what is the real reason for u.s. army in Iraq since it has nothing to do with 9/11??? oil??

Question

As far as i know Sadaam has nothing to do with Alqaeda, he just made his people suffered for alond time but Hillery Clinton has a different point of view!!
Hillery Clinton summarized Saddam's relationship with 9/11 best ..
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock (((WHICH NO ANYONE FOUND OR WILL FIND BECAUSE NOTHING EXIST))), his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ((((SO BOTH PARTIES IRAQ AND IRAN WHICH ARE AGAINST EACH OTHER ARE SUPPORTING THE SAME ALQAEDA GROUP!! DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENCE)))). 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."

Answer 1

bush and his crowd of money hungry texas oilmen thought that the iraqi situation was easy pickings. they figured they would go in, everybody would love them, they would take over the oil supplies from a pliant iraqi puppet government they would set up, and pay off the u.s. expense for waging the war, which would include exorbitant bills from the military suppliers that this group have stocks in, and they would all end up as heros and multi-millionaires.

Answer 2

The reason for the war was to remove Saddam from power. Now you can make several arguments for why we wanted to remove him, but this was the goal no matter what excuse you choose. To say that Saddam did not have WMDs is a distortion of acknowledged fact. Saddam did have WMDs and he did use them against other people. What his capability was at the time of the invasion may indeed be questionable, but not the previous history. Further if Iraq was no longer pursuing these weapons then there was no reason for 12 years of obfuscation and obstructionism regarding inspections, but this occurred none the less. As to oil contentions. I don't think it can be denied that we would not be interested in Iraq if they did not have oil. Given the fact that our economy is driven by oil, it makes this commodity and it's free flow a vital national interest. However, I do not believe that oil was the over riding factor for Mr. Bush. I do not believe that Iraq posed a great threat to the United States before the war and there may not have been terrorists there, but saying Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists is again a distortion of actual fact. Saddam paid 25,000 dollars bounties to the families of suicide bombers. Now no matter what position you hold this cannot be denied as having supported terrorism. People seem to have selective memories on these matters, or they have an agenda which causes them to overlook them. I believe in the right to dissent against that which you don't agree, but I draw the line at using fallacies and half truths to make a case.

Answer 3

It may be because some countries esp Russia are perfecting electromagnetic energy 'scalar weapons'. In the 11/03 Chicago Tribune there's an article about US Puzzled at Mystery Projectile that describes a pellet the size of a pencil eraser hot like molten lava, hiting a million dollar tank and sinking right through it to the inner heating alarm.

Answer 4

Some of the information the world had at that time was overstated by Saddam. Removing him from office was one of those goals. If that was all it was, it was worth removing a person who slaughtered his own people. There is proof he had WMD's , there is also proof they went to Syria. The Sunni backed government of Iraq, was in good standing with the Syrian government. Don't forget all the UN resolutions that Iraq violated prior to the invasion of Iraq. Just because the UN did no have the backbone to enforce their own resolutions(corrupt oil for food foundation in the UN) does not mean the US and it's allies should ignore it.

Answer 5

We did the right thing for the wrong reasons perhaps. But genocide WAS being conducted by Saddam on the Kurds (even people who disbelieve the holocaust happened admit that). Our presence and Saddams removal from power stopped it, that alone makes our sacrifice worth it in my opinion.
Technically speaking, this war is a continuation of the 1st gulf war. Once Saddam ignored the terms of our cease-fire, he opened up the possibility of renewed action.

Answer 6

I know your question was about US troops in Iraq specifically, but the bigger question should be WHY THE HELL ARE UK TROOPS THERE.. OR IN AFGHANISTAN ?

QUOTE U.S. Donald Rumsfeld -
"but the ever-tactful Donald Rumsfeld said that the UK's help was not necessarily required. "I feel a little ashamed . . . that we treated him [Blair] like that," said Myers. "And yet there it was - there was no payback, no sense of reciprocity in the relationship."

Or how about a quote from Jeremy Shapiro of the Brookings Institution, the influential US think-tank -

". This has been an administration that's been extremely cruel to its allies. And the better the ally, the crueller they've been. This administration feels very good about the British, but for that reason, they feel very little need to do much for them." ...

To balance I quote James Rubin, who served in the Clinton administration as assistant secretary of state for public affairs and chief state department spokesman, -

"I've actually always been puzzled by the fact that Tony Blair has not chosen to respectfully disagree on some issues. On Guantánamo, it took him a long time to come round to talking about it. He could have been louder on the environment: he's done it, but very, very softly. The international criminal court, the ABM treaty [the anti-ballistic missile agreement, from which the US withdrew to allow work on Bush's missile defence plans], the chemical weapons convention . . . It seems to me that Blair could have maintained an effective working relationship with the president and still been able to speak honestly about disagreements, so long as he warned Bush in advance: 'Look, this is where my country is.' The relationship can stand a few distinctions."

PLEASE READ THE LINK BELOW.

Answer 7

The real reason could be oil or the American Govt's wish to keep some kind of control in the strategic middle east or it could just be Bush's ego.As for Hillary's statement about Sadaam Hussein increasing his capcity to wage bilogical warfare,it is all poppycock. Being in jail with the damocle's sword of gallows hanging on him perpetually it is doubtful if Sadaam can do that.

Answer 8

Weapons of mass destruction was one reason, and while arm chair intelligence analysts can say we should have known they were not there, keep in mind that even generals and high level people in Saddam's Bathist party government believed their own country had them.

Saddam is definitely another reason. He did defy UN resolutions and went relatively unpunished. He was also a brutal dictator who publicly aired executions of people who were ideologically opposed to him and stated that as he shot them to death. Furthermore, he used weapons of mass destruction against his own people.

Iran is another reason. Iranian government officials have stated openly that they would like to use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Moreover, US occupying bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq make it much easier to keep Iran in check, who lies between the two countries. It would also allow for operations to help topple a successor to King Fahd in Saudi Arabia without a US troop presence there because that successor will likely be an Islamist.

Oil is definitely a reason for going, but not to steal it, just to make sure it flows freely. Opponents say that oil should not be a good reason for military action; but those same opponents probably drive SUVs. It is certainly in the US interest to allow no one to ransom oil.

As you hinted, the only real thing that 9/11 had to do with Iraq is that we decided to be pre-emptive in dealing with enemies of the US rather than let them sit back and take the first shot. Despite Saddam not being a state sponsor of international terrorism like Libya, Iran, and North Korea, he was certainly no ally in the war against it.

In understanding why Iraq and Iran would support Al Queda, it is similar to the US position in a Soviet Afghanistan; states support those who fight a common enemy.

Answer 9

I believe that the primary goal was oil....yet it goes on from there. When we attacked that country, others were a bigger threat to this nation. I said it back then, but it wasn't something to say. I don't care for any side politically...haven't for years. I believe this country is really screwed until the people realize that a democracy isn't voting on 2 celebs getting hitched. I'm tired. Happy Holidays and I hope you are able to celebrate with those you love. (I'm not being a sarcastic f with that comment...hope you don't take it that way...just looking forward to going home)

Answer 10

Our military is essentially a police force for Bush's private ccontractors in Iraq like Halliburton. And they are there to secure the oil fields, which they plunder for $30 million a day, about 500,000 barrels.