10 questions of Iranian academics to Columbia Pres. Bollinger. He won't answer them. Will you?
Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070925&articleId=6888
2007-10-01 05:07:47 · 10 answers · asked by Washington Irving 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
so it was not democracy or WMD's? What about the rights of Iraqis to security, sovereignty, etc?
2007-10-01 05:20:23 · update #1
El Jefe. Thanks for the straight answer. I disagree, quite clearly. It is obvious that the people of Iraq and the International community would not have stood by such an adventure had it been proposed in the rather honest terms you propose.
I think it is insultingly conceited for the US to believe it has anything to teach other countries. What makes you so special?
Furthermore, one would have to believe the US is not motivated by a desire to control Iraq's policy the way it controlled Latin America and that by democracy nothing other than US client regime is meant.
Still, your answer is worthy of debate. (how conceited of me to judge your answer, almost like the US judging the governments of others)
2007-10-01 05:50:09 · update #2
Henry's link is quite an appropriate answer.
About him not caring what Iranian Presidents of Universities think... is it because they are presidents of Academia or because they are Iranian? I could not care less about their political role. Fact is, the questions should be answered by high level US officials.
Don't you agree?
And why all this hate of all things foreign? Don't Americans realize what they have become through their xenophobia? Imperialists hated by all, loved by none. I would suggest treading on kinder soil.
2007-10-01 07:03:03 · update #3
Here is a well researched and well written article that explains the whole thing.
http://alternet.org/module/printversion/63632
I don't care what University presidents in Iran have to say.
2007-10-01 06:39:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, I'm not sure if you want an answer to the questions you posted on Yahoo, or the 10 questions in the letter to Bollinger. I'll assume you want answers to the former, OK?
The real purpose was to establish a beachhead for democracy in the Middle East. The Bush administration believed (and still believes, for all I know) that Saddam Hussein could be removed and replaced with something akin to a Western democracy, and that this would lead to revolts all over the Middle East (over time), replacing autocratic governments with Democracies. As a side benefit, radical Islam would be discredited and lose favor.
Yes, there was some international consensus for the invasion, but hardly on the scale of the 1991 Gulf War. Fewer nations signed on, but the US was not alone.
At this point, it should be obvious to all and sundry that Saddam Hussein played an elaborate game with respect to WMDs, claiming that he had them to some, and denying this to others. It should also be obvious that the Bush administration was too eager to believe the rumors that Saddam had large stockpiles of WMDs, and did not properly check the situation out before deciding to invade. Saddam did have small quantities of chemical weapons, but not enough to justify what followed.
2007-10-01 05:38:04 · answer #2 · answered by El Jefe 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sadly Bush led his nation about these weapons of mass destruction as an excuses to invade Iraq. Now some on this hate the French because they didn't support Bush. But the French very clever knew like the rest of us there was no weapons of destruction there. Even the UN did a search and found no weapons. But most Americans forget that they sold weapons to Saddam for years while Iran was at war with Iraq 1980–1988. Plus there is no proof that Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 bombing. If Saddam had wanted to do this he could have done it years ago.
2007-10-01 05:21:42 · answer #3 · answered by Feis Ort 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
the purpose of existence is to have excitement. excitement comes from loving and serving others. working stressful, kin and looking the peace that comes from the gospel of Jesus Christ. we are able to additionally discover happiness in sturdy issues like nature, healthy relaxing etc. in the past we've been born everyone lived with God and are his non secular little ones. we could have loved to be extra like Him by way of gaining journey, having a physique and having families. So He created this international for us to come back and acquire those issues. He additionally despatched his son Jesus Christ as a savior so as that as quickly as we do make blunders we are able to repent and be baptized. If we persist with the instructions of Jesus Christ and choose sturdy over evil, we can return to stay with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ for ever with our families. that could be a large plan of happiness. most of the flaws the international tells us will convey excitement would not like money, acceptance, automobiles, intercourse outdoors of marriage, no duty, laziness, etc.
2016-10-20 11:46:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guess you forgot that Saddam gassed his own people. Do people actually believe that the US WANTS to be in a God-forsaken country whose people live in what looks like a Ben Hur movie? I imagine we will soon find out just where those WMDs are. It doesn't scare you that these people want to destroy us and most of the free world? So go live there,maybe you can help the Iraqi people.
2007-10-01 05:34:26 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Strategic military positioning in the Middle East.
2007-10-01 05:19:06 · answer #6 · answered by gone 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
the total destruction of the middle east , by radiating one country at a time with depleted uranium, and the other side of that sword entales dessimating the u.s. millitary through radition born illness's, brain trauma, and post traumatic stress disorders....weapons of mass destruction, if there was any there , they would have been purchased from the u.s....
2007-10-01 06:20:50 · answer #7 · answered by CHRIS S 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was not about oil. It was about getting a new place to put US military bases. Additionally it was to increase military spending to enrich Bush's allies.
2007-10-01 05:22:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
oil and because bush was feeling pressed to live up to his father's reputation
*he invaded panama, and van halen diedin the conflict
2007-10-01 05:11:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
it is all about oil man
2007-10-01 05:16:35 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋