Well, the invasion was first codenamed Operation Iraqi Liberation, until somebody noticed the initials. There's a clue.
2007-01-13 09:38:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by totnesmartin 3
·
3⤊
1⤋
The reasons we invaded Iraq are as follows:
*Secure the vital energy requirements this country needs to sustain it's level of production for the next 50 years.
*Prevent China from gaining a foothold in that region.
*Kill as many Anti-American militants as possible.
*Perform house to house raids and interogations in an
Arabic country.
*Establish strategic military bases in the region for faster and more flexible deployment should the Arab countries attempt to attack Israel again.
*Permanently remove Saddam Hussien from power.
*Finally establish the Valdez pipeline in Afganistan providing convenient output to the Casbian Sea.
*Establish a pipeline of American culture and propaganda into that area so that the next generation of Iraqi's will be at least partially westernized.
*Open the middle east markets to Western business.
*Deploy the yet untested "next-generation" military equiptment in a real life situation.
*Besides Saudi Arabia Iraq was the richest Arabic nation and arguably the most militarily advanced. Based on those two facts alone it was the most likely country to realistically pursue a nuclear research program.
How quickly we forget the pressure put on Bush Sr. by liberal pundits for asking Iraqi citizens to rise up against Saddam - promising our support and then NOT moving on Baghdad.
Do you guys remember all the flack the repubs got for doing that?
Well it was not only democratic pundits. Saddam had many enemies around the world pressuring the USA to finish the job started in 1992.
BTW - There is no evidence which suggests Osama Bin Laden is dead.
2007-01-13 17:49:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by Nicholas J 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I truly believe we are at war with Iraq for two reasons: to control the oil and because George W. is finishing a vendetta that his father began against Saddam Hussein in the 90s. I believe Hussein was evil and needed to die, but I don't believe it should be at the expense of thousands of our soldiers' lives.
2007-01-13 17:41:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by peachteach16 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
We had gone there because, first certain people are in love with oil. Wait before that I should say that the "government" thought that they had weapons of mass destruction, and that they were giving shelter to terrorists. So the government sent in troops. As far as we know Osama isnt dead. who knows.. Its like asking how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop... the world may never know!
2007-01-13 17:41:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by fumarlamota 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
You need to get out more. The war with Iraq ended years ago. We are now working WITH the Iraqi government to quell anti-government insurgents and to fight against terrorists. And the reason we want to help them is that it's in our interests to do so. We'd like to drive a wedge between Iran and Syria, two nations that are well known for generating a lot of support for terrorists. The concept is that rather than react to 9/11 events in the future, it's better to get out there and disrupt the terrorists before they can get that far.
2007-01-13 20:24:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
First off, Osama -Bin- Laden is still at large. The War with Iraq was over four years ago. We won that one. The objective was to force Saddam Hussein out of power and that has been done. What is going on now is one really long mop-up operation.
2007-01-13 17:42:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by fangtaiyang 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
We are not at war with Iraq any longer. We removed the dictator and he was hung.
At this point we are there attempting to help stabilize a very angry population that are fighting amongst themselves, as well as attempting to help keep terrorism in check.
We are not there over oil as many of the earlier posts would have you think, however, we are there to prevent Iran from overrunning Iraq and Kuwait and Israel. It is a very unstable arena and our being there is not the problem, however its easy for those that dont like military action to point their fingers and claim it is.
Removal of Saddam Hussein didnt hurt Iraq or the population, but it did provide a platform for terrorists to move in during the interrim of an established government.
2007-01-13 17:51:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Noone i 6
·
0⤊
3⤋
I believe that it was GW Bush's intention to go into Iraq all along, even before 9-11. he wanted to get rid of Saddam, fine, great, except that the Iraqis weren't rising up and fighting him when we swooped in and did pretty much everything for them, how to fight, how to make a government. As a person who doesn't like being told what to do, I'd probably be resentful of the American prescence in Iraq if i were Iraqi. But, I don't think it's for oil, because if it were for oil, the troops wouldn't be building raods, schools, and hospitals. They'd be guarding oilfields.
2007-01-13 17:43:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by serious troll 6
·
0⤊
3⤋
Like most unintelligent Americans you do not realise the scope of your countries meddling. America invaded the stable nation of Iraq because it believed that there was oil, not weapons of mass destruction there. Another question, are you familiar that the USA has attempted to take the life of democratically elected Venezualen president Hugo Chavez because they don't like the things he has to say?
thought not
2007-01-14 06:26:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
That war was over ages ago, this is now training for the next war with Iran.
2007-01-13 17:47:43
·
answer #10
·
answered by ronald b 1
·
1⤊
0⤋