Why did we go to Iraq?

Question

I figured I'd ask a simple question

Answer 1

Whatever the political reasons were that we went to Iraq, how many people can argue that the people over there that are willing to try and build a civilized and organized government are much better off? Its a war, people die, goals are chieved and failed, thats what its all about. Did we invade their country? I don't think so, since the new government there is asking us to stay. I don't know if I'm the only one thats noticed, but 80% of the people opposed to the war are either parents concerned with the well being of their kids in the military, or people who aren't and never were part of the military in their entire life. People join the military to fight in wars and defend their homeland, thats what the military does, if you join the military with expectation of not being put into harm or for a free ride through college, thats your own fault, do not join the militarty unless you want and are fully ready to go to war.

Answer 2

Under the pretence that Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the United States" the Bush adminstration attempted to implement the plan for "the New Amercian Century" where supposedly we would be welcomed with open arms, overthrow Saddam and establish a western style proamerican democracy with a free market economy, permanent american bases, providing a steady supply of oil; that would be a shining example to the rest of the middle east creating a domino effect of new democracies that would recognize Israel and bring peace to the entire middle east.

In other words -- an attempt to fulfill a neocon fantasy based on a a gross misconception of geopolitical reality.

Answer 3

Did I read you implying that the Democrats were the terrorists choice in the past elections? If so,you need to learn something about terrorists.Terrorists dont want to fight modernized diplomats.Since when does Iraq attack Europe,for example.
Terrorists are nationalists,and they want to fight nationalists.Why? Because nationalists would rather die than change a policy to give terrorists less of a reason to attack them.Cheney's "full speed ahead" is tailor made for a member of Al Qadea to say "See? If I dont attack them,they'll kill me".And so it goes.

If the United States had not spent decades trying to bully the Midle East into submission,it might have caught on to the modern approach some younger,more secularized Muslims want. We went to Iraq under the false premise that Bush supposed that Iraq has WMDs,of which he later admitted wasnt true,now we are "stuck" as John Kerry put it,until the Middle East decides for itself that it can sustain itself.

This is a bad situation with no easy way out for anyone.

Answer 4

There are only three reasons Bush illegally and unconstitutionally invaded a sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked, or attacked the U.S.:
1) The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Hussein ever since the days of Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was criticized and humiliated for not 'finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time;
2) Since World War II, the giant U.S. military-industrial complex realized how profitable WAR could be, so it bought up all the politicians, hired pricey lobbyists, and formed special interest groups to promote and encourage WAR. Thus, the U.S.A. was involved in the Korean Conflict; the Cuban Missile Crisis; the Cold War; Vietnam, and Desert Storm. It was time for another WAR to boost the PROFITS of those members of the military-industrial complex (such as McDonnell-Douglas, Sikorsky, Halliburton, Bechtol, GE, Boeing, General Motors HumVee, Westinghouse, etc.). The nameless, faceless sub-humans who control our government from behind-the-scenes ordered Bush to attack Iraq after they were complicit in the 9-11 'terrorist' incidents;
3) Dick Cheney and his Exxon-Mobil buddies want all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands so they can continue to feed America's dependency on OIL. All of those who drive $60,000 gas-guzzling SUVs must understand that the blood of 2,800 U.S. soldiers and 665,000 Iraqis is on their hands. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld were the anti-Christs who engineered the deal, but we're all to blame for this terror that has polarized the world.
I figured I'd give a simple answer. -RKO-

Answer 5

come on you know thats not a "simple question" here. Answers take facts and alot of people here dont have those so its actually quite difficult for them...

i sure will never understand the "Bush lied to congress" argument. This one above all is so conveluded. They seriously think the intell Bush saw was different than what he released to the rest of the govt I guess. Oh wait he made up the intel right? well how come every other country that investigated had the same intel?

Answer 6

They threatened to use the euro to trade oil.
As a bonus,
Our corporations who make war toys needed that little profit line to go up, so another good thing for the current admin since they profit directly, (which is not, but should be illegal,) ....conflict of interest naw.......and they could rape and pillage, give these so called layabouts something constructive to do...yada yada.... the same ol reasons for war...they bad...we good.....
As for public support, the American public generally does what the magic picture box tells them too.
Some of them think it has to do with 911.....yeah I know...sad...they just do not have it to tell one Islamic country from another....blame us schools for that.

Answer 7

Why do people continue to ask this THREE YEARS LATER?!

And I LOVE the rhetoric from libs here.

"Bush lied so we could go over there and take oil! Doesn't matter that democrats and the leaders in the rest of the world saw the same intel, decided it was credible, and that some of our own democratic leaders voted FOR going to war! Huh huh huh!!! Doesn't matter that we know from Russia Saddam had plans to attack the U.S.!"

So, was BILL CLINTON, lying in 1998 when he BOMBED Iraq citing the threat of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs?

Look, I'm REALLY tired of all the rhetoric being slung around with this question. Folks, GET OFF IT!

(And I am sure this answer will be deleted in the next couple days)

Answer 8

Simple answer: lies, lies, and more lies.

Not to mention manipulation. The Bush Administration manipulated the facts to make it appear that a vote against the war in Iraq was a vote against the war on terror. The politicians in Congress were more concerned with getting reelected than they were about doing the right thing,

Answer 9

Well, I was told before we went to Iraq it was for WMDs. Later on I was told it was to remove Saddam from power. Further later, I was told it was to establish emocracy in Iraq. No clue, what I will be told in future.

I was told that Iraq oil will pay for war expenses. I was also told that there will be no financial burden on US tax payers and all Iraq reconstruction costs will be paid by Iraq oil. What I really saw was that Halliburton made lot of money in Iraq.

Answer 10

We went to Iraq to enforce UN sanctions that the UN didn't want us to enforce.

We went to Iraq to destroy the weapons of mass destruction that weren't there.

We went to Iraq to liberate them from the risk of possibly being killed by Saddam Hussein without cause or warning. (And thus imposed upon them the risk of being killed by Al Qaida or a militia group or 'collateral damage' without cause or warning.)

We went to Iraq to free the Iraqi people. And we successfully freed them of their water, their electricity, their homes, their jobs, and their families. Given time, we will successfully free them of their oil, too.