Why did we invade Iraq?

Question

The policy of containment was working. The evidence that they had WMD was flimsy at best. There was never a connection between 9/11 and Saddam. So, why are we there? A lot of people are dying as a result. How can we justify that?

Answer 1

Because if we suddenly pull out, it will create an even bigger mess. What happened in the past (as idiotic as it was) should be irrelevant. Only the current facts and probable effects of our actions should be taken into account.

By all appearances, it seems Saddam did comply with UN resolutions to disarm his WMD's. Weapons inspectors asked for an additional 6 months to finish the job. Bush said no. As far as a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, a majority of americans _still_ believe that there is one.

Addendum: If we're going to start talking about UN resolutions, why don't we impose our will on Israel to start implementing the scores of resolutions they're currently in violation of (note that this doesn't count the resolutions which were vetoed by the US).

A war was started on false pretenses. To declare otherwise is to call yourself an ostrich. That being said, we can't just leave it a mess, that would be even worse than starting it.

Answer 2

NO the policy of containment was not working. We all know there was no connection to 911 and Iraq. Are you just figuring this out, even though it has never ever been connected by anyone in this or any other government. Weapons were still being sold to Iraq via France and Russia. The UN was on Saddam's payroll (does oil for food jog any memory). There were I believe 14 UN resolutions that were not followed. There was plenty of evidence. Not only in the US but for the 30 other countries that made up the coalition. We didn't go by our Intel alone.

Answer 3

We went into Iraq for WMD. The Intel was actually quite good. Bush, Clinton, the democrats and the republicans were all saying Iraq must be dealt with. We did find the weapons. From the start of the invasion we have encountered foreign fighters. All terrorists. From every were.

Now that we are fighting them we have more reason to be in Iraq then ever before. Iraq has more and a wider variety of terrorists we are fighting, killing, capturing and getting good Intel on, then Afghanistan.

Oct. 1983 Marine Barracks Beirut Lebanon 283 DEAD
Dec. 1988 Pan Am Flt 103 Lockerbie Scotland 244 DEAD
Feb. 1993 World Trade Center NYC Ny 6 DEAD
Oct. 1993 Somalia, Africa, American Rangers and Delta Force are killed by rebels. Supplied and trained by Osama. Over a thousand DEAD 19 of them American soldiers
Oct 1993 Somalia, Africa over 300,000 died by radical Muslims who starve the civilians to feed there army.
Jun. 1996 Khobar Towers Dhahran, Sa 19 DEAD
Aug. 1998 US Embassies Kenya/Tanzania 224 DEAD
Oct. 2000 USS Cole Aden Yemen 17 DEAD
Not to mention 9/11

All deaths from terrorists

Each and every time we turned our back from attacks on the USA or its allies. Even in Africa we left our mission. Its no wonder the terrorists think they can win.

If we leave Iraq now the terrorists will be in control of all that oil, which means they will be that much more powerful. And make no mistake, it will all go into Iran.

I am a US Navy seal and can tell you from first hand knowledge why we went to Iraq is not important. Whats important is that we win. The real question is why the liberals believe in giving the terrorists more rights and the military less techniques to interrogate and commence direct action missions in Iraq.

Answer 4

While mistakes were made, we must learn to overcome them and get the job done. Even if we screwed up in the first place. Railing constantly on a flub will do no good. We need to just finish the job we set out to do and take the lessons learned as we are still a relatively young country and move on to our next task. Instead of asking why we did something, ask how we can fix the problem and acoomplish our goals. Example: You are in surgery and your surgeon left a tool in you. You are in pain and go see your General Practitioner. Your GP then states the surgeon left a tool in there. You go back to see the GP because you still are in pain. The GP says there is still a surgical tool in you. You repeat process and GP gives you same response every week. Perhaps you and the GP should call the surgeon instead of running through this pointless cycle. I know it is far fetched for that scenario but parallels can be drawn that pertain to this question.

Answer 5

Hussein violated 18 UN resolutions and that is why we went into Iraq, the WMDs were moved to Syria and Lebanon with the help of France and Russia who were involved with the crooked UN food for oil scandal and there was a connection with alQaida
and Saddam. Stop listening to Michael moore and the rest of these anti-american "people."

Answer 6

I just finished answering a similar question, so here comes the cut and paste.

As an additional note, containment was not working. Oil was already flowing from the country and could be purchased on the open market prior to invasion.

Why are we even fighting this war?

Let me touch upon Afghanistan first. In the new global village, instability in one area will spill over into another. Islamist extremists from Saudi Arabia found a welcoming home in Afghanistan. The Taliban found religious brethren in Al Queda and gave them their name sake. The goal of Al Queda is to reconstitute the Caliphate, under their control of course. The Caliphate for those that don't understand the scope of the issue would be a Taliban like Islamic country that would include all land from Spain to Afghanistan, and along the north of Africa. Al Queda is a global terrorist organization and has taken "credit" for numerous attacks.

Why Iraq?
Iraq convinced the world that it had WMD when it did not. Under the 1% doctrine, a number of western countries entered Iraq to get rid of any WMD. What was the 1% doctrine? Simply stated, if there was a 1% chance of a threat from WMD it would be treated as a certainty instead.

Iraq was supporting terrorism abroad, but not domestically. As a state, Iraq was a rogue actor fomenting violent action outside its boundaries. It could not be known with certainty if they were harbouring terrorists domestically though. Terrorism can't be bombed from afar either; that was proven by the cruise missile attacks conducted by Clinton against Al Queda in Africa and Afghanistan.

Once you've overthrown a government, only to find out that they were bluffing, what do you do? The government under Saddam could be described as noxious at best. Why allow that government, now humiliated, to reconstitute with an even greater desire to harm you? Why not try to set up a democracy that may prevent these issues?

Why is there still fighting?
I rephrased your question as in both Afghanistan and Iraq there is a new government. In both cases the fledgling democracies can't stand on their own and have requested the support of other world powers.

In both cases the overthrown party is trying to destabilize the new government in hopes of wresting control from them. The Taliban want to return to power as do the Bathists. In both instances groups such as Al Queda have declared the spread of democracy as a crusade against Islam (It interferes with the desired Caliphate). Islamic extremists have been entering the fray to promote a wholesome Islamic government instead of a depraved democracy. Oddly enough the native populations are fighting them to maintain a democracy.

As a last note, GW Bush was derided for declaring an axis of evil that Iraq was a part of. Can you name the other two countries, and have they been in the news lately?

Answer 7

No one claimed a connection except liberals trying to put words in Bush's mouth. We had all the approval due to Saddam violating the UN sanctions. WMD has been found in Iraq, and with Satimage many were probably shipped to Syria before the USA invaded. Feel free to educate yourself on the truth and stop listening to Michael Moore and others of his ilk.

Answer 8

Numerous reasons were given when Congress was approached.

But the main one to remember above ALL ELSE was that Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement that 'ended' the actions known as Desert Storm. Once they violated that agreement, we were justified in going back.

Hell... we should have ended it the first time the cease-fire agreement was violated. But you-know-who was too much of a pansy to finish the job right.

Answer 9

It's the oil in the country the oil in the country... oil in the country I want!! :) That's a song btw.

Ok, now that that's out of the way, have you noticed a pattern around the world? People in power only seem to want to intervene if fuel is involved, in particular oil. When Sadam invaded Kuwait, there was a big fuss about it all, this must be stopped! :) In Zimbabwe, when people were being slaughtered because of their farms, I guess it wasn't that important because there is no fuel there.

I think there's a similar situatin in North Korea. No need to topple any regime there because they don't have any oil right? But we may have overlooked that they might actually have the knowledge to make nukes themselves. What we may have also overlooked is the fact they may sell this technology to Al-Qaida?

P.S. Why are people giving the question a thumbs down? It's actually an important question whether we like it or not.

Answer 10

They have found WMD and know, according to Iraqi intel that WMD were moved out into Syria by Russia and France, the stallers. You really should do some research into this matter and educate yourself on something other than PBS.