2007-07-17 06:59:39 · 17 answers · asked by emily 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Evidence??? LOL, they are only interested in ideology not facts
2007-07-17 07:04:43 · answer #1 · answered by Wiz 7 · 5⤊ 4⤋
I would say that of all the reasons we have come up with for invading Iraq, from the link to 9-11, to an alliance with Al Qaedia, to WMD, to building a democracy, only one reason has withstood the test of time since 2003.
DRUMROLL PLEASE:
Iraq was invaded for oil.
Not very concrete evidence but it should cause anyone with an open to at least think.
2007-07-17 14:13:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
the usual case is the following:
we went to war under false pretenses. the given justification was that iraq had WMDs.
consider also that of the "axis of evil", iraq posed less of a threat to the united states than north korea.
so since iraq controls a good portion of the world's oil, taking over the country will yield rewards to the victors. it would be the perfect investment--spending someone else's money so you can benefit.
i'm not convinced by the argument, but then again, i'm more of an empirical data person.
2007-07-17 14:06:08 · answer #3 · answered by brian 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Iraq has oil -- that's it. If Iraq didn't have oil, then they wouldn't very well say that.
As far as their being no other credible reason -- Clinton left reams of paper for Bush detailing what a threat Saddam was.
2007-07-17 14:07:36 · answer #4 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is a good question. I'd like to know this aswell. I'm sick of hearing about this being just about oil. We're there fighting, regardless of the reason, show some support.
Now I'm not going to say oil doesn't play a part. We did have to guard old feilds to stop potential attacks on them by terrorists. But that's not just becasue of the U.S' economic value, it has economic value for Iraq also.
But guarding oil feilds from potential attacks, was our main mission.
In all honesty ,I'd like to se some of the answers to this question too.
2007-07-17 14:06:24 · answer #5 · answered by Sean C 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains
a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets
from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to
the US 'military intervention' is necessary."[1]
2007-07-17 14:07:28 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Oh not for oil then must be for the WMD's right? What idiot would believe we invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons? If we did, then how come we are not in Africa of Dufer because of the genocide? Give me a break!
2007-07-17 14:10:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I personally became suspicious when we were able to occupy Baghdad the only ministry that was protected from looters was the oil ministry !
2007-07-17 14:10:19 · answer #8 · answered by dadacoolone 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ha Ha. To read the responses saying "prove that we didn't" or "it just makes sense"..... I get a laugh out of it.
There is no evidence other than "gut feeling" which the liberals hate when it's not them using it.
That's it. Plain and simple. ZERO EVIDENCE. Just conjecture.
2007-07-17 14:09:48 · answer #9 · answered by macDBH 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
oil? no. The US dollar which we want used to buy oil, YES!
2007-07-17 14:07:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
None. They gotta blame somebody. Quit driving big SUVs and Trucks! And start drilling here in the states!
2007-07-17 14:04:33 · answer #11 · answered by ? 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋