The War in Iraq; US link?

Question

Hey,

I have been researching why the US went to war. So far I found that missiles were found in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2666955.stm
Iraqi Warheads Found) but I don't know how that relates to the US. I know that it does in some way, so could someone provide a link to CNN or BBC or some other credible site that tells me how and why the US went to war?

I'm trying to decide if I'm with or against Bush on that issue, and I need that information as the deciding factor.


Also, if you have info why we shouldn't have gone to war, please post it. Post the CRUDENTIALS too; a link to the site. dont just say "we shouldn't have gone to war because it costs to much" or something....provide a link from a trusted news source or something saything that.

Thanks for helping me out

Answer 1

http://story.theusnews.com/index.php/ct/9/id/de99dba116a7ab0c/cid/c31d0aaa23b24a75/

Answer 2

The Project for a New American Century was a neo-con think tank that suggested in the 1990s that the Middle East could be transformed by the overthrow of Saddam and the establishment of a democracy friendly to the US. VP Cheney was a big believer in this theory as were Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, who would have key roles in the Bush Pentagon. Donald Rumsfeld was a latecomer to this line of thinking.

Starting in August 2002, the White House Iraq Strategy Group started "selling" the war to the American public, like they were running a political compaign. Cheney and Rice raised the spectre of an Iraq with nuclear weapons, even though the evidence of such a program was based on pure speculation and faulty information from Iraqi defectors on the CIA payroll. It was generally accepted that Saddam was a real bad guy, we knew he had chemical weapons prior to the Gulf War and we doubted that the fully complied with UN Weapons inspectors. It was to turn out that the combination of sanctions and inspections had made it impoosible for Saddam to establish any functional, credible weapons program, whether biological, chemical or nuculear.

Because of 9/11, the political opposition did not have the will to really challenge these assumptions. It should be noted that 30 senators voted against giving the President the blank check which he would use to invade Iraq five months later. Most US opposition was based on the questionable morality of waging pre-emptive war against a nation that had not attacked us. Some rightly questioned the feasibility of the administration's naive assumptions about Iraq under US occupation. Few doubted the WMD story and nobody ever defended Saddam Hussein.

The invasion of Iraq has turned out to be perhaps the worst self-inflicted wound we have ever seen. It shows the damage that people with an excess of power and a lack of understanding can wreak, especially in the face of gutless opposition and a pervasive climate of fear.

Answer 3

The US began it's invasion in March of 2003. The article you cited was written in January 2003. It's old news. Not unreliable by any means, but the ancient fire-crackers US inspectors tried to pass off as WMDs in January didn't pass muster (read the entire article). They weren't the WMDs the Bush administration was hoping to find. No matter, they attacked anyway.

The war is about oil and strategic interests in the mid-east, nothing else. Some may argue that this is justification enough. At least that would be an honest position.

I could give you a 1000 links to support this very obvious and accepted contention, but unless you can do a little inductive reasoning on your own, they'd be meaningless. This isn't an insult.

In regards to the 1st posters link. Read it in it's entirety (I don't think the poster did).

Answer 4

Saddam broke the conditions of the Armistice from the first gulf war. This is the ONLY reason you need.

This was a legally binding contract, and he broke it immediately, and did so throughout the reign of the Clinton administration.

His payments to terrorist organizations, his undeclared saran and mustard gas, his tons of yellow cake, his active programs to develop nuclear weapons, his bribing of the French, German and Russians in order to subvert the UN are not important. American liberals don't care about these reasons, anyway, and neither do the enemies of the US.

Any murderous dictator who thinks he should get away with breaking an agreement with the United States should think twice---at least while a Republican is president.

Answer 5

Go down to the second to last answer in this link to know the answer to the oil belief
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsPlzP8SaZ.R.3I6AoTz_X_sy6IX?qid=20061011024856AAL2Xij

Here is a good one
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
and another
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

The funny thing is, I am writing a paper about whether the war was just or not. But of course, that means I have to define justice, and it gets into all that complicated stuff

Answer 6

US went to war with Iraq because they could. The WMD argument did not withstand the light of day. US was trying to prove to the world how big and bad it was to dissuade others from assaulting them.
It suffered from some very poor project management.

Answer 7

http://firstgovsearch.gov/search?v%3aproject=firstgov-web&v%3afile=viv_580%4032%3a0m6haJ&v%3aframe=list&v%3astate=root%7cN428&id=N428&action=list&

There are way too many articles written on the subject, personally I wouldn't go with anything CNN said. They have a liberal bias. I was trying to look for the speech given to the UN before we went into Iraq.....but, man there are a lot of articles!!!

Answer 8

Excuse me Dane, but it seems that if you read the first article posted, you will find yourself very wrong. Your response to this question is totally an opinion based off of what Democrats are trying to get you to believe in order to gain back control of Congress. Please do your research next time before you make false statements.

Answer 9

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c10780KGFH::

Answer 10

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/