Honestly,give me one good reason for the U.S`s invasion of middle east!?!?
100550
stupidity backed by machoism!
854603
I agree. The excuse for invasion changes as soon as the one before it has been proven to be illogical. The problem here is that the Bush administration is extremely powerful. I don't even know why they bother providing any justification at all. They simply don't have to. Nobody yet has had the strength to stop them. But still, even if they cannot be stopped from making illogical policy decisions, it is the duty of citizens to question authority and at least try to make an effort to hold their leaders accountable.
556311
That is what we are having to deal with with the Mid-East.They have oil and think they are super powers.I don't think they understand just how much force the U.S. alone can generate.\nWe have since Vietnam used the smallest force possible in any engagement and have bent over backwards not to offend small countries and this is what it gets us.
776653
Yeah, lets just let the warmongers of other countries build up and invade unchecked. I am sure they will leave us alone if we had no military. You are just a genius aren't you.
777787
yes and we sparked it when we invaded. perhaps an all out Arab cicil war is what our hidden adgenda really is so we can grab oil by the barrells full
570976
with the invasion of Iraq and other dealings n the Middle East since (continuing support of Israel despite years of oppression against the Palestinians, refusing to recognize and aid the DEMOCRATICALLY elected government of Palestine and our actions against Iran, who simply wants the same nuclear power that the rest of the modern world has had for more than 50 years) have don little to make me feel safer.  If anything, these actions have simply made terrorist attacks against American targets at home and abroad mor justifiable.  We're playing into the terrorists' hands--proving to the people of the Middle East that we are the @$$holes they think we are--and all in the name of oil.
1163450
the usa government arranged it all, so they could have an excuse to invade middle east for oil. have u seen film farenheit 9/11 its all true x
108936
Oh gosh, don't even get me started. I'll try and make this as brief as possible\n\nBush's reasons for invading Iraq:\n1. To find weapons of mass destruction\n2. Because of Irag's alleged link with the 9/11 terrorists\n\nDid we find WMDs: Nope\nDid we find any proof or even evidence of a link between the 9/11 hijackers and Iraq: Nope\n\nWhile, i agree that saddam hussein (excuse my spelling) is a bad man, he kept stability in his country and posed no direct threat to us. It is not our responsibility, nor should it be, to decide who is good and who is "bad" and then take steps to remove them when we see fit. \nHad Iraq actually posed a threat to our national security I may feel differently, but Iraq did not pose such a threat.\n\nUnfortunately, our intelligence organizations are partially to blame, however, there are also individuals in the political realm whom are responsible.\n\nWhy did we not listen to the U.N. or Hans Blix? Are we too arrogant as a country to listen to what the international community has to say, especially the U.N., and organization we helped to create?\n\nOh my, i could go on and on and on and on, but i don't feel like typing that much.
427251
the reasons for war in the middle east are to preserve the privilege of the factual powers(the british crown,the jewish bankers,the catholic church,the american and european military holdings,the oil and car industry,the pharmaceutical and other resources oriented multinationals etc...)to keep control of the resources and the markets,ensuring his own survival and prosperity.\nthis administration has no credibility and is totally corrupted.their policies are against the general interest of the u.s.a., the environment and humanity at large.
141048
Do you really want to know all the details of why such ports are being given to a Middle-eastern business to run?  What if it is a sting operation?  Should we just publish the details and fight it?  Isn't that what we're doing?\nLeave it alone.  Bush knows what he is doing.
729966
can you site this... or are you using secret terrorist sources that you have?\n\nI would assume it's that they want to blow up Europe and America?\n\ncall me crazy...
410730
We would need to step our presence in the middle east.  The liberals would all realize that they were wrong.  The would probably blame the attack on the conservatives, thats the kind of stupid thing they would do.\n\nBush is a very good president and i have a lot of faith that he would deal with this situation in the right way
849587
The US could invade anyone it wants to, including Mexico or up here in Canada. the question is: why would they?
259067
if the US invades iran, its game over for the entire world. only a fool would attack AGAIn in the middle east...though i must be honest, Bush IS such a fool...time will tell.
755527
This is America's war.. no one else has such a problem with the middle east. If they disrupt the UN and look down on Europe, we should just leave them to their own mess.
408020
The real reasons America is invading Iraq\nMarch 20 2003\n\n\n\n\nAmerica is seeking to ward off any threat to its economic domination of the world, writes Kenneth Davidson.\n\n\nGeorge Bush planned "regime change" in Iraq before becoming United States President in January 2001. The events of September 11, 2001, were the pretext for invasion of Iraq, not the reason.\n\nThe blueprint for the creation of a "global Pax America", to which Bush subscribes and which is driving the invasion of Iraq, was drawn up in September 2000 for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush (George's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).\n\nThe document, called Rebuilding America's Defences: strategies, forces and resources for a new century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century.\n\nAccording to the document, written three months before Bush became president, "the US for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."\n\nThe document outlines the global ambitions of the Bush Administration. It sets out a "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests".\n\n\n\n   advertisement \n    \n   advertisement \n\nThe question for John Howard must be: to what extent does his Government subscribe to the Bush strategy outlined in the think tank's document?\n\nHoward says Australia's participation in this war is in Australia's national interests. How?\n\nTo answer that question we must know why the war is being fought in the first place. For all I know, Bush, Howard and Tony Blair may be absolutely sincere when they claim that getting rid of Saddam is a humanitarian act that will make the Iraqis better off, or that Saddam has the will, the motive and the weapons of mass destruction capable of threatening other countries. But these are not the real reasons for the invasion.\n\nThe real reasons can be summed up as deciding who controls Middle East oil and gets access to the water from the Tigris and Euphrates, and what currency will be used to pay for the development of the oil and water resources.\n\nAccording to the think tank document, the US would have to increase its defence spending to 3.8 per cent of GDP (which it has just achieved) to finance an American military capability "to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" and to "perform constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions".\n\nThis is a massive task that can only be achieved if the US can continue to draw on the resources of the whole world, which in turn is only possible if the US can continue to run massive trading deficits with Western Europe, China and Japan. In other words, these regions must remain willing to exchange the product of their industries for American dollars.\n\nIt would be fatal to America's global strategic ambitions if countries in Europe began to ask for euros instead of US dollars for their exports, or if China demanded settlement of their accounts with the US in yuan instead of US dollars. The US would have to redirect domestic demand for imported goods paid for in dollar-denominated IOUs into exports to earn yuan and euros to pay for US imports.\n\nIt is difficult to see how the US could develop new, internationally competitive industries and run a military machine on the scale envisaged by the think tank without a massive increase in taxation and redistribution of wealth to the productive elements in the economy without precipitating a global recession.\n\nIn 2000, Saddam&#
67010
Well, the only reason Iraq was invaded was for oil,I mean come on...why else Iraq? There was no proof to begin with, but there was proof for Syria, Libya, North Korea, Oh but no. We just had to ivade a country with no evidence for them having WMD's didnt we? And i mean you just have to look through the lines at this one..