Its a strategic move to divide and conquer Iran and Syria, and quite a brilliant one at that.
2007-09-17 04:54:01 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Killing the rifle weilding Psycho that ran Iraq into the dirt was just a bonus
2007-09-17 04:54:40 · update #1
True, but iraq was a threat.
2007-09-17 04:59:37 · answer #1 · answered by infobrokernate 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
That's not what the conservative law group Judicial Watch discovered in the Cheney Energy Task Force papers. There were maps of Iraqi oil fields divided into sectors for exploration and a list of oil suitors.
[ These are documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under a March 5, 2002 court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force. The documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents are dated March 2001. ]
2007-09-17 05:03:23 · answer #2 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Brilliant strategy? For the Bush family, maybe.
Grandaddy Bush was an arms dealer. Bush Sr. carried on the family business by illegaly selling arms to Iran in the '80s.
The taxpayers bought the weapons and ammo, but guess who got the profits?
The Bush's have sold arms to Saddam, the Ayatollah Khoumeini, and Osama bin Laden. There's your 'brilliant' strategy.
2007-09-17 05:05:29 · answer #3 · answered by Karl M 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
yes good points. it's also about oil and protecting Israel which falls under the reason to divide and conquer Iran and Syria.
the oil connection is fact and well documented time and again.
the WMDs were a sham. the intel they used to prove Saddam had WMDs was from the 1980s when the US armed him to fight Iran.
2007-09-17 04:59:55 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Iraq was not a threat. It isn't about one thing. You are right it was a strategic move. It planted us right in the middle of it all. It was to protect our oils interests also. It is also about water and Israel. Brilliant? Nope it was not. Due to the lack of understanding and study of the area and culture.
2007-09-17 05:02:47 · answer #5 · answered by gone 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Strange - Both Alan Greenspan and Henry Kissinger disagree with you.
Also strange is that neither Iran nor Syria has ever attacked us.
2007-09-17 05:00:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I'll go with 'NONE OF THE ABOVE'.
It was personal. Bush hated Sadaam. He refers to Sadaam as 'the guy that tried to kill my dad'.
Here's a link to the best article I've ever read on the Iraq situation.
http://www.regressiveantidote.net/Articles/What_Every_American_Should_Know_About_Iraq.html
2007-09-17 05:06:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Really? I just thought it was something the Bush's did. Like a family legacy or something.
My bad.
2007-09-17 05:04:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
tell that to the families of the million Iraqi civilians that have lost their lives. I am sure they will just be tickled to learn how brilliant that is.
2007-09-17 05:00:47 · answer #9 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋