2007-10-19 00:06:20 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
well,,,if its not clear,,,I have the answer,,,,or do I ,,,is insanity best taken in steps,,lol,,,
2007-10-19 00:14:30 · update #1
I never did believe that saddam had wmds that could reach homeland America,,,its unclear to me why congress and senate would think so....and act ,,oh but Bush stold the show,,,oh thats right,,,,,,
2007-10-19 00:17:17 · update #2
Saudi,the 911 highjackers had saudi passports,,yet ?,,,,
2007-10-19 00:18:51 · update #3
The word could,,,have,,,does that mean ok to start a war and kill ? could that be?
2007-10-19 00:20:13 · update #4
his Saudi masters commanded him to
2007-10-19 00:15:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Here they are:
All except the last debunked.
1. The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S., a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.
2. Saddam was involved with bin Laden and al Qaeda in the plotting of 9/11
3. Freedom - The populace of Baghdad and of Iraq generally turned out en masse to greet U.S. troops as liberators.
4. The U.S. wants democracy in Iraq and the Middle East.
5. The Bush administration has made Americans safer from terror on U.S. soil by fighting them in Iraq.
6. God told Bush to invade Iraq. (The last resort of a scoundrel)
2007-10-19 00:27:07 · answer #2 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iraq, is considered the middle of the middle east. it truly is a needed tactical element because of the fact of its vastness and corrupt officers did no longer help that. those terror communities exploited that reality, by way of bribery deception, incorrect information, and violence so as that they might site visitors in money and weapons in this usa to everywhere in the middle east. in case you prefer to handle the basis rationalization for this situation then you definately will might desire to cut back off those communities from thier grant routes. Iraq being in the direct center with so few checkpoints in the past the UN have been given there made it suited for such pastime. Iraq grew to become into just about begged for years to open thier factories to UN inspectors and that they refused. They disregarded threats of sanctions and disrespected no longer in basic terms usa however the excellent worldwide in doing so. by skill of growing to be an environment that would desire to foster each and every physique of those communities.
2016-10-13 04:10:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The economy and $$$ are behind any war. The Elites that control the money around the globe, can indirectly force the Pres. of the US, to go to war. Although war is ugly and destructive, but it is very profitable to some large corps.
The oil companies and defense industries, are dependent to wars for survival.
2007-10-19 00:51:34 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Funny, I seem to remember that a majority of the Congress voted to proceed. Why is it you whining liberals keep forgetting that part? You have the most convenient memories I've ever seen. What a bunch of losers.
2007-10-19 00:28:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think that thorgirl said it all. We elected these people, if we don't like what they said or did, we have the power to unelect them. Giving thorgirl a negative vote for quoting them is silly. she didn't say those things. The people we chose to lead us did. If we choose them again, then it is our own fault.
2007-10-19 02:51:16 · answer #6 · answered by maryjellerson 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
9/11! SADDAM HUSSAIN! AL QUEDA! WEAPONS OFMASS DESTRUCTION! 9/11! BIN LADEN! SADDAM HUSSEIN! WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! THE SMOKING GUN COULD BE A MUSHROOM CLOUD! AL QUEDA! NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL& CHEMICAL! WMDS! SADDAM HUSSEIN! 9/11!
2007-10-19 00:16:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The same reason that Clinton bombed the he!! out of them. The entire world thought that Saddam had WMD. Because of the time wasted on diplomacy which had not been effective since Gulf War 1, if he did have WMD, he had plenty of time to destroy or move them to Syria.
Whether he had them or not is unclear. Whether we should have waited as we did IS clear. We should have acted quickly and precisely...NOT waited on the dems or the UN.
Oh, and for those of you who are still convincing yourselves that this war was for oil...wouldn't it be nice if we did not at least TAKE SOME OF IT? Perhaps to pay for the war itself...or AT LEAST the reconstruction efforts? WAR FOR OIL IS LAUGHABLE!
2007-10-19 00:10:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋
Thats a good question . I dont remember eather.
2007-10-19 00:10:01 · answer #9 · answered by Stefan 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
oil
2007-10-19 00:09:53 · answer #10 · answered by dumplingmuffin 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋