Why did the US attacked Iraq??

Answer 1

First, Let me ask the intelligent people a question. Why would an oilman that thrives on American Produced oil want to imoprt more oil from the Middle East. It was not for oil. If Bush wanted a profit from Oil Prices, he would have stopped oil from coming from the Middle East, not encouraged oil coming in.

Thank you MesquiteGal for this answer to another poster.

Note, this is not my answer, I copied it. Do not vote it best for me.

'Thank God for a president that stood up to the terrorists, and took the war to them, instead of waiting for another 9/11. If Clinton had done his job, there may not have been a 9/11.

Check out what Clinton and other Democrats said in 1998...
(Please note the first five entries were made PRIOR to President Bush becoming our president.... and then, we have Hiliary's entry!)

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002'

Thank you MesquiteGal for that answer. You did your research and know the facts.

Answer 2

Reason #1= Bush's Administration knew that Saddam was military weak and he can't retaliate.
Reason #2= Bush's Administration was naive? They allowed some unreliable sources to deceive and to mislead them regarding the WMD. Therefore, Americans were mislead too. ("Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says" By Joby Warrick Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, June 25, 2006)
Reason #3= Bush's Administration was strongly supported and endorsed by the giant oil companies of the world.
Reason #4= Iraq sits in the middle of the Middle East (great stratigic location). From Iraq, USA can better protect Israel, can control the Middle East Oil (if US does not do it, Russia or Iran will), can closely monitor the Europpean Union, can watch Iran's performance at close distance and most importantly will stop the Islamic Fundamentalism from spreading throughout the Middle East.
Reason #5=Saddam refused to cooperate with the UN and the USA. He decided to exchange Oil Transactions from Dollars to Euros. USA can't stand watching the Dollar falling downhill.

Now I would like to answer by asking some questions:
* Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet
Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew that the USSR could indeed retaliate?
* Is it not true that the intelligence community has been
unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at
all, much less the attacks on the United States.
* Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders
who escaped from Afghanistan appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan and not to Iraq initially?
* Is it not true that the USA is NOT focusing on the real threat? Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking
into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming
daily occurrences?
*Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that
thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis,
which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible,
that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence
indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by
Iran not Iraq?
*Is not true that if we stay in Iraq thousands of American casu-
alties will increase in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?
*Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 500 bil-
lion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to even
skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy?
*How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq
be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle
East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan,
who overthrew a democratically-elected president? Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban? Does Bush know that Islam and Democracy can't go together? Does Bush know that the Middle East countries can't be trusted by making them our friends even when they become democratic nations?
*Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by sup-
porting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? At that time he was still a bad dictator, but also was our ally. Explain please.
*Why do the oil company executives strongly support this
war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
*Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage
war for any reason other than self-defense?Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia?
*Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the
less likely disagreements will be settled by war?
*I am proud to be American and I hate to be hated by other nations because of Bush's Administration. I hate to see innocent people of different race, faith or origin being killed for no reason. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

Answer 3

Let the Democrats hope in '08 answer:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.

Or Liberal Icon Teddy Kennedy:

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002.

Or National Hero John Kerry:

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” John Kerry, October 9, 2002.

Answer 4

The official reason was that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" and the U.S. needed to find and destroy these weapons before they were used. However, none was found. The real reason is more likely that President Bush wanted to finish the job his father started: getting rid of Sadam Hussein. I believe this was the whole purpose of the war.

Answer 5

For those of you americans that don't know the situation of your natural resources in your own country.... there is no more easily obtained oil left in the united states of america. There is alot of this easy to obtain oil in Iraq..... do I really need to say anything more. Who is the evil dictator here......

Educate yourselves and don't just believe the press.

Answer 6

Greed and arrogance. Oil also had allot to do with it. Defense Contractors love war, they love getting more cash from the working class. Those making over $300,000 a year got the tax cuts and they own stock in oil companies and defense.
It's about arrogance, Money, Oil and greed.

Answer 7

Well the cover story is, to search for weapons of mass destruction, but it was for OIL. When our president should have went after Osama for attacking our country he chose to go after Sadam for OIL.

Answer 8

Dethrone a evil dictator,Prove or disprove that he had any weapons of mass destruction. because that S.O.B wouldn't let the inspectors do the job .And finish what dad started. Now on to Iran

Answer 9

In search of WMD's.
Remove an evil dictator.
They were part of the Axis of Evil.
Liberate the Iraqi people.

Answer 10

Build political capital.