what made US to attack iraq?

Answer 1

They needed democracy crammed down their throat.

Answer 2

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, codenamed "Operation Iraqi Freedom" by the United States, officially began on March 20, 2003. The stated objective of the invasion was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people".[1]. In preparation, 100,000 US troops were assembled in Kuwait by February 18.[7] The United States supplied the majority of the invading forces. Supporters of the invasion included a coalition force of more than 40 countries, and Kurds in northern Iraq. The 2003 Iraq invasion began the Iraq War

Answer 3

Because the US needs a force in the middle east, and Iraq happens to be right in the middle of the region, loaded with oil, and very conviently located next to Iran and Syria. Any more questions.

Answer 4

To stop Saddam and to free the Iraqi people. Oil is a dumb answer. I don't have time to explain.

I know they didn't have weapons of Mass Destruction, but we had to take him serious don't you think, i mean the guy killed thousands of people, and at least we got him. Now we just need to get the job done, stop the sectarian violence, and train the Iraqi Army to protect themselves. The insurgents have killed many of our soldiers, that's already a reason to stay and win in my opinion. We can't just cut and run and act like nothing happened, besides, that ain't gonna make things better, it will make things even worst. Those insurgents in Iraq are spreading all the way to somalia, we need to stop it now before it gets worst and puts the US in more danger.

Answer 5

Iraq just happens to be setting on the worlds second largest puddle of oil. They had a weak government, weak military, no nukes, so it was an easy mark for an oil thief. In walks Bush.

Answer 6

The means to real peace. No government admits any more that
it keeps an army to satisfy occasionally the desire for conquest.
Rather the army is supposed to serve for defense, and one invokes the
morality that approves of self-defense. But this implies one's own
morality and the neighbor's immorality; for the neighbor must be
thought of as eager to attack and conquer if our state must think of
means of self-defense. Moreover, the reasons we give for requiring
an army imply that our neighbor, who denies the desire for conquest
just as much as does our own state, and who, for his part, also keeps
an army only for reasons of self-defense, is a hypocrite and a
cunning criminal who would like nothing better than to overpower a
harmless and awkward victim without any fight. Thus all states are
now ranged against each other: they presuppose their neighbor's bad
disposition and their own good disposition. This presupposition,
however, is inhumane, as bad as war and worse. At bottom, indeed, it
is itself the challenge and the cause of wars, because, as I have
said, it attributes immorality to the neighbor and thus provokes a
hostile disposition and act. We must abjure the doctrine of the army
as a means of self-defense just as completely as the desire for
conquests.

And perhaps the great day will come when people,
distinguished by wars and victories and by the highest development of
a military order and intelligence, and accustomed to make the
heaviest sacrifices for these things, will exclaim of its own free
will, "We break the sword," and will smash its entire military
establishment down to its lowest foundations. Rendering oneself
unarmed when one had been the best-armed, out of a height of feeling
-- that is the means to real peace, which must always rest on a peace
of mind; whereas the so-called armed peace, as it now exists in all
countries, is the absence of peace of mind. One trusts neither
oneself nor one's neighbor and, half from hatred, half from fear,
does not lay down arms. Rather perish than hate and fear, and twice
rather perish than make oneself hated and feared -- this must someday
become the highest maxim for every single commonwealth.

Our liberal representatives, as is well known, lack the time
for reflecting on the nature of man: else they would know that they
work in vain when they work for a "gradual decrease of the military
burden." Rather, only when this kind of need has become greatest
will the kind of god be nearest who alone can help here. The tree of
war-glory can only be destroyed all at once, by a stroke of
lightning: but lightning, as indeed you know, comes from a cloud --
and from up high.

(translation by W. Kaufmann, transcribed by T. Rourke. File archived
at Lord Etrigan's Nietzsche site...
http://members.aol.com/lrdetrigan/index4.html Accept no imitations!)

Answer 7

Saddam Hussein's violations of 18 United Nation's Resolutions and the UN's report of WMDs!!!

Answer 8

Good question, but you'd have to ask Bush and his cronies, if they're willing or capable of telling the truth. Getting Saddam out of there was a good goal, but we could have given $4 billion to someone else to do it and saved the lives of our young and our govt budget.

Answer 9

JEWS!! It was for the sake of Israel!!!! The whole Bush doctrine is part and parcel of the neo con plan to make the middle east safe for Israel. It is regardless of what it costs in Amercian and Arab lives just so long as Israel is safe.

Answer 10

when he was sleeping Georges W. Bush heard a voice : "My son, get rid of Saddam for me." In fact it was his dad because he could do it in 1992.

Answer 11

That would be most of the "intelligence" in the US, the federal government, and with the backing of a bunch of morons, we were in.