HOW EMBARRASSING! What conservative could argue that we're protecting freedom in Iraq when the United States government won't even send a Junior ROTC squadron into Burma or the Sudan?
There is no better indictment that the Iraq War is all about exploitation of the region's resources! Honestly!
2007-09-28 18:45:43 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The truth is that the United States government doesn't care about freedom, they only care about profits.
2007-09-28 18:53:36 · answer #1 · answered by King Of Utopia 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think you can rest assured that if we were really under attack, every young guy between 15 and 40 would just drop what he was doing and line up at the recruiters'. Even the Obama-haters would do it. Hopefully they love their country more than they hate Obama (Sometimes I wonder though. They really seem to be motivated more by hate than patriotism). The problem is that we haven't fought a truely defensive war for nearly 200 years. In fact, since WWII we haven't even bothered to -declare- war, though we've used our military >100 times since then.
2016-05-21 02:57:30 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very few have denied that oil played a part in the Iraq war as well as WMD's. I think the fact that Americans still pay for Iraqi oil speaks volumes. As far as Sudan and Burma go, the US is fighting two wars one in Afghanistan and Iraq, Get your precious United Nations to help. Where are they???
2007-09-28 18:51:48 · answer #3 · answered by The Slick Meister 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
American presidents (of BOTH parties) have always used 'exporting democracy' as a justification for imperialism. Or at least for the last 100 years. But you would be hard-pressed to find a single democracy anywhere in the world that came to be because of US intervention. We -saved- some democracies (like France). We installed our choice of leaders in come countries that later -became- democracies (like the Philippines). But the challenge is to point out one place where we have actually -created- a democracy.
And in Iraq the claim is especially suspicious. The Bush admin. trotted out one reason after another to invade Iraq. Saddam had nukes. Saddam -wanted- nukes. He had plans to invade us with unmanned airplanes. He tried to kill Bush's dad. He had WMD. Finally came the idea of creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq. In other words, it wasn't about -us-, it was about -them-. People seem to forget that this was the last in a whole series of justifications. The others were lies and this one was too.
2007-09-28 18:53:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think you've answered your own question.
Going into Burma would mean taking on China (which supports the Junta there). Sudan is a mess in so many ways that it would be very risky not only militarily but also politically (and besides as you hint at there's not a lot of pay-off).
2007-09-28 18:48:03 · answer #5 · answered by megalomaniac 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Save Canada!
2007-09-28 18:51:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because it is not about natural resources,but about realigning nations for the Fascist New World Order.
2007-09-28 18:51:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
1. No oil
2. Have they pissed us off?
3. Not enuf money in treasury.
2007-09-29 02:47:07 · answer #8 · answered by Dragonmistress 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
defending FREEDOM does not always mean invading others.Think well and you will know the rest.
2007-09-28 20:36:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We're busy right now. Leave a message and we'll bomb them later.
2007-09-28 21:11:42 · answer #10 · answered by Chris L 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋