Invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Question

Which combinations do you prefer, and why:-

1) The Bush administration invaded Iraq because:-
a) Saddam Hussein had wanted to kill Bush Snr
b) free Iraqi people from oppression of a lunatic dictator
c) Iraqi oil
d) national security threat based on faulty intelligence
e) alleged national security threat based on manipulated intelligence

2) What is the consequence of the invasion?
a) terrorists go to Iraq and leave US alone, and if they are beaten there the world, and US will be safer from terrorists
b) terrorists go to Iraq as training ground and makes US more vulnerable to future attacks as their numbers multiply exponentially

3) What should Bush administration now do?
a) withdraw completely
b) increase combat forces
c) increase trainers
d) increase armour
e) ask Baghdad to declare martial law, outlaw all weapons from the public domain
f) engage Syria and Iran
g) release Saddam Hussein, hold him on a leash and make him representative of Sunnis

Answer 1

1) None. He wanted to finish what his Father started, and 9/11 gave him an excuse for war

2) None. Terrorists still exist, and will always continue to exist so long as there are fanatics. No amount of U.S intervention will help.

3) None. He should be executed. Or at least impeached.

Answer 2

1) A and B. The main reasons we went into Iraq were because of violations of UN resolutions and the cease-fire treaty signed at the end of the first Gulf War. The fact of the matter is, there WERE weapons. Troops found some of the warehouses where they were stored...and the warehouses had recently been cleaned out.
There is another reason you DIDN'T mention, but that I believe is a huge part: The war in Iraq was started for strategic reasons. We needed another friendly country in the Middle East, which would then help to combat terrorism. Of course, this seems to have backfired a bit, but how were WE supposed to know that it would?
2) I'm thinking A is the closest to being correct. People from other countries are going into Iraq and killing our troops there...and the Iraqis.
3. B, C, and D. We need to stop trying to play nice.

Answer 3

1. d - Although some of the intell was known to be bad, still the outcome would not have mattered.
2. b.- This seems to be the case, given whats going on with Eygpt, and in Somalia. There is a strong possibilty this is all connected and the ME will be a melting pot of terrorism.
3. e.- The Iraqi gov. is in peril, and they are incompetent. Maliki will have to go, and as Iran keeps supporting the Shiites, and on the heels of Saudia Arabia saying they pledge to 'aggressively support' the Sunnis, all this makes for a BIG HUGE war in the making. So, martial law maybe the best place to begin.

P.S.- no matter what, the decent people of the world cannot allow this to bloom into a bigger problem...all this one man started,,,omg, what now?

Answer 4

1. Iraqi oil and because it is the largest mid east country with if converted to a democracy would be a major influence in mid east and because it had a ruthless dictator.

2. Consequences are more people in that area hate us, we can't back down even if we wanted too or we show weakness in the international community which essientially ruins our credit, and innocent Iraqis are suffering because of our presence.

3. Use Stalin tactics. Seal borders, disarm every citizen, fix their power problems, water, and trash problems. Take away all their freedoms and then give them back after an appropriate time frame. It is hard to make people enjoy their freedom if they haven't lost it first. Right now they are too free. To restore normalcy, the basic creature comforts need restored. Power, water, and city cleanup.

Answer 5

a lot lack of life and destruction became an effect of the Iraq conflict, little question about it, yet freedom has a fee, and that fee is intense, yet a fee it is fairly properly worth it. an excellent type of the freedom human beings appreciate and take with none interest fee dearly, human beings now and again ignore that in the relax of their residences. to look on the present state of Iraq and use that as a measuring Rod as to the success of the conflict is disingenuous to assert the least. We uprooted a evil dictatorship and put in this is position a loose democracy were human beings rule themselves. organising a sparkling Democracy takes time, because it did in our own international places case right here in us of a of america. issues do not paintings themselves out over evening. God bess

Answer 6

1c) - America wants more control over oil producing countries, and Saddam Hussein's actions were just an excuse for the yanks to get revenge for 9/11 - America took it out on Iraq because they could not catch the real offenders.....do you see USA forces focusing so many resources on all the non-oil producing countries that have massive civil unrest?

2none) America does not care about the consequences..cos when it all goes wrong....The good old "US of A"...will pull out and leave UK/EU forces to clean up all the mess.

3a)...and stop invading countries that refuse to abide by his and USA's dictatorial demands.

Answer 7

Bush invaded Iraq for many reasons. It's not that easy like a quiz.My opinion is to have power in middle east was the most important. America did not bring peace to Iraq!
And what's funny is that America supported Saddam in the beginning.

Answer 8

this is situped war without any reason what ever people try to find the reason they will not find it this is first war in the history without reason just because there is creazy president rule USA

Answer 9

1 = e but it goes much farther than that consider what Iran is doing.
2 = a
3 = a,b,c,d and e

Answer 10

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons
of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President
Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.We want to
seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the
risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons
against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb
18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution
and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on
suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens.
Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction
technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the
weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and
palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs.
Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may
be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery
systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to
President Bus h, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the
peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that
Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he
has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare
capabilities. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter
and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore,
Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that
Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he
has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare
capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen.
Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop
nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We
also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10,
2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant
UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological
weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D,
CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein
has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery
capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D,
NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein
has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and
storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if
necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons
of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F.
Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous
dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat
because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real"
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003