Do you think that the US goverment made up going into Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction?

Question

Thats not my thoughts. Im not saying thats true I just want to know other peoples opinions

Answer 1

They had the right reason to go, but they made the mistake of assuming the public knew what was going on between Iraq and the UN. Saddam had gained petrolium, and after that wouldnt let any weapon inspectors from the UN or any nation enter his country. The UN put 27 sanctions ,over time, on Iraq and Saddam ignored them all.

This was all prior to 2003 when we entered Iraq. And by using a little common sense; Saddam was up to something in Iraq w/ that petrolium. Thats where the possible WMD came from. ALong w/ his mass murders of his own citizens; that is why we entered.

The only mistake the government made was assuming the public knew what was going on w/ Iraq before the invasion; they probably should have clarified exactly what they ment why we were to beleive that Saddam had WMD. And to this day, we cant find that petrolium or any weapons he might have made w/ it. But we and the rest of the world KNOW he got that petrolium. So unless he hid it someone really well in Iraq, he shipped the petrolium or the warheads he made w/ them; to a neighboring country. Where I would guess is Syria.

Answer 2

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, neocon think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, and the Project for the New American Century had an agenda to invade Iraq when Bush took office. They used 911 and made a false connection to inflame the American people. They cooked up bad intelligence that there were WMDs. Bush lied in his 2002 State of the Union Address about Iraq buying enriched plutonium. The UN and most of the world wanted inspectors to verify whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Bush invaded anyway, because his mind was already made up.

Answer 3

This is a tiring debate. Let's get the facts out first:
1. Intelligence agencies around the world reported presence of or intent to create WMDs
2. Iraq was bound to agreements following the cessation of hostilities from the Liberation of Kuwait, 1991.
3. Iraq (specifically Saddam Hussein) repeatedly ignored those obligations, including subsequent U.N. resolutions
4. The United States wants to have pro-Western stabilization in the Mid-East

If you want to speculate on possible untold truths as to why the United States spearheaded an invasion of Iraq besides those relating to the facts above, you should look no further than Iran. Sure, cheaper oil is great for America. But, if you didn't notice, the U.S. and it's allies did not TAKE the oil upon reaching the strategic goal of overthrowing the Hussein regime. Instead, the coalition instituted a democratic government of the Iraqi people, elected by them (not the U.S.) to take control of their country, including their oil. That should put the oil-conspiracy theorists to bed.

Back to Iran. The only plausible underhanded reason for going into Iraq that I can think of would be to influence another revolution in Iran. The United States would have rather invaded Iran over Iraq but clearly had little legal or moral means to do so in 2003. The theocratic regime, proven to have ties to terrorist organizations, spouts hate rhetoric toward the U.S. and its Western allies, namely Israel. A military incursion into that country would have been far more costly than in Iraq. Success would have meant obliterating the country, turning the citizens against the West, which is counter to the idea of getting rid of the regime in the first place. Instead, by instituting true democracy into it's neighbor and galvanizing a local presence in support, the United States was attempting to give a nod to the Iranian youth to stand up for freedom within their own borders and institute their own democracy at the cost of the right-wing Islamic theocracy at its head.

Doesn't that make much more sense than the idea of a U.S. President with a pitchfork in his hand dealing death and destruction to the globe so he can add more money to his checking account (which he could have done much easier by staying out of politics anyway)?

Think people....

Answer 4

I think it was one of the reasons, but not the only one. If I had to guess (and I do), I wouldn't be surprised if the thinking was... "There are lots of reasons why we'd like to take out Sadaam, including the possibilities of WMDs, and now that Americans are so worried about terror threats, this would be a good time to do it"

What I think was somewhat underhanded was the way the administration subtly shifted our reason for being there from WMDs to 'freeing the Iraqi people', once WMDs weren't found.

I've never thought Bush outright lied about the incident. But I've also never felt we've been told the whole story. And I think history has shown that continuing our campaign there after realizing our mistake over WMDs was a bad move.

Answer 5

The idea of weapons of mass destruction is not a made up theory. Weapons have indeed been found that Saddam in fact usded to kill thousands of his own people. Though these are not nuclear weapons, we have made significant changes in Iraq as far as the people's protections. Our main purpose in Iraq now is not so much finding weapons, as setting up a stable government that will be able to ward off terrorist groups.

Answer 6

No I don't think anything was made up. What people seem to want to forget is the intelligence that was passed along during the Clinton years. The Iraq initiative not only passed in a landslide vote not just once, but twice. Clinton has stated he would have gone in, but since his reputation and credibility was shot he knew it would never get approved. All the Monday morning quarterbacks are whining now when the going gets a little rough. I just wish they understood they are only creating more danger for our troops.

Answer 7

on your first paragraph, you renowned what maximum human beings believed on the time we went into this conflict in Iraq. do no longer 2d wager your self, you have been suitable approximately what you believed and so became the U. S. government ! All this might have come real if it weren't for Iran. it is the real wrongdoer, why can no longer you 'get the troops out' legions comprehend what has got here relating to here ? i'm a style of persons who can say 'I instructed you so' approximately Iraq . no longer because of the fact Saddam wasn't a foul dude, and not because of the fact he did no longer need to get dumped, yet because of the fact he became component of the answer to keeping stability interior the middle east. as much as i became against the U. S. invasion of Iraq, i'm the two opposed now, to the withdrawal of our troops. Iran has caught it is grotesque face into the fray, and it is now as much as the U. S. to be sure that it could don't extra harm than it already has. the U. S. became the shiit disturber in this comprehensive mess. it relatively is who disillusioned the soundness of potential interior the middle east, now it would desire to make incorrect issues suitable with the aid of restablishing an excellent stability. i'm afraid the only way this might ensue is with the aid of putting on a extreme conflict face, and entering into and destroying Iran's ability to tutor aggression to the different united states. until we've completed this, we are answerable for leaving the middle east, which comprise Israel, with the accountability of ending what we've started, and that ain't suitable. useful, i might want to be sure our troops come homestead, yet, i comprehend damn good and nicely they are going to be on the subsequent airplane back, if we don't end it now. somebody, who speaks democrat, please bypass this education directly to the hot Congress, they do no longer seem to be able to allure to close the certainty of what relatively happening !

Answer 8

The administration skewed intelligence reports to fit their desire to invade Iraq.

The plans to invade Iraq started prior to 2000. Check out the names on the letter written to Clinton in 1998. The PNAC group planned it a long time ago. The idea was to replace Saddam with a leader friendly to the west. This would allow the US to base troops in Iraq, a more secular country (at the time), then Saudi Arabia.

Answer 9

We went into Iraq for the same reasons that Bill Clinton stated in 1998. Same reasons that congress and senate all agreed on. We went into Iraq with 17 UN resolutions in 12 years to back us up. Were there WMD's in Iraq??? Bill Clinton thought so and said as much!

Answer 10

The two CIA analyst who stood up in at the news conference risking jail time and certain job termination stated that the evidence provided the White House showed there was NO WMD's, no terrorist ties, and that Iraqi was easier on the Kurds then our ally Turkey. They stated they were tired of getting blame when it was clear someone in the White House changed the report. Do not worry they'll blame Clinton or a Southerner.

God Bless You and The Southern People.