Why we went to Iraq?!?

Question

Ok why every person that is not with bush, think we are idiots, don't say there were no nuclear warheads in Iraq. I hate when people said we went to iraq just for that, look at the country It is mest up and they probaly had nukes and they got them out before we came in or Bush didn't tell the people. I just want to know people opinoins. Don't make fun or argue to answer this questoin, becuase i will repot you. AND YES I DON"T USE SPELL CHECK!

Answer 1

There were no nuclear warheads in Iraq.

However there is plenty of oil. Hmmmm. I wonder if that could have anything to do with it.

Answer 2

So many opinions and so few facts. For a recent historical overview, you should go back to the days of Eisenhower who overthrew the legitimate government of Iran and put the Shaw in on the Peakcock Throne. It was thought that he would be a weak leader and do whatever the U.S. wanted. He turned into a dictator and still, we supported him. Years and several Presidents later came Carter, who gutted the CIAs budget and left this country almost completely blind and dependent upon the good graces of foreign intel. services. The Shaw was at last overthrown and welcomed here in the U.S., our embassy in Tehran was taken over and the staff held hostage. Reagan made a number of viable threats and promises that if elected... On the day of his inauguration, the hostages were set free. He then began supporting Iraq who was at war with Iran. We sold Iraq weapons and technology (WMD). Later, he (Reagan) found it necessary to reflag the oil tankers passing through the region and with U.S. Naval escort, assure their safe passage. The world economy runs on oil.
Bush (Sr.) had to assemble a coalition of military force to do the U.N.'s job of driving back Iraqi forces who'd invaded Kuwait for their oil and seaport. The U.N. was kind enough to finally do their job and brokered the cease fire agreement that supposedly would bring to an end, that war.
Through the Clinton years, there were numerous attempts (half-hearted) to hold Saddam to the cease fire agreement. Weapons inspectors working for the U.N. were never fully supported and the first resigned in disgust. In all, at least 17 of the sanctions in the cease fire agreement were broken by Saddam. And the U.N., not to be out done, was equally responsible in that various members were accepting bribes from Saddam for the Food For Oil Program.
Bush (Jr.) came into office with a very specific ideal of right and wrong. Saw the situation and concluded that this was very much wrong. Working in the blind on intel., decisions were made, to which the Democrats were given the same information and concluded that something MUST be done. Diplomacy failed, in large part because Saddam was looking at historical evidence created by the corrupt U.N.. and so he chose to gamble and ignore saber rattling by the U.S..
The current "mess" in Iraq is due to the poorly run (state run) oil program in Iran. Last year, they were unable to export even a single drop of oil -- even though they sit atop the world's third largest known oil deposit. Their wells are all over 50 years old and are working in a declining rate of 13% a year. So, with this in mind, is it any wonder they are behind the "Insurgency" that began just before the Iraqis held their first "Free" elections? Or that Iran is now pushing to build a nuclear powerplant -- whose biproduct is weapons grade uranium? Iran knows that if they play it right long enough, the U.S. will pull out, leaving the new Iraqi government severely weakened and they can then just step in to fill the void. It has always been about oil and bad politics.

Answer 3

It began with the effort to liberate Kuwait and has turned into the longest war in US history. Actually, the war against Iraq has been about as long as the US fighting in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam combined; yes combined!

Why the latest invasion? Bush43 has never explicitly stated the reasons. But seems to be combination of wanting to finish what Bush41 started combined with input from the neo-conservatives (Wolfowiitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld) that sooner or later Sadam had to go, and sooner with a preemptive strike was better.

But we may never really know.

Answer 4

the matter is not as you tried to drow it.americans are not considered idiots because people dont like bush.they are ,and have been since the formation of america.i dont deny that usa had great wise men like washington,roosvelts,esinhawer,kennedy....etc.but the majority think like cowboys,they think mony and force can do everything.this comes from the over confedance of the american personality who is generally ignorant,unwise,foolish.
to give you an example of yourself,let me ask you ,how did you conclude that iraq had neclear warheads????.did iraq had any neculear reactor?wasnt it destroyed compleatly in 82 by israel.did iraq had the know how of making neclear bombs

Answer 5

Personally, I think the secret plan was to annex Iraq as the 51st state.

But really, it doesn't matter at this point. Bushy got us into this, and he's trying to get us out, but I think he severely underestimated the intelligence of middle-eastern people. Now the poor bastard is up a shite creek without a paddle and he's about to have to start swimming.

Either way, lots of people are dying, American and Iraqi, nobody (Republicans and Democrats) has a good plan, and now Iran is getting into the mix...

What a clusterfuck...

Answer 6

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
{SNIP}
Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
{SNIP}

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort.
{SNIP}

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Answer 7

There was more to it than WMD as you mention. For one thing Iraq has oil, lots and lots of oil. Whoever possesses that much oil can have others over a barrel (oil barrel, oh I made a funny).

George W. Bush once refered to Saddam Hussain as "He's the man that nearly killed my dad.", so revenge probably played a part in it too.

Because you don't use spell check your writing is harder to read but much more colorful than if you were to write and spell correctly. It is a blog not an essay so don't worry about it.

Answer 8

There were no WMD, Iraq does not have the capabilities of making or maintaining them...... It was a lie Bush fooled the American people so we could have American soldiers step foot in Iraq. He knew once they were there we have to get the job done. I believe this war is about Oil, Money, and Revenge for the Bush family. Just like he said "now remember this is the guy that tried to kill my Daddy".... With him saying Daddy, instead of saying Father like a grown *ss man would, gives me proof that it was "personal" for him to go to war with Iraq.

Answer 9

Just because we didn't find any nukes doesn't mean there weren't any Sparky. Good for you for paying attention. I personally believe whatever was there is in Syria or Iran now.

Answer 10

We did find WMD's just not the "nuke" type. They were biological in nature. My son who was there for two years actually sent me pictures of them, warheads intact and on the missles, but never fired. Whether they had the nuculear type I don't know!