http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070804/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
2007-08-05 03:43:27 · 9 answers · asked by Page 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Or is there need for more damage before the job is really done?
2007-08-05 03:44:19 · update #1
Just curious...
2007-08-05 03:44:41 · update #2
Yes. PNAC laid out the plans, Arabs got massacred. American corporations got $$$. Israel has a geopolitical bulwark against Iran. But the mission was never meant to end. U.S. will be setting up permanent bases in the mideast. The slaughter will continue.
2007-08-05 03:50:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
No. Don't forget the Bush / Neocon , " Leave No Oil well Behind " doctrine.
Oil reserves the size of those in Iraq need and deserve freedom. We are there because we care. We will be there for decades.
For some of your detractors, I don't see " America hating" in your question. We have a lot of denial going on with respect to why we invaded and occupied Iraq. A lot are stuck in the past, cherishing long moribund ideals that no longer reflect today's reality. This current gang of thugs who seized the presidency in 2000 are criminals acting in what they believe to be "America's vested interests" and making a little money on the side. Energy has a lot to do with this too. And in the process we are modeling the Roman Empire, after the end of the Triumvirate, just before the civil war and Caesar's dictatorship.
We are kind of a corporate fascist state today, morphing into something unrecognizable . It IS OK to hold our government accountable and don't equate the Bush Administration with America. They are not the same.
2007-08-05 10:50:51 · answer #2 · answered by planksheer 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The goal was a free and Democratic Iraq that would inspire the region to also embrace democracy and freedom.Let's compare that to reality.
A country in civil war more Islamic as before with less women's rights and parts living under sharia law while it before was a cruel but secular dictatorship.Add to that the very good point you make and it's clear the only answer for someone living in reality has to be NO
2007-08-05 10:55:54 · answer #3 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I say that we take the one's that want to live right in Iraq and give them a chance to move out, and the one's that are terrorists just level them with a nuclear bomb! That would solve most of our terrorists problems in the world. Sorry but its just my opinion. That way we could build a new Iraq. Can't do it when everything keeps on getting blown up!
2007-08-05 10:58:55 · answer #4 · answered by chris b 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You seem to blame the U.S. You don't read well. The grid degenerated under Saddam! We've been trying to fix it! More, while his people couldn't get parts for the grid, he was stealing right and left!
WHO ARE YOU KIDDING!
Educate yourselves, people! Don't just believe nonsense! Look up facts on both sides.
America hating is no longer cool. It was never patriotic.
Further down in the link you give:
"Electricity shortages are a perennial problem in Iraq, even though it sits atop one of the world's largest crude oil reserves. The national power grid became decrepit under Saddam Hussein because his regime was under U.N. sanctions after the Gulf War and had trouble buying spare parts or equipment to upgrade the system."
And in another area of reality:
"A retired banker living in Switzerland spent 10 years helping Iraqi President Saddam Hussein hide millions of dollars via a bank account under the name of Satan, Britain's Sunday Times reported.
Elio Borradori, 75, funnelled millions of dollars in "commissions" and "consultancy fees" into companies controlled by Saddam's appointees, operating through Panama, the Bahamas and Switzerland, according to the report.
US officials estimate Saddam channelled between $A10 billion and $A18 billion into accounts around the world, which must now be tracked down.
The British government today estimated Saddam's riches could total as much as $A33 billion. "
2007-08-05 10:52:13 · answer #5 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Laughing. Ok...not funny. But it would seem to be about the only thing we have accomplished over there. And a heck of a job we did too...huh? Now...let's roll up the tents and clean out the cages and get this circus back on the road shall we?
My deepest repect to Mr. Wylde by the way.
2007-08-05 10:51:36 · answer #6 · answered by Chaz 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The article places the blame on insurgents and Saddam. Using your premise Ca. was living in the stone age because of former Governor Gray Davis and all our black outs because of his mishandling of the demands for power. We now have electrical bills from So.Ca. Edison that include taxes for Bark Beetle eradication, to buy light bulbs for the poor and a myriad of other stupid stuff. Just the charge to deliver power is higher than what is actually consumed. Some have bills that are more than their mortgage payments.
2007-08-05 11:11:17 · answer #7 · answered by ohbrother 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yes you are sooo right! They were so much better off before living under a man who would cut their tongues out for disagreeing with him,not to mention all kinds of other torture to go along with hanging women from goal posts who were accused of adultery! How could anyone NOT like that??
2007-08-05 10:52:08 · answer #8 · answered by BAARAAACK 5 · 1⤊ 5⤋
You're a top contributor for Politics?
Wow, that's an impressive question.
The stone age?
Maybe you're choking down what their feeding you... good little girl, go back to sleep.
You're clearly swayed and not objective, which I guess would be good for politics.
I've been on the ground over there and there is progress even in the most violent areas.
2007-08-05 10:49:12 · answer #9 · answered by Davis Wylde 3 · 5⤊ 7⤋