I forget. What was the reason Bush told us we had to invade Iraq again? Do you think there was another reason?

Question

I think Bush's War in Iraq will be like World War I in the history books. School kids will be forever scratching their heads about why we went there. Will they be asking the parents for the next 200 years, "Why did we invade Iraq when there were 15 Saudis and no Iraqis on the 9/11 planes? I just don't get it mom."

Answer 1

The same reasons why the Democrats joined the Republicans in voting to invade Iraq. Your lapse of memory is what will go into some book!

Answer 2

The Congress of the United States, including most members of the Deomocratic Party voted for the invasion. Don't forget the failure of the United Nations to enforce their own resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction.
World War I was started because of entangling treaties - a war generated by the death of two people. Its in the history books, but you must read to find out.

Answer 3

Bush instructed us first that Iraq became in cahoots with Al Qaeda, and that they have been in charge for 9/eleven. whilst that became prooven fake, he then instructed us that they had WMD's. lower back, that became prooven to be fake. i ended retaining track at 2 excuses. the actual reason? properly, it variety of feels that for the time of the past whilst daddy became the prez, Saddam had tried to have him killed (or so i've got heard). another issues got here approximately, and Sr. Bush went into Iraq to tutor Saddam what became what. whilst it became all carried out, no longer something became replaced different than our infantrymen having mysterious ailments with the aid of using chemical conflict (unlawful interior the Geneva convention - does it strike all and sundry else as spectacular that there are regulations to scuffling with a conflict? that's a conflict human beings!!). properly, daddy lost to invoice, invoice became in for his 8 years, and then whilst Jr. Bush have been given into workplace, the plotting began on how the U. S. could bypass after Saddam and end what the Sr. Bush could no longer do - take out Saddam. properly, Jr. Bush and the Republicans have been scratching their heads, and then BAM - 9/eleven/2001. proper! It fell precise into their laps. so they blamed what they'd on Iraq, and whilst that wasn't adequate, they claimed complicated data of WMD's. They even sent Powell to the UN to dangle his @$$ out to dry. Bush then sent interior the troops, and right here we are actually. Saddam is in a sham of a tribulation, there have been no WMD's discovered (ask your self), and we've killed greater infantrymen than the style of those that died on 9/eleven. Does all and sundry else think of it wasn't very efficient??

Answer 4

Wow! Are you another Liberal coward pretending that the war is not against radical Islamic TERRORISTS? The terrorists are all over the middle east including Iraq. You are obviously a whimpering Leftist.
The irony here is that you and I are on different ends of the political spectrum, and the radical Islamists want us both dead.
Do you need to wait until a idiot gets on a plane, bus, or goes into a restaurant with your kids in it to blow themselves up before you pull your head out of your a**?

Answer 5

Bush planned to invade Iraq from the time he was elected. He used the victims of 9/11 as his gateway there. He planned to finish what his father started. He is a member of Yale's University Secret Society of Skulls and Bones, as his father is and his grandfather is. If you will research when Bush Sr. invaded Iraq the first time he stated this is a time for "New World Order". This is Yale's Secret Society's main goal. World control. It is all about the oil, money and power. To create a one world government and it is not for the best of the people only certain folks. It is interesting to research and American and alike need to wake up to this fact. Do the research.

Answer 6

Actually our children will be wondering why people like you, refused to pay attention to the facts, or learn personal responsibility, or why this country is the great country that it is. Especially after history proves Bush right, and cowards like you wrong.
P.S.
Bush won twice, get over it.

Answer 7

Well, there were documents and diagrams on the Iraqi Freedom Documents Portal taken down this morning showing that they had nuc-u-lar weapons and related technology from 1990. That still counts doesn't it? I mean, Tony Snow says your President feels every serviceperson's death deeply. HA! That's why we can't see pictures of flag draped coffins? That's why we can't have free press in the war zone, like we used to have? That's why we have a media pool. So, we can see the same stock footage of the same "jihadists" with RPG's while they say more Americans died today in what is the 1,200th day since the President declared "Mission Accomplished???"

Answer 8

Discontinue scatching your noggin, my friend. Allow me to esplain.
The stated reason was Saddam Hussein not complying with UN security resolutions and the terms of peace from the Gulf war for 10 years (which I believe was legitimate) and his development of and/or intent to develop weapons of mass destruction (which is probably also legitimate, given the little publicized tapes of Saddam talking about such things with member of his regime before it fell, circa 2000). I know you've been conditioned to say, at this point, "But we never found any weapons of mass destruction. Bush lied."
While it is true that we have not found the WMD's, that doesn't mean they weren't there or in the works. I believe Saddam did have or was trying to develop WMD's of some sort. But I could be wrong. Maybe our intelligence was just bad and Bush was wrong too. But being wrong and lying are 2 very different things, which I've come to realize is not an obvious concept to everyone. Being wrong is saying something that's not true, while believing it to be true. Lying is saying something untrue and knowing it's untrue. Being wrong is forgivable because you know it wasn't intentional. Lying makes you distrust the liar because they intentionally decieved you. They better have a good explanation for lying. If you believe Bush lied, than Bill Clinton lied about it too. So did many Democrat members of Congress. Matt Drudge played soundbites of many prominent Democrats in the late 90's and early 2000's saying that Saddam was seeking WMD's and that regime change in Iraq was probably the only long term solution.
Remember also, the build up to Iraq started less than 2 years after Clinton left office. If he didn't think there were WMD's he would have said something before we went in. Yet he didn't, and his wife, Hillary, voted for the war.
To the second question. I do believe there is another, more important, reason we went into Iraq. The middle east is replete with Islamic tyrannical governments. The idea is to plant a free society in the middle east that can thrive. Eventually the people in surrounding nations will want the freedom they see in Iraq and demand it from their government. With time, the Middle East will be transformed from a crazy closed society to a free society with free exchange of ideas. People can be convinced of anything when it's the only game in town. But when contrary ideas are allowed to be expressed, more rational ideas have a better chance. This is a proactive, long term approach to solving the terrorism problem. They are going after the root of the problem. What you're saying is "Why aren't we just going after the symptoms?"
We picked Iraq because it was already weakened from years of isolation and we had a plausible and legitimate (Saddam not complying with terms of peace and UN resolutions) reason to overthrown the regime.
The original invasion went better than we anticipated, but the aftermath has been much more difficult. Iran and Syria understand what we are trying to do and they know our success in Iraq will likely bring about an end to their regimes as well. That's why they're actively supporting insurgent groups in Iraq.
Honestly, I don't think the war is going badly. The casualty rate is extremely low for a war (research this for yourself...people at home in the United States are dying at a faster rate than the troops in Iraq! And the casualty rate is the lowest of any war in US history.) Nearly all service men and women that I've talked too have said the war is not going nearly as badly as portrayed in the news and they (the media) aren't reporting the progress that's being made.
There's so much more to say here, but I'll end it by saying...we need to succeed in Iraq. To succeed, we need to be committed and not root for our failure just so Republicans look bad. Even if you want Democrats to win, losing in Iraq is way way to high of a price to pay.

Answer 9

Besides Iraq's WMDs and potential A-bomb?.... Iran, and it's Jihadist are the ultimate target. This is a war against religious fanatics, which is why it is so dangerous and hard to fight.

Answer 10

A friend of mine is a Lt. Col. Air Force Res. working as an analyst at the Pentagon, (with all the Joint Chiefs Of Staff.all 4 stars). This person told me, just before we went to Iraq, that we're only in it for the oil.