make a bunch of rich people richer.
2007-07-25 03:57:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by crushinator01 5
·
2⤊
4⤋
I personally believe that the administration never expected the fighting to go on this long. They believed that we would be welcomed (which we were, to a degree) and that the people would rise up and want to defend their newly acquired rights. It didn't happen that way, partly because their freedom came too easy, they weren't prepared mentally for it, etc.
Those who mistakenly believe that this is another Vietnam, never went to Vietman.
I believe that the media is a big part in empowering the terrorists and those fighting our military. They give them air time, exposure, create fear in the minds of Americans, and will do anything or sell out anyone just to get good ratings.
Why fight in Iraq? We need to destroy the foothold that the extremists have in the Middle East. Just look at all the bloodshed they have caused throughout the world from 1975 - 2004. (and the US was only hit a few times, something that will not be overlooked again)
I believe we are on the verge of another WW, but this one will be about religion, and religious wars are usually the bloodiest,
2007-07-25 11:13:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by j.betts2 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
This was a long process actually. It roughly corresponds with:
step 1:
There is no longer an iron curtain - so why keeping such a large army? That's why someone even proposed to cut some of these funds.
step 2:
Having the funds cuted down is inconvenient for some high ranked guys. So they needed a reason to prove army is needed in all it's "glamor".
step 3:
A military action was needed i order to prove that army's usefulness, so they provoked one: they tipped some idiots with very accurate information and that's how 9/11 happened, which raised a newly induced fear: terrorism!
step 4:
Let's take the action! And so they did. They took action against Afghanistan - in order to catch Mr. Bin Laden allegedly. But they wouldn't get that gentleman, even if they could, because if the did, well, so much with the terrorism; and they wanted a better cow to milk.
step 5:
After some willingly unfruitful troops-walk in Afghanistan, the public opinion raised questions - which is unpleasant in USA. So, a trophy was needed: Mr. Saddam Hussein, who they grabbed on their way back. Democracy served. And some oil, and some fire fighters teams, and some reconstruction... all to be done by the Americans.
step 6:
A deep fear was planted, one they could take advantage of: terrorism.
By the way: does anyone dare to cut army funds now?
2007-07-25 11:17:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by Emil Alexandrescu 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
Not oil, we do not take any oil from Iraq, and we buy more oil from 5 other countries before the oil we BUY fro m Iraq.
The original reason for the invasion was to eliminate a hostile regime led by Sadam.
1st, after 9-11 attacks almost everyone agreed that we needed to be pro-active in fighting terrorism.
There where WMDs in Iraq which he was supposed to destroy under a UN resolution after he invaded Kuwait. He never showed evidence of destroying them, gave UN inspectors the run around when they tried to gain access to certain sites, and was firmly believed by almost every major intelligence agency in the world to be in pursuit of more WMDs as well as nukes.
Sadam fired on UN aircraft patrolling the No-Fly zone which he agreed to.
Sadam tried to have a US president (Bush Sr.) assasinated.
There where intelligence reports that Sadam had met with AlQaida officials
Congress OVERWHELMINGLY, (including most every democrat including those currently running for president), approved the war in Iraq.
Regardless of whether or not Sadam could/would have ever supported or performed attacks against the US, we MUST stabilize the new Iraqi government so it doesn't fall under the control of radical Islamics who want to destroy the US.
Regardless of whether or not AlQaida HAD a heavy presence in Iraq before 2003, they are unquestionably there now, and for us to retreat from Iraq would hand them a HUGE psychological victory.
War is not pretty, but the fact is, Radical Islam has been at war with us for decades, 9-11 was just the catalyst for us to finally do something about it.
2007-07-25 11:13:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by heavysarcasm 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
These responses are proof the media does not do its job. After Saddam was defeated during his invasion of Kuwait he signed a UN agreement that stated he would abide by some rules to prevent himself from being removed from power. He failed to live up to the agreement and posed a risk. If George Bush had another personal reason for enforcing the agreement I don't know.
2007-07-25 11:07:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by Bob J 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think its because the Iraq government was building weapons of mass destruction which posed as a threat to the United States and allies. Personally, this war is a stupid joke. Instead of being AT war with Iraq and killing the civilians there and our own troops, we could be in for example, Darfur, helping with their civil war and destruction.
2007-07-25 11:00:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by linnygirl06 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
The reasons are contained in Public Law #107-243. That law originated as House Joint Resolution #114 in 2002. I've put a link to that law in the sources below. As for deaths in the military, during the period of 1980-1984, 9,555 active duty members of the U.S. armed forces died. And no one was shooting at them.
2007-07-25 10:56:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by desertviking_00 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
For the same reason of every single war
2007-07-25 10:52:19
·
answer #8
·
answered by Bruce W. 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
It really is quite sad to see more and more people die by each minute in Iraq.
.....and I 'seriously' hope it wasn't because Bush wanted to avenge an assasination attempt on his father.
Saddam was rendered powerless by regular CIA operations in Iraq. It seems nothing but control over oil resources.
2007-07-25 11:13:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by ElephantHop 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Simple.
To put the world's fourth largest oil producing country (IRAQ), who is not governed by OPEC, back onto the world market....so that countries like the US, China, and Great Britain...can make hundreds of trillions of dollars globalizing developing countries whose economic growth relies on affordable oil.
At the same time we will reduce our dependance on oil...so only developing nations will be slaves to petro for the next 100 years....thus we retain our superpower status and economic superiority.
enjoy.
2007-07-25 10:56:24
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
The president said we would fight and go after all terrorists (regardless if the did 9/11 or not.) And so that is what we are doing in Iraq.
2007-07-25 12:04:19
·
answer #11
·
answered by Just me 5
·
0⤊
2⤋