Why are we fighting the war in Iraq?

Question

This is a follow up to my question of why we send our children to war, I received great responses that mirrored some of my own feelings. There are good reasons to fight a war, but I can find none in the case of Iraq.

Answer 1

That's because there are none. The Bush administration took us to war under false pretenses, claiming a link between Saddam and 9/11 and claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Now that we're there we're stuck. We can't just pull out because that would leave chaos in Iraq. Unfortunately we can't stay either because our presence just fuels the insurgency. Yes, it's a fine quagmire.

Answer 2

It is not for oil or territory...if you don't believe this take a look at the past wars, dating back to WWII. The US has not taken over any new land/industry as a result of a war that has not been given back to the people indigenous of that area after the war. Why do you think we did not agree with the peace treaty after WWII? As for the answer to the question...ousting Saddam. Plain and simple. Why did Clinton go into Bosnia, Kosavo, etc? You did not hear many people screaming then did you? Everyone knows deep down (admit it or not) that Saddam was a threat to the Iraqis as well as the world, with or without WMD. If he didn't have the WMDs, he would have gladly accepted them as soon as opportunity arose. (Can anyone say Iraq, Iran, N. Korea alliance--a little too familiar to the Germany, Italy, Japan alliance for my taste). It was only a matter of time before Saddam attempted to become the next Hitler...and what is better, one war contained mainly in Iraq, or a war spread out across all developed continents? While the French may not agree with the war now, if they knew their history and thought about it in the context of another world war, they may all agree that losing an entire generation of men is too high of a price to pay to appease one dictator. (again, reference WWII if you are unsure). The only reason we are not leading up to another world war is because a certain hated president knew his history and learned that appeasement of dictators leads to global conflict eventually. Yeah for hated presidents (note, FDR only after his death became such a beloved president)!

Answer 3

This is one that really gets to me...it's the liberals, those who are against the war, that should be the most vocal for it. Reason: Iraq, under Saddam, stood in bold defiance of the entire world, having used weapons of mass destruction and invaded their neighbors without provocation, refused to allow verification that their weapons (WMD) programs had been eliminated...even under the threat and authorization of military intervention as deemed necessary by the United Nations. Liberals, who want nothing less that a single world government should embrace the UN (and usually do) and not only condone but actively support UN activities.

But the truth is that liberals prefer to stick their heads in the sand whenever a little blood is spilt. Freedom is not free. Iraq, with WMD, was a imminent and active threat to the region and American interests there.

Even if one believes, in hindsight, that there were no WMD in Iraq, at the time of the invasion, the entire world believed they existed. and despite the fact that only a handful of small chemical warheads have been found...infrastructure and stores of precursors have been located, documented and destroyed and there was plenty of time for Saddam to hide or transfer the weapons to Syria or some other country.

Answer 4

Well, besides ending slavery, nazism, communism, and facism, War has never solved anything. Saddam was a ruthless dictator that slaughtered thousands of innocent people (remember hearing about the nerve gas used to kill the Kurds) and needed to be taken out of power before he used a nuclear weapon on Israel or even the US. It is a moot point as to whether or not he had them when we invaded because he was actively trying to obtain nuclear weapons. And I can tell you right from the horses mouth (I spent a year in Iraq with the 3rd ID) that the majority of the Iraqi population is thankful for us being there. It is a case of a few bad apples spoils a bunch. And I'm tired of people saying it is for the Oil. THat is complete BS, have you looked at the gas prices recently?

Answer 5

U people are all wrong, being 5th year as an 18A, i have to come to realize that not everything is what it seems, Now Bush was right, there was WMD's In Iraq, we couldn't find them for one reason only, Iraq was supported by terrorists, the moment CNN posted that the president was asking to send a UN investigator, Saddam called up a terrorist supported country (like Syria for instance) and transport the WMD's over there. now this might sound crazy, but you have a terrorist supported country that has WMD's, this alone is good thing for terrorists, and when CNN posted the news, they realized that without those WMD's they'll be weak, so they help Iraq.

On another note, don't you feel at least proud or grateful that our Military has freed a country from oppresion, from Racial Genocide and Religious Oppresions, All the things that us Americans will never experience, and people have the balls to come and say, that we should've never gone, the Iraqi's still need our help, and your just going to ignore them and say "Bring our Boys back." , Our soldiers knew what they were getting into when they were recruited,so i feel we should support their decision.

How can you say that we're there to steal Oil, Oil is a major Natural Recourse, and for that fact, they have a Commision to monitor it, we are not stealing oil, cause Iraq does not control there Oil, OPEC does, and we buy from them, we don't steal from them, wake up people, and realize that word of mouth is another from of ignorance, do your research.

-D.O.L., CPT (USA)

Answer 6

Bush sent an ultimatum to Saddam. Either he let the United Nation's Nuclear inspectors check out Iraq, or he'll go to war with the US. Saddam refused, and thus Bush sent in the troops. I'm sure there are other reasons (like Bush's dad not "finishing" Gulf War One), but thats' the one I've heard about.

Answer 7

I keep hearing it's for oil.To a degree it is.What most people don't realize is with us being friends with Iraq.We can build military bases there.A good foothold in the Middle East to wage a military strike on other Middle Eastern country's.Bush is no fool.He's planning ahead for the future.
As far as the oil is concerned who do you think will get the oil contracts?Our oil company's will be first in line.
Really a shame Bush had to use 9/11 as a stepping stone for an excuse to wage a war on a country that had NOTHING to do with it.
We need to finish with Afghanistan first.

Answer 8

I don't think anyone can answer this question not even Bush, My opinion is that we went there thinking they had mass destruction weapons only to find out they didn't or they have been moved but on the other hand Sadan had to be removed from power cause one day he might have became the next Hitler. Wouldn't you want someone to stop Bush if he starting killing people for being either a Baptist or Catholic etc....

Answer 9

We have no reason to be in Iraq at all, unless you consider that they were virtually defenseless and have oil. Hussein's regime was wicked and oppossed everything that we hold as ideal, I will tell anyone that. However, so do a lot of other countries like China and Liberia. But, places like China have a fighting chance if we attack. And other places like Liberia who has or had evil dictators like Charles Taylor dont have anything that we deem valuable (e.g. oil).

Answer 10

Only the Liberal cry babies think the war is for oil. Your feeding into the Liberal media including ABC,NBC, and CBS. Do you ever hear of the good we have done. When was the last attack on the United States? It cause we are fighting the phychos on their turf. These radical extremist no nothing but hatred. The chickens talk all tough but wear hoods...HMMMMMM to me just a bunch of greasy street punks.