English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-07-19 13:57:04 · 24 answers · asked by razawire 4 in Politics & Government Military

some people it seems will believe any **** shovelled down there throats

2007-07-19 15:32:08 · update #1

and brad your both a moron and patronising,nice mixture

2007-07-19 15:32:58 · update #2

24 answers

What country wouldn't send all their best weapons out of the country to be held by their mortal enemies just before being invaded by a superpower?

2007-07-19 14:17:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

The reason purely and simply is oil.
Iraq- 2nd largest oil reserves.
Afghanistan- strategic access to central Asian oil and gas reserves. The Soviets identified 15 highly viable commercial site in 1971. Now a Ukrainian company is exploiting one site for 10-15 billion tonnes of gas per year.

The US and UK need IRaq and Afghanistan for energy stability- otherwise Russia and Iran will dominate the market as they already do.
Furthermore the US currency is declining rapidly as Iran, Russia and Venezuela (world's top 3 oil producers) now demand payment in anything other than US dollars.
Thus there are major issues including finance and economics at play too.
IF the US dollar devaluates too far- the US will loose trillions in its assets.
The Euro increasingly appears to be set to be the global currency- and the greenback a second fiddle to the Yen.

Now with all the trouble in Iraq- why is nuclear power being promoted and energy self reliance?
Today the US announced it will be foreign oil free by 2050.

The furnace of the world economy- principally the US is an oil-burner.
Japan and China are clever enough to be manufacturing based.

The issue always was oil. Not a simple, single issue- but an extremely complex and inter-linked one.

2007-07-20 06:30:11 · answer #2 · answered by B.o.B 2 · 0 0

Do people seriously believe that Iraq had WMD.

The first rule of war: If you're back's up against the wall & you can't win get nasty & hit the enemy with everything you've got.

So Saddam being the tyrant, despot and feckin bad boy he was decided not to use WMD on allied forces because he was such a gent did he?

He was losing the war so he sent them off by courier service to Syria because he wanted to keep them safe & warm did he?

The fact that spy satellites failed to detect any mass movement of missiles in Iraq before, during or after the war seems to be lost on those who have succumbed to the outpourings of the propoganda machine.

Open your eyes people. If he'd had them, believe me, he'd have feckin used them!!

2007-07-20 03:41:07 · answer #3 · answered by one shot 7 · 1 0

Why would you think they didn't move their WMD's before the invasion? Are you an authority on Saddam Hussein ? Tell me, were you aware that he flew his entire air force to Iran prior to Desert Storm, rather than let the US destroy them ? That should tell you a little bit about the guy and what he was capable of doing. It should also tell you that history does repeat itself.

In this case Saddam thought his Desert Storm maneuver was a success even though he never saw those aircraft again. People will usually try something a second time, if they were successful the first time.

I believe you have your head swirling with political propaganda and this is what is disrupting your thinking process. You are a classic example why military action and politics should never be inter-twined.

2007-07-19 14:33:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

What make ME 'believe' that these weapons WERE in existence, is the fact that our own, under cover, "Special Forces" saw them and reported the sightings back to Tony Blair. Of course, in the meanwhile, they'd been hidden, and the search for them would, as it did turn out, have been as futile as trying to find a needle in a haystack. The truth will out eventually!!

2007-07-20 10:05:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Look, Sadam was no saint but the report presented by Blair was a huge fake and he admitted that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. This was all a great business operation mastered by Bush and his family and the other participating countries are doing so because they want a share of the booty. people have died, people give their lives everyday on both sides just for people like Bush and Bin Laden to make more money and gain more power than they already have; the whole world is tearing apart meanwhile. Wake up world!

2007-07-19 14:10:03 · answer #6 · answered by Der weiße Hexenmeister 6 · 2 3

Hi
I don't want to get into politics about this but don't get the idea that all weapons of mass destruction are big mother f..king rockets, a weapon of mass destruction can fit into the palm of your hand, poisons,toxins, germs, try finding something that small in your house, never mind a whole country.
Ray. West York's. U.K.

2007-07-19 14:33:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Yes, there is evidence of this. Read the WMD report in 2004. Saddam did have the equipment and the know how. We have not uncovered much chem weapons, but there is evidence to suggest he was ready to start when UNSCOM cleared out and the UN lifted sanctions.

2007-07-19 14:05:09 · answer #8 · answered by Guy 2 · 4 1

Several convoys took them to Syria and documented film proves this! Sadam Housien didnt want to get caught with them. The USA gave them to Iraq so did they disappear since they couldnt find them burried anywhere?

2007-07-21 02:05:23 · answer #9 · answered by Satch 3 · 2 0

The one [laughing out loud] theory which I heard, when no WMDs were found was, "Oh well, they're probably all on some ship circling around the Indian Ocean somewhere."

Who knows anyway?

2007-07-19 21:47:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers