Why did we invade Iraq instead of fighting the terrorists?

Question

Wouldn't it have made more sense to commit more resources to Afghanistan, where Osama and Al Qaeda actually was? Al Qaeda wasn't even in Iraq before we got there.

Surely, Saddam was evil, but so are many other world leaders. Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad certainly are, and we do nothing about them.

CP - the terrorists weren't in Iraq before we got there...

Answer 1

Quick answer is, terrorism took a backseat to greed and the pursuit of pseudo-power. Slow answer involves declassifying 9/11 documents and info, classified faulty intelligence drawn up by the USG and allies, as well as the PNAC's blueprint of their Iraq War they begged for since 1998....the media/USG cooperation as of Projects Mockingbird, Echelon and other cases of the media engorging itself as a result of governmental deregulations. These are my versions of why.

Answer 2

First, al Qaeda has been documented as having a relationship with the Iraqi Secret Service since 1992. So claiming, against all evidence, that they weren't there until we invaded is a big fat falsehood. Or shall I just call it a LIE because the facts have been out there for years. Hell, even Clinton addressed the relationship.

As for committing more resources to Afghanistan, that would not have been possible. In short, Afghanistan is land-locked (no ports) and has limited infrastructure, and no infrastructure in the mountain wilderness that Osama retreated to. So, 1) all supplies would have to come through airlift, 2) this limits how many troops can be deployed, 3) the situation becomes worse when in the rough country, then it must be air dropped, 4) that limits the number of troops even more. When you talk military deployment, you need to talk logistics. And the logistics didn't support this.

As far as Iraq, because of their long relationship with terrorists, their violations of the cease-fire agreements and UN resolutions regarding ceasing WMD development and dismantling all WMD labs and destroying all WMD stockpiles and delivery systems, the corruption of the Oil for Food program, and the violations of the other ceasefire agreements, the issue was we either had to walk away (making the UN's irrelevance and the cowardice of the West become painfully obvious) or we had to act decisively.

Also, it was apparent that taking down Saddam and giving the Iraqi people the freedom to create their own government would strongly affect the rest of the region, with its Islamic tyrants and dictatorships. The President observed that democracies are stable and peaceful and prosperous, all things not applicable to Islamic-run countries.

Answer 3

regrettably, the invasion of Iraq reinforced Islamic terrorism, so both are intertwined. the perfect commercial for the jihadists is Bush status in the front of a project finished signal. Why did the neocons refuse to take the strive against to Afghanistan, it truly is the position the terrorists had preparation camps, the Taliban and secure harbor? Iraq replaced into run with techniques from a nut case who presented the perfect buffer between the U. S. and Iran that lets have needed. The neocons are toddlers who believed their personal spin. 4,000 of u . s . a . of america's most well known later, we now comprehend that daddy Bush were given it accurate and The Uniter were given not some thing accurate. To defeat Islamic terrorism we can re-strive against the warfare in Afghanistan and pray the Iraq authorities one way or the different will become sensible, right away.

Answer 4

How do you know that there were no terrorists in Iraq ? Saddam had training schools for them all over the country. He was their source of financeing, as well.
So far we have no reason to attack either of the ones you mention. If Ahmadinejad trains terrorists who find their way to America and do a great deal of damage, that would be a different question.
What I'm worried about is that one of them will give enough material to terrorists to assemble an atomic bomb here. If I were the president, I would put out a notice that if an atomic explosion takes place in America. Our intelligence service will track it to the source. Immediately every city in that country would get the bomb. Not months or years later - - - immediately.
We have what it takes to do the job, all we need is the will. What do we care what the other nations think? Just like the Twin Towers, we had the damage, but other nations condemned us for doing anything about it.
I say, let them explode one small atomic bomb here, and loose their entire country and population.

Answer 5

Honestly, I completely agree with you. I support our troops 100% (I'm married to an Army soldier), but I don't approve of our invasion of Iraq. Personally, I think that Bush waited until the American people were seeing red over 9/11, and then directed attention away from Osama to Saddam, so that we would invade Iraq. I'm not sure if it was because of his Daddy or because he was afraid of never finding Osama and looking stupid, or some other reason, but I think it's ridiculous we're over there.

I'm glad Bush's time in office is nearly done. This "Global War on Terror" could easily become another World War (kinda what "Global war" would mean, eh?) and I'm scared of the consequences. I don't want my husband dying in combat somewhere because the American president wants to take over the world.

Answer 6

Even better commit more resources to domestic security such as protecting the border.

The right wing talkers always make the claim that we are safer with Saddam out of power. How can we be safer when so many resources are being used to play referee in THE IRAQI CIVIL WAR.

Answer 7

Saddam supported terrorism.

$50,000 American to any palestine family that would send their child into Israel strapped with explosives.

Terrorists camps not in use but there. He shut them down soon after 9/11.

WMDS----yes----You think he quit making them after he gasses the KURDS??? And just because you do not find them as big missles and bombs does not mean we have not found the stuff required to make them.

Saddam would not listen to the UN, mainly, Jong does and Mahmoud has sense to know not to mess with the world.

Thanks

Answer 8

To bring the war to them rather than them bringing it to us. i have a friend who works for the FBI's counterterrorist program and he says the threat is higher than ever and we should have been attacked recently, but having US presence in Iraq has slowed up the terrorist program. They can't organize themselves when US troops are running around their homeland. And if democracy does establish itself in Iraq, that will be the beginning of the end for terrorists.

Also, if we found Osama, we wouldn't kill him. We would probably spy on him to know when they are planning another attack. And even if we killed Osama, its not like his death is going to stop all terrorist activity. Someone else will just take his place.

Answer 9

We did, in the begginning. Afganistan turned out pretty damn well when you look at it; theyre starting to control themselfs and all of that. Iraq...We need to let Iran take care of Iraq; Iran and the new Iraqi Government are both Shia while the Insurgents are Sunni. So that would give Iran more motivation to eliminate the insurgents; plus Iran has offered to do it.

Look at it this way; since we invaded the Middle East, have you seen any more terrorist attacks in America? You can thank the government for that.

Answer 10

Saddam was ignoring the sanctions and producing more oil than his OPEC quota allowed. This drove down the price and cut into Exxon's profits.