gaff was blown' by our Defence Minister!..He said it WAS the oil !..Big corporates wanted control of Iraq's oil, he didnt mean to tell the truth about it, politicians never do, but sometimes it just slips out!..His statement even made primetime news in the USA!..Panic occured rapidly and Prime Minister John Howard, and half a dozen others had to go into denial mode!..They said it had "Nothing whatever to do with oil"!..But the truth is now well and truly out, Its clearly a war of sheer corporate greed, and all these people have died so they can control Iraq's oil!..
2007-07-11 16:28:46 · answer #1 · answered by paranthropus2001 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Because Bush assumed that it might possibly be that Saddam was hatching his revenge against the US and didn't want to take the chance he'd equip al qaeda with the tools to hurt us bad. Turns out, Saddam wasn't the threat Bush (and me too I admit) thought he was. You cannot deny that the world is better without him. Thank your Lord he didn't run Russia or China. What do we do now besides maintain it as a giant US military base at the cost of lives? Its easy to blame Bush (mostly because HE BLEW IT!) But what could we have done, and whathahek we do now?
2007-07-11 16:27:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Saddam Hussein had put out a contract on Geo. Bush Sr. after the first Gulf War to keep Iraq from invading Kuwait.
He continually rattled his sabre and implied that he had WMD - and we were frightened and we were powerful enough to strike out at a perceived threat with a massive preemptive strike; and, I'm sorry to say - I guess we didn't learn the lesson of Vietnam. Although I think we went in with the best of intentions - we can't fight their civil war. We keep saying we have a volunteer army, but sending our precious soldiers back time and again - is conscription after the fact, is it not?
Sorry to be on my soapbox - but losing friends in Vietnam and now watching friends lose children in another non-war is too painful not to speak up.
Yes, I support our soldiers - yes, I love my country - especially my right to disagree with the leadership. I am proud that our soldiers are willing to serve, I just wish they didn't have to die to preserve the illusion of "might makes right".
Soapbox retired for the evening.
2007-07-11 16:31:29 · answer #3 · answered by Patti R 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
A good question to ask
George Bush
Hillary Clinton
Nancy Pelosi
they have the official intelligence reports. They know why they voted for it. It's funny how the dems now try to distance themselves from a decision they made. A report they had, viewed and agred with the prez to go to war.
Call your sentaor and ask them.,
2007-07-11 16:21:09 · answer #4 · answered by Dawn M 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Don't be foolish:
1) Attacked an ally (Kuwait) who asked for our help;
2) Attacked another ally (Israel) by paying the families of suicide bombers to attack civilians, doing so on national T.V.;
3) Attempted the assassination of one of our Presidents;
4) Attacked our troops repeatedly during the decade long cease-fire;
Some of my party (Democratic) repeatedly tried to associate it with al-Qaida as if that was what President Bush had said it repeatedly and often. It was a silly simplification.
You're still doing it. It doesn't speak well of you.
2007-07-11 16:26:36 · answer #5 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
You know, if Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, I'd have no explanation as to why Abu Abbas was living there openly, or why the families of Palestinian suicide bombers got piles of Iranian cash.
But the invasion had more to do with Iraq violating a "few" UN resolutions than terrorism.
2007-07-11 16:23:05 · answer #6 · answered by open4one 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Lavadog answered your question...in detail...he drew you a map, so that any fool could follow and understand....
he tried to teach you history...tried to give you truth...and you dismiss it with the comment "oil"....
to quote once again, an oft quoted man...
"Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
2007-07-11 16:46:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Bush this, Bush that; you people have no idea what your talking about. Iraq has very little to do w/ 9/11 if anything, and CONGRESS (even your little Democrat buddies) voted to invade Iraq in 2001.
We didnt go to War w/ Iraq, we fought w/ Saddam's Regime and kicked there @sses; now were just dealing w/ some ragtag Muslims that are too stuborn to accept Democracy.
2007-07-11 16:20:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋
Basically, Bush wanted to be a "War President", like his daddy was. He would have invaded Canada if Cheney had told him to.
2007-07-11 16:22:19 · answer #9 · answered by Resident Heretic 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I will paraphrase Lavadog's response :
O I L
2007-07-11 16:20:41 · answer #10 · answered by Frank S 3 · 2⤊ 5⤋