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

-Oil?
-To fight terrorism?
-End the reign of Saddam Hussien?
-A tactic to scare Americans?
-WMD?
-To finish what his daddy started?
-To build a Democracy in Iraq?
-Other?

What do you think?

2007-09-10 08:42:58 · 22 answers · asked by Liberal City 6 in Politics & Government Politics

22 answers

When elected, Bush was opposed to "nation building," but Dick Cheney brought in eight fellow neocons who advocated "regime change" and re-building Iraq. This was before 9/11 and had nothing to do with Bush's war on terrorism.

Cheney's group all belonged to PNAC or IASPS. IASPS advocated regime change to increase Israeli security, while PNAC focused on our Middle East allies but named only Israel. Using 9/11, Cheney and the neocons convinced Bush to go against the long-standing conservative principles he proclaimed during his election campaign.

The two fundamental reasons are (1) Oil, and (2) Israel. But the mechanical reasons are (1) the neocon lobby, (2) Cheney as VP, and (3) Bush's desire to prove himself and best his father. The neocons discuss mainly on the needs of Israel (the WMD they were truely concerned about were Scuds aimed at Israel), but Cheney and Rumsfeld may have been more focussed on oil.

2007-09-10 09:00:29 · answer #1 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 3 2

I think:

-To fight terrorism?
-End the reign of Saddam Hussien?
-WMD?
-To build a Democracy in Iraq?

Saddam should have been taken out anyway. Some Kurdish children i supported through Vision fund were gassed by his troops. BTW, Democracy of one person, one vote doesnt violate any shariac codes!!

As for the WMD, bad intell did us in.

2007-09-10 13:31:25 · answer #2 · answered by rss_beatty 4 · 1 1

incorrect!!!!!! furry went to Iraq, faucet dancing on the bones of the 3000 lifeless human beings on the WTC, to get inspite of Hotdamn Hussain for threating his daddy presently after the 1st Iraq conflict for oil. Why else substitute into the intelligence so way off. And why do you think of a extremely-conservative, neo-fascist, republican white guy might provide a monkey's turd concerning the comparable form of persons who blew up the WTC? It substitute into all purely an excuse that many Fox watching, self-appointed human beings experts used to justify Bush's vendetta against Hussain.

2016-10-10 07:58:39 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

To end the Support of Terrorism that was Policy of Saddam Hussein. He had violated the UN orders so many times he really should have been taken out a long time ago. Not to mention the threat of WMD's, we know he was trying to get them, several of his generals who defected says he had them. We had a lot of Intelligence supporting that supposition, and we have found plenty of materials supporting that he was trying. However they weren't there.

So I believe the Initial motives were pure,but he has ****** it up since then. Afterwords it did turn into to a little of finishing what his daddy started. It was also trying to bend to political pressure, by not really listening to experts, but only listening to those who would tell him what he wheather to hear. Alberto Gonzales is a good example of that.

But we are there now, and we screwed the Iraqi people before by pulling out after we encouraged them to revolt, the first time we invaded, are you ready to throw them to the wolves again, just because you don't like Bush?

2007-09-10 09:03:10 · answer #4 · answered by QBeing 5 · 2 2

I say oil... to finish what his daddy started and the most important one... to keep the American people in submission to his ( and the Republicans) way of dirty politics and play on our fears.
I do believe the news of the day now is all the public servants, congressmen and Republicans who are hiding their gay tendencies and pedophile like behaviors. Yeah I said it. They tore Bill Clinton to pieces about his extramarital affair and sexual prosmiscuity... but check out all the ' freaks' that have resigned because they were being exposed for who they really are. Neither are commendable but I will say Bill never got us in any s*** against our will and actually listened to what the people wanted. Bush is liken to a dictator who gives a s*** less what the American people want and need.

2007-09-11 09:21:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

-Other

a recent Newsweek story tells the tale.
After Tore Bora most of the military wanted to keep going after bin laden.
A plan was put forth to drop about 900 paratroopers on top of bin ladens escape rout.
This was a high risk mission with no guarantees, and it may have put our troops into Pakistan.
So bush had to decide, do the right thing and go after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden but take a huge chance.
or
Go to Iraq with a army that was trained to fight another army.

you see Pakistan looks scary from our perspective.
we would not be fighting another army - we would have been fighting cave to cave against mountain gorillas.
Our tanks would have been useless and the Pakistan army would not have supported us.
did you know that the Pakistan military created the Taliban and funded it right up to
9-11 ?

bush thought the smart P.R. move was to go to Iraq and get a guaranteed win against the Iraq army.

2007-09-10 09:05:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Bush wants to spread democracy in Iraq and he makes terrorism claims to gain the support of the people. The claims that there's terrorism in Iraq are just a mask that conceals a dangerous ambition.

2007-09-10 09:54:40 · answer #7 · answered by Maid Mesmera 3 · 0 1

Saddam's countless violations of the UN cease-fire agreement that ended the Gulf War. WMDs were real.

And to those idiots who think we ousted Saddam and his Baath party for oil, I ask this- How much oil are we taking out of Iraq? That's right- none!

2007-09-10 08:58:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

The absolute worse reason I can plausibly think of is this: to cave to a key Al Qaeda demand.

One of Al Qaeda's stated objectives was the removal of the infideal from Saudi Arabia (the muslem nation that hosts the sacred cities of Meca and Medina) - specifically, the infidels wearing US military uniforms.

After invading Iraq, the US military closed it's bases in Saudi Arabia, and opened bases in Iraq.

2007-09-10 08:57:07 · answer #9 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2 1

As spokesman for the people who really wield power he was persuaded by advisers to put across every asinine argument that could conceivably be sold. That he has faithfully done in the required folksy way w. a kind of idiot theme to make Americans feel superior or equal to their supposed 'leader' while allowing them to feel that they identify.
The industrial military complex wanted the world oil market brought under US control. They miscalculated how difficult it would be to control a country of many fanatical religious groups w. one united puppet government regardless of the man hours/lives and money spent on it.
The big Reason, control of the Middle East before Russia becomes the next big energy superpower and China and or India the new economic superpowers.

2007-09-10 09:00:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers