akmed is a yahoo answer user.
2007-07-18 11:20:37 · 11 answers · asked by bbbbriggs04 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
urrrh from Iraq. And I'm not even high.
2007-07-18 11:25:15 · update #1
is that you banov?
2007-07-18 11:26:22 · update #2
It's as good a place as any. I mean, Pakistan would be worse because it might lead to the destabilization of that country and the capture of it's nuclear forces by sympathizers. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, or Egypt would be bad choices because they're comparatively friendly. Iran would be a bad choice because it has a relatively strong military. Syria would have garnered even more support from the rest of the Arab world than did Iraq, so that would've been a bad spot as well.
Obviously, America is a less than desireable battle ground, due to the presence of, well, voters, who might be disconcerted by running gunbattles outside thier window or being blown up by carbombs.
2007-07-18 11:27:28 · answer #1 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Akmed is a troll who can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a tire.
2007-07-18 11:24:04 · answer #2 · answered by Truth 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because now that Iraq is a destabilized mess it's literally a bottomless pit into which we can pour money.
This makes it the PERFECT vehicle for funnelling hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of Bush/Cheney cronies who own large portions of oil companies and military contractors.
Best of all is that those folks get their money NOW and can invest it immediately so as to amass even MORE wealth, even though there is no money actually available. Instead we just issue more government debt that future generations will have to struggle with.
This serves the dual purpose of enriching the powerful NOW, while permanently keeping the average folks strapped!
2007-07-18 11:29:20 · answer #3 · answered by Whoops, is this your spleeen? 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Dennis Miller the conservative comedian/commentator once explained it as, Osama Bin Laden doesn't have an address but Saddam Husein did. Guess that is as good an explanation as any.
2007-07-18 11:32:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can you guarantee without a shadow of a doubt that Iraq had and continues to have NOTHING to do with attacks?? I didn't think so ...so why take the chance...my moto is kill them all and let God sort it out...f*ck them before they f*ck us
2007-07-18 11:26:58 · answer #5 · answered by lcplyr7 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Now you're asking the $4billion dollar question that no one in charge wants to answer.
2007-07-18 11:30:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
akmed is actually a redneck from alabama, pay no attention to him.
2007-07-18 11:23:47 · answer #7 · answered by PD 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Iraq was the easiest country to invade at the time, and they have lot's of oil.............
2007-07-18 11:25:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
dude you need to educate yourself!
2007-07-18 11:50:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no clue
2007-07-18 12:14:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋