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

There are many dictators in the world so why did we go after only one? (Iraq) Look at North Korea. Look at what is happening in Africa. Take a look at Iran.

2007-08-25 01:27:51 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

18 answers

Look at Iraq on the map. It's right dead in the middle of where the trouble is coming from. Syria on one side, Iran on the other. The idea was to put a democratic nation right there in the middle, in hopes that people in the neighboring countries will someday how well the Iraqis have it, and demand their piece of freedom and prosperity too. Free people that have hope for their future are less likely to buy into the suicide bomber menality.
Who knows if it will work? It did with the nations we defeated in WW2. Only history will tell.

2007-08-25 01:41:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

You are disgusting to post such a vile statement on the night before the anniversary of 9/11. No one supports the war but does support the Military & Iraq's bid for freedom. Whether Saddam was part of 9/11 does not change the more than 300,000 citizens of his country that he slaughtered & the tens of thousands he had raped. We will not lose - we will turn it over to the newly elected Democratic goverment. Shame on you!

2016-05-17 10:19:29 · answer #2 · answered by yetta 3 · 0 0

Tired Trucker's sort of right.

That was the idea, its just that no-one actually planned the post-war bit - unlike after WWII.

The military government for Germany started work 2 years before the first troops arrived in Germany. This was followed up post-war by the Marshall Plan to reconstruct an economy there, and in Japan.

In Iraq it was supposed to just "happen" - abysmal leadership and useless intelligence.

The was latter caused in large part by over-reliance on technology and not enough on listening to people who've spent time in-country and know the language, culture & people. These failings were compounded by the leadership ignoring or silencing those few advisers who accurately predicted the outcome.

2007-08-25 01:58:37 · answer #3 · answered by no_bloody_ids_available 4 · 3 0

The explosive expert from the WTC bombings fled to Iraq.

The master mind behind the group that killed Klingoffer was found in Iraq.

It was proven that saddam was taken the food for oil and funding sucide bombers.

As far as WMDs that was going on the best information that BOTH parties agree that maybe there along with other intel groups.

saddam was next on the list.

Now we finding out that Iran is sending bombs and stuff across the boarder and along with other terrorists groups there to distrub the government of Iraq.

About Africa glad you mention that one.
It was OUR pull out after Blackhawk Down gave bin laden the motivation for to plan 9/11.
He figure the US would lose a few troops and people will weap over a few dead children and we leave.

You prove him right.

2007-08-25 02:05:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

The other dictators have not displaned any offensive actions against other nations. Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussien attacked Iran.

2007-08-25 13:11:51 · answer #5 · answered by Unazaki 4 · 0 1

Because they have something we want (we meaning politicians) that being oil, and that's why we are paying so much for gas these days.........someones getting filthy rich and our country's budget deficit is running into the ground.

If our intentions were really so honest and "democratic" then we wouldn't allow other happenings throughout the world like the mass genocides in South Africa............. why do we allow people to be slaughtered and why do we allow North Korea to toss nuclear weapons into the ocean taunting us.......simple really..........they have nothing "we" want.

2007-08-25 02:19:47 · answer #6 · answered by krismallery 2 · 3 1

I guess the real question is, did the administration seek out faulty intel in order to support their foregone conclusion that we MUST invade Iraq, or were they so inept that they just couldn't tell? Neither explanation bodes well for a nation with more than a year until the next general election.

2007-08-25 01:39:30 · answer #7 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 4 1

Because Saddam WAS a threat.

He had shot at US and UK aircraft for the previous 4 yrs as they enforced UN sanctions.

He would not allow UN weapons inspectors to complete their work.

He used poison gas in the past.

2007-08-25 03:01:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anthony M 6 · 2 1

I think (now) it's because Al Qaedi spread there After the U.S first attacked, so now there may be some actual threat there, but it wasn't there while Saddam was in Power.

2007-08-25 02:17:43 · answer #9 · answered by B 4 · 1 1

This whole war, starting in Afghanistan, was about oil. It was never about terrorism or about weapons it was about oil. Dubya loves his oil it's what makes him his money. And when you have a lot of money, you get hungrier and hungrier, so much that you will attack your own country secretly so they will support your war.

2007-08-25 10:27:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers