Why did Bush take Irak?

[mapuc]

Why didn't he eliminate Saudi-arabia, Syria and Iran, these 3 countries, are the biggest threat to US

Doesn't Bush know that Syria and Iran are working together and
S-A is supporting them economical.

I do believe that S-A have given "some" financial aids to Irans nuklear-program.

Markus

[scandium]

Why didn't he eliminate Saudi-arabia, Syria and Iran, these 3 countries, are the biggest threat to US

Doesn't Bush know that Syria and Iran are working together and
S-A is supporting them economical.

I do believe that S-A have given "some" financial aids to Irans nuklear-program.

Markus

I can understand your confusion. And I appreciate that. See, in the case of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia its because the freedom loving people there, except for the beheaders and the killers who crash planes into buildings on 9/11, are America's allies. They pump oil. They keep the oil pumping.

[kholemann]

The United States did not 'take' anything. It simply removed the dictatorship in Iraq. Had the United States 'taken' Iraq, it would become a U.S. posession/territory like Guam or Puerto Rico and fly the U.S. Flag as its standard.

[Beery]

The United States did not 'take' anything. It simply removed the dictatorship in Iraq. Had the United States 'taken' Iraq, it would become a U.S. posession/territory like Guam or Puerto Rico and fly the U.S. Flag as its standard.

The US historically takes a number of years to take formal possession of territory it has 'taken'. The facts speak for themselves - the US is the major power determining what goes on in Iraq. The US may not 'own' it, but it controls it, which is, in effect, the same thing.

[Kapitan]

Many who are against the move would read this and turn on thier old grammaphones listning to deautchland deautchland walking up and down thier living room doing the goose step and zig hiel.

[Skybird]

(...) and zig hiel.

The - what...? :lol:

[Kapitan]

That wired thing with the arm extended.

[TLAM Strike]

(...) and zig hiel.

The - what...? :lol:

Kap can’t even spell English right, what do you expect when he tries German!?! :P :lol:

[The Avon Lady]

That wired thing with the arm extended.
http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/8702/lisrobot5tx.jpg

[TLAM Strike]

That wired thing with the arm extended.
<snip>
http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/5206/mirr072mk.jpg
:-j Oh that crazy mirror universe...

[DeepSix]

:rotfl:

[Oberon]

...and zig hiel.

For Great Justice!!
http://www.kungfo0.org/theweb/base/pics/zerowing.gif

[mog]

The facts speak for themselves - the US is the major power determining what goes on in Iraq. The US may not 'own' it, but it controls it, which is, in effect, the same thing.

How exactly does the US control anything in Iraq? Again and again we hear about America impotently 'pressuring' Iraqi politicians to no effect.

[Beery]

The facts speak for themselves - the US is the major power determining what goes on in Iraq. The US may not 'own' it, but it controls it, which is, in effect, the same thing.

How exactly does the US control anything in Iraq? Again and again we hear about America impotently 'pressuring' Iraqi politicians to no effect.

If you don't think the US has the power to remove those politicians in an instant, you are living in a dreamworld. Fortunately, the US has a commitment to democracy. The fact that the US 'pressures' the Iraqi government to no effect is only evidence that the US commitment to democracy is shaky. It is not evidence that the US is powerless in Iraq. Without the US presence, Iraq would be in a state of civil war.

[mapuc]

You may not agree with me, but I stil say that US haven't made any peaceplan after winning the war.

e.g

One of Bush's securitycouncil said to Bush

- If we overthrow Saddam this and this could happen and so on

Markus

[mog]

If you don't think the US has the power to remove those politicians in an instant, you are living in a dreamworld. Fortunately, the US has a commitment to democracy.
Precisely; the US has the military power but can't exercise it. In other words, the US does not control Iraq.

Unless you're suggesting that America will forcefully overthrow the Iraqi government, which is an extraordinary claim that must require extraordinary evidence.

[kholemann]

The United States did not 'take' anything. It simply removed the dictatorship in Iraq. Had the United States 'taken' Iraq, it would become a U.S. posession/territory like Guam or Puerto Rico and fly the U.S. Flag as its standard.

The US historically takes a number of years to take formal possession of territory it has 'taken'. The facts speak for themselves - the US is the major power determining what goes on in Iraq. The US may not 'own' it, but it controls it, which is, in effect, the same thing.

Yea, just like Germany, Japan and South Korea still have our troops since 1945/50 and the US still hasn't taken those 'possessions'. If the USA is going to leave Iraq then where are all these people about us getting out of Germany, Japan and North Korea??? It is hypocrasy.

[CCIP]

Yea, just like Germany, Japan and South Korea still have our troops since 1945/50 and the US still hasn't taken those 'possessions'. If the USA is going to leave Iraq then where are all these people about us getting out of Germany, Japan and North Korea??? It is hypocrasy.

Uh, but the US gets at best moderate protests from the Germans/Koreans/Japanese (in the case of Koreans, they should probably know that the US presence is effectively the only guarantee of the ROK's existence). And there's no incentive for the US to get out - they have bases, the locals act civil. When's the last time we've heard of IED's killing American's in Germany?

Hypocritical, maybe. But there's really nothing to raise noise over in the case of these 3. It's only a confirmation of American power as an empire, their "little forts" out in the world.