The United Nations had passed 17 resolutions concerning Iraq. Iraq failed to adhere to all 17. The U.N. did nothing to keep Iraq in line. Instead, the U.N. kept passing resolutions. Bush thought it was a good time to pressure Iraq into complying with the U.N. With this knowledge, along with some bad intelligence about WMDs (that MOST politicians believed), Bush gave Iraq one last chance to come back to the world community. They decided it was a bluff, but they were wrong. Bush attacked, ousted Saddam, set up a new government based on the will of the Iraqis, and now we are helping that months old government to become self sufficient.
2006-07-14 19:31:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Saddam "lost" his war with Iran (he said he won) where he used Chemical weapons.
Saddam then Invaded Kuwait
The US and others from the United Nations Liberated Kuwait and Invaded Iraq.
Saddam signed a treaty ending the fighting in that war as long as he followed rules on what kinds of weapons he could have and where he could fly his planes and where we could fly to enforce these rules.
For the next 10 years or so Saddam continued to violate this treaty by firing on US aircraft, denying access to weapons inspectors, purchasing illegal long range missiles, and had WMDs(no one doubts any of these violations even if he only had a small number of WMDs)
When Saddam broke the treaty we had the "right" to resume hostilities with them but all we did was occasionally fire off a missile or bomb an anti aircraft radar, all the while Saddam was selling his oil illegally (under UN oil for food) for weapons from the French and Germans. It was a far off country that most Americans could not find on a map and they did not seem to be a threat at the time.
After September 11th the American people all of the sudden felt venerable to the enemies of our country and were now willing to go back into Iraq to "finish" the job of the first Iraq war.
Once the US Military toppled the Iraqi government they set out to rebuild a new government and secure the people so the economy can recover. Guerrilla organizations have been opposing them but have been tactically unsuccessful thus far, but they only need to win one battle the one that makes the US pull out.
2006-07-14 20:22:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by MP US Army 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
First off. Bad relations with them from past events aka Persian Gulf War, if you want an explanation of the Persian Gulf War and what caused it email me.
Second. For WMD's and Terrorists
And Third. Okay this may be hard for some to understand but if you know anything about politics you will understand. Iraq, the craddle of civilization the jewel of the Arab world. What is the importance of a nation such as Iraq? It is extremely influencial, other Arab nations look at it as a role model. Setting an example of being a successful Democracy can and will sway other Arab Monarchies, Theocracies, Despotisms, and Communisms to change a become Capitalist after they see the advantages of Capitalism. Thus this will bring peace and hopefully cut down on terrorist harboring and funds.
2006-07-14 19:29:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sure. I'll make it simple for you. If I can.
1. Oil, but not in the way people think. We're not there to take possession of the oil. See, what Saddam was doing (besides killing his own people, and developing chemical and biological weapons, which HAS been proven), was taking the profits from the oil to build himself more palaces, while his people starved.
2. Saddam has threatened the US numerous times (and his country had fired on us while we were enforcing the treaty, e.g. the no-fly zones), and was in violation of the treaty that ended the first Gulf War. The UN had passed 17 resolutions against him, which was basically like putting a match on a fire. Useless. More decisive action was needed.
3. Saddam was a threat not just to the Iraqis themselves, but to other countries, including the US. There were quite a few materials used for chemical and biological weapons found, and he was only months away from being able to use those weapons against all of his enemies.
4. The fear of WWIII. We sat back and watched while Hitler gained power. We can't afford that again.
So that's why. My sources are history, and facts not tainted by liberal, conservative, Republican or Democratic propaganda. I remember all of these things happening, and I've spoken to many soldiers who were there, and were free to talk about what they had seen.
2006-07-15 03:02:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bush invaded Iraq for three reasons:
1. Oil (as others have already said). Peak oil in the US was reached around 1976; the country has relied on imports ever since. Iraq has the second or third largest reserves. The USA is the biggest consumer of oil.
2. Under the Wilsonian doctrine (since 1901 or so), the USA has adopted an on again/off again political stance concerning its Manifest Destiny: simply stated, economic domination of the world for the advantage of US economic and corporate interests. At times, the US has been totally insular;at other times, it has been expanionist. At this time, under Bush, the Wilsonian doctrine is at its zenith, bolstered and justified by the need to fight extremists to protect American interests.
3. Iraq, prior to this war, was virtually defenceless. It was an easy target to over-run. Most Arab states in the region either hated Saddam or at least wanted to see the last of him. With their active and passive compliance, Bush had a very easy entry into one of the largest pools of oil in the world. Now that the US is there, it will never leave until the oil runs out, maybe 2050 or so. In addition, by attacking Iraq and leaving the impression that Saddam was tied in with al-Qaeda, Bush et al was able to deflect public opinion away from the debacle in Afghanistan and the failuire to capture/kill Osama bin Laden.
Hope that covers it for you.
2006-07-14 23:08:24
·
answer #5
·
answered by tlc 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ah yes, the vitriol of liberals. We placed Saddam into power to give us a friend in the Middle East. He was more whacko than we were prepared for. Not only would he not step down when it was suggested, he started gassing Iraqi citizens (the Kurds) had rape and torture camps and all the good stuff. He attacked Kuwait, causing all kinds of environmental havoc when he burned the oil wells. It was only a matter of time before he attacked Iran for sure, and his other neighbors later. He already proved he could hit Israel with SCUDs, all that was missing was the biological warheads. With all this pending and America's addiction to oil, we simply couldn't afford to leave an unstable despot like him in power. We looked for anything we could to use as an excuse to go in and get rid of him. I don't think the government was prepared for the dogged determination of the Islamic extremists that jumped at the opportunity to kill American troops for Allah. If an internal middle east war was to break out in earnest, every sides' main target would be economic as well as military. That means the oil fields. Like it or not, without the oil, America would grind to a halt economically. Employers couldn't afford to pay you enough to buy gas to drive to work. Consumers couldn't bear the price increases driven by the rising fuel prices. Heating oil costs would cause untold hardship and death during winter storms. Now we are in a position that makes it near impossible to back out until there is a stable self-sustaining government in Iraq. If we leave too soon, the government collapses and the terrorists will view it as a victory and a reason for bolder attacks on U.S. soil. Hope I didn't get too detailed for you.
2006-07-14 19:41:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by sparkletina 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No one has ever satisfactorily answered that question.
15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis from Saudi Arabia. Osama a Saudi.
So why are we in Iraq?
If it's WMDs then why didn't we go after N. Korea? We knew they definitely had WMDs.
If it's freedom, then who's freedom? The US?
Iraq never invaded the US.
The Iraqi peoples' freedom? They don't look in great shape right now. Seriously, would anyone like to go over there on vacation?
2006-07-14 19:28:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
We are not at war with Iraq. The war was in 2003 and lasted three weeks. We are currently trying to keep the peace whilst the new Iraqi government builds an army and police force.
2006-07-15 05:39:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bush used fabricated intelligence about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq. The war contributes to the military complex and the maintenance of a permanent wartime economy which benefits the party in power.
2006-07-14 19:24:57
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
We are no longer at war with Iraq. Iraq received its liberation
from Saddam quite some time ago, thank God Almighty.
We are at war with terrorists. And we will, by God's Grace, defeat them very soon just as we defeated Saddam.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
I Corinthians 13;8a, Love never fails!!!!!
2006-07-14 19:28:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 7
·
0⤊
0⤋