English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Obviously, I know the general reasons, but I have yet to hear a detailed, UNBIASED report on the matter. If you have any information that you could share with me, that'd be great. :) And if you're going to pepper your reply with personal opinions and comments, I'll just go ahead and ignore it. Thanks!

2007-01-24 06:44:53 · 12 answers · asked by Sandy 5 in Politics & Government Military

12 answers

Well intelligence said and it was proven that Saddam was helping to fund terrorism. Bush never said he was funding Al Qaida or bin Laden. this stuff was just twisted by the media. The other reason was suspicion that he was trying to posses weapons of mass destruction. Our mission was to go in and rid Iraq of Saddam's regime and bring Saddam to trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The new surge and plan is to counter the sectarian violence that we didn't see coming. I think if people will give it a chance, they just might be surprised to find positive results in time.

2007-01-24 07:03:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

Well Terrorism will spread across the globe, but the only thing we can do is try the best to counter attack the terror plots. Terrorism will be with us for eternity since 9/11 Terrorism has grown and it's gonna stay with it's major HQ in the middle east. We once thought that the oceans would protect us from such threats but we can't always count on a large body of water to keep us safe. Removing Saddam was a very big mistake it created unstability in the region and now we will pay the price. If we do bring in 21,500 more troops they should plan to stay there for a very long time. We don't even have money for enough weapons to supply the troops with, Bush is defintly reminding me like Nixon's Presidency.

2016-05-24 04:52:30 · answer #2 · answered by Barbara 4 · 0 0

Causes of war have been studied for literally thousands of years. Causes are complex and involve political, economic, geographical, religious, social reasons and more. It usually takes a bit of time after a war is over before all the information comes to light and a valid analysis can be made. It is also important to remember that it usually the winner who writes the stories about the war and publishes the most justifying the war. Right now, if you were to ask this question of a citizen of Baghdad you would get a different answer from a citizen of USA. Some reasons have suggested that Bush a)wanted to make a name as a military president, b) the oil industry wanted to get control of Iraq's oil output, c) Bush felt he was compelled to finish what his father started, d) there was a genuine, though obviously mistaken belief in the administration that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and would use them, e) Iraq was financing terrorism around the world. Any or all may be correct. Causes go way back, in most cases, and include the history of the countries involved as well as other factors.

2007-01-24 07:13:52 · answer #3 · answered by judgebill 7 · 0 1

The official reasons for the wars beginning were searching for WMDs believed to be in Iraq and to combat Al-Qaeda operations in Iraq, though no proof of WMDs or pre-war Al-Qaeda operations has been found. Conspiracy theorists and Bush critics will say that it was a war for control of the oil in Iraq or to oust Saddam due to the fact that he tried to have Bush Sr. killed during his Presidency (sort of a grudge-match between Bushy Jr. and Saddam). But you knew that, right?

Bush's new plan involves sending 20,150 more troops to Iraq, mainly with the idea that if they can stop sectarian violence (violence between the two main sections of Muslims in Iraq, Sunni and Shiite) in Baghdad, that will help with the security of the entire country and allow the new Iraqi government to take a better hold of the country. Most of the troops will be stationed in Baghdad, with others being placed in areas that also suffer from large amounts of sectarian violence.

The opposition feels that sending more troops isn't the answer, that the Iraqi government needs to take more responsibility for the issues that it's having, as it doesn't seem that they have so far. The proof of that opinion being that time and time again the US calms the violence in a region and turns it over to the Iraqi government to keep secure, they do nothing and the violence starts up again.

And per your request, I'll leave my opinions out of it.

2007-01-24 07:13:37 · answer #4 · answered by Got rice? 3 · 1 1

Here is the basis of the resolution that Congress passed:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-7.html

Here is the UN resolution:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/resolutions/s-res-1441.pdf

These are the basics of why it was felt necessary to take action.

The new plan is based on the current, changed situation in Iraq. It was after the Sunnis bombed the Golden Mosque, one of the holiest Shia places, that the retaliatory death squad attacks from the Shia started.

2007-01-24 07:10:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Anyone who belives that 9/11 and Iraq were related doesn't know what their talking about. Bush invaded because he thought Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Apparently, Iraq was clean so Bush turned around and said they were disposing of a dictator (otherwise his efforts would have been seen as wasteful) America has a history of overthrowing goverments and Bush papa wasn't able to overthrow him so Bush did it.

2007-01-24 08:57:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Kelsey, the cause of that war turned out to be a non-issue but by then it was too late. America has spent the last 4 years trying to put the pieces back together while all the time fighting various factions.
To be honest, prior to the invasion, the UN warned that military action would be a mistake and the coalition ignored these warnings.
Now the mission is to get out with the national pride still intact.

2007-01-24 06:57:19 · answer #7 · answered by Jack 6 · 2 3

The cause: The administration linked 9/11, non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq. Recent revelations proved this to be a faulty conclusions.

The new plan: There is to be a massive increase in military personnel in Iraq to "secure" the country.

My conclusion: We're getting in over our heads. See also, the Tet Offensive, Richard Nixon, Vietnam.

2007-01-24 06:57:31 · answer #8 · answered by mediahoney 6 · 2 3

You'll ignore everyone's response, because it's difficult to give an unbiased answer since none of us have access to the president's mind.

The cause has nothing to do with WMDs, terrorism, or giving Iraqis freedom. You can ask why they chose to start the war, or what they told us was the reason, but there isn't and wasn't a "cause."

2007-01-24 06:54:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

The cause was 911, and the US's pursuit to track down terrorists. The new plan is to send more troops.... they didn't really elaborate on that one. Occasionally one area becomes a hotspot and we have to redeploy in Iraq, so I guess they sent more so they don't have to run around all the time.

2007-01-24 06:49:55 · answer #10 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers