Bush claims that he's doing it for world peace but what is the real reason why Bush declared war against Iraq?

Answer 1

I may be going out on a limb here, but to remove a genocidal dictator who has been proven to kill people of different beliefs than him and hold everyone in the country under his thumb?

Answer 2

George W. Bush is a puppet for the big business of the USA. I served in the first Gulf War and we had the capability to go right into Iraq then and secure it. We went 90 miles into Iraq only be be told to turn around. We then gave Saddam advance notice and many years to prepare for our invasion after 9/11. If you ever think it is not about the oil and the sphere of influence in the area I am going to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

Answer 3

Well, let's just examine things shall we?

1) Saddam Hussein invaded two of his neighbors, Iran and Kuwait, within a ten year period.
2) We know that, had his invasion of Kuwait been successful, he had further plans to invade Saudi Arabia.
3) We know that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in Iran.
4) We also have incontrovertible proof that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds.
5) We know that he considered using chemical weapons against coalition troops in the first Gulf War.
6) We know that intelligence services from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Germany, Italy, Britain, Russia, and the United Nations all agreed that Saddam Hussein was making chemical and biological weapons despite agreeing to destroy his capabilities.
7) We know that Saddam Hussein ejected weapons inspectors, in violation of the original ceasefire treaty.
8) No one could have possibly guessed that the man would actually destroy his weapons but tell nobody. In fact, the Iraqi General Staff took their own WMD capability into account when drawing up plans to oppose American forces in GWII, and were shocked to learn such capabilities didn't exist.
9) Saddam Hussein was a heavy contributor to terrorist organizations such as Hamas. In fact, Northern Iraq had a number of terrorist training camps.
10) With all this in mind, it is quite logical to determine that Hussein was using terrorism as his way of waging war against US and Western interests in the Middle East. Given the harsh lessons we learned on 9/11, we smply weren 't willing to have it happen again, especially with nerve gas and other agents being set loose in densely populated areas such as New York. Heck, set loose a biological agent in the HVAC system of the Atlanta aiirport, and you have huge problems in a very short period of time.

As far as reasons beyond Saddam Hussein, the Middle East has always been a powder keg, a festering sore in world affairs, due primarily to its inability to create peaceful, constructive societies. If the Middle East did not sit astride the world's major oil fields and the shipping lanes, we would all be content to let them butcher each other. However, the entire world economy relies on a stable Middle East. That's just realpolitik. And while we're dealling with a tough situation today, our sacrifices will pay long-term dividends tomorrow, both for the world in general and the Arab world n particular.

Answer 4

I have a question within a question. Was it okay for Clinton to bomb the living sh!t out of Bosnia? If so, why? What is the difference between Bosnia and Iraq? A dead Bosnian civilian is the same as a dead Iraqi...Hmmm...I wonder how the liberal apologists will answer this?

Answer 5

Partially for oil (Bush and his buddies have made huge amounts of personal profit off of this war), and partially because he was trying to fix his daddy's 1 big screw-up (not getting Saddam the first time we went to Iraq)

Answer 6

If you are an American and a Democrat, stop whining, its for you.

If you are a European, Bush is out to dominate you all har har har.

If you are Asian, you're next.

If you are from the Middle East, better be friends with him and give him what he wants.

The point is, you could speculate and speculate but in the end you'll never really know coz he already got it.

Answer 7

I believe Bush had mixed intentions in going to war. This is why everyone's so confused on the issue -- because he gave mixed signals.

The problem is his strength: He's a "get down and dirty and do something" sort of guy. He would be a good, pragmagic decision maker in the field because you have to make quick decisions and change with events as they occur, since your life depends on acting quickly.

Strategizing ahead of time, evaluating real risk, placing data in its realistic context, building consensus (rather than just doing one's thing), listening to and understanding other points of view, 'fessing up to mistakes, and articulating clearly one's own opinion so that even your opponents understand where you are REALLY coming from (i.e., communication skills 101) are things that he is terrible at.

Basically:

1. The US was attacked in 2001.

2. He responded to it in real-time, took aggressive action, waved the flag high, and so forth.

3. He took advantage of any public goodwill at that point to justify any further actions on his point and just assumed people would support him, whether he had earned their trust or not.

4. In his haste to act aggressively towards other potential threats, he misinterpreted and/or blatantly ignored information that would have perhaps helped him make a better or more restrained decision.

(Maybe oil was involved; maybe bitterness from the situation with Iraq and his dad the prior decade; probably all these things. I think in the end HE convinced himself he was doing it for Iraq's freedom and for ths safety of America -- since that was the best light in which to win support from American citizens)

5. Anyone who disagree with him or criticized his actions was (in his mind) just slowing down his attempts to do something constructive, so they were routinely derided or ignored.

All in all, I think he was well-meaning in his intentions (mostly), but incompetent for the task because he simply was not willing to take note of all the different ramifications of his actions, think through the risks clearly and more thoroughly, listen to opposing points of view (the opposite of a GOOD president such as Lincoln), and build consensus and respect among other citizens and nations.

This is what happens when people with convictions don't listen to other viewpoints nor watch their step as they go. It's a shame that we are where we are at.

Answer 8

No one knows the real reason, but by creating instability in the mid east he has cause fuel prices to sky rocket and he and his family are invested in oil. I do not think that he is smart enough to figure it out but that has been a result. Oil is to simplistic a answer. But we are dealing with a simple man so that could be the reason.

Answer 9

"world peace" has anyone seen any oil out of this? I don't think so! What has done to get "world peace"?

Took out a mad man
Freed a Country
Trained the Cops in Iraq
made better schools in Iraq
Stoped alot of terrorism
and more

What has he done for oil?

Has the Army garding oil wells to stop terrorism of oil wells.
????
????
????

Answer 10

To get re-elected and to get more power!! He said himself that things would work better in a dictatorship, if he was the dictator. He and Tony Blair were planning the invasion before 9/11 even happened! If they were going after oil, why don't we have it after 3 years?