How Much Do YOU know about the Iraq War and the reasons that started it?

Question

I am in the army reserve and a college student, my english class was on the Iraq war and I have vast sources I have independently found to justify the war and those reasons are still true to this day. So the question is what do you know that you researched rather then let someone else tell you?

I am in the army reserve and a college student, my english class was on the Iraq war and I have vast sources I have independently found to justify the war and those reasons are still true to this day. So the question is what do you know that you researched rather then let someone else tell you?

And calling me names and saying enough to know.... isn't pulling it, thats just saying you haven't done that much. Example: You aware that even though WMDs in stockpile after stockpile form were not found, to date over 700 active chemical weapons have been found, also in 2004 the U.S. energy derpartment in joint with the Defence dept. 3 tons or highly enriched uranium in yellow cake form was removed from Iraq, as well as that Saddam had kept the scientist and materials needed to create biological WMDs with in weeks of the lifting of Sanctions, if all or any of this is new to you maybe it's time to start doing research.

Answer 1

Any kind of questioning of why we went to war in Iraq has a hidden assumption: that we shouldn't have been there in the first place or possibly the weariness has gotten to us. There was an episode of band of brothers that dealt with this, it was called "Why we fight" and it was when Easy company discovered a concentration camp.

It makes no sense to talk about what wars we should fight and which ones we shouldn't. We got rid of the Nazis but did nothing with Stalin. We got rid of Saddam, but not Iran.

It's difficult to determine the benefits as well, because the benefit is WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Who knows what that might have been, we can't tell.

This is a country that fights foreign wars. We changed our stance in WWII and I think it was a good idea given the nature of that war.

No one can contend that another wave of democracy has spread through the Middle East. Lebanon is no longer occupied by Syria. Lybia is our ally and the source from which we learned of the North Korean nuclear tests, Afghanistan no longer houses Al Quaeda.

I think we could have done things a little differently, like ending NATO as we no longer have a cold war, and starting a new allied organization against terrorism (Rainbow Six anyone?), but that's about it.

We have one less enemy of the US capable of creating harm of the greatest nature. Everyone knows that reason and it isn't something with which a reasonable people can disagree.

If you want to learn about why dictatorships rise and fall and why some democracies fail, read Sultanistic Regimes by Yale professor Juan Linz. Check out the chapter on Iraq.

Some dictatorships can last for forever and Iraq was a sound dictatorship seeking revenge

Answer 2

Here’s my understanding:

After 9/11- America had to protect its self from getting hit again- Iraq (at the time) posed the greatest threat.
America gave weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein in the 80's to fight Iran. This is a well documented event. At the time he was on our side and he used those weapons against Iran (In the Iran/Iraq war.)

After the war he used it on this own people (because they wanted independence from Iraq and opposed him.) He gassed them.

Now that he wasn’t on our side anymore, America must have known the exact quantities we gave him initially. Plus he was manufacturing weapons on his own.
Some people forget that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons before Israel bombed those facilities. (This happened in the early 80’s.)

Well there were reports that terrorists were training in Iraq. The US must have been scared that he could potentially give these weapons to these terrorists. Thus escalating Iraq’s threat.

The terrorists that attacked us were Saudi. We all know Saudi Arabia is the biggest exported of oil in the world. Also Saudi Arabia has the most fundamental extremists (Wahabists) they are the ones that spread this terroristic message. They are the scum that continues to plan attacks against us. Could the USA go after Saudi Arabia? Of course not. Why -OIL. The US is dependant on that Saudi oil.
So if we look at that region, what other country has the reserves to replenish the oil if we don’t buy Saudi oil? (ANSWER- Iraq- they have the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world.)
SO if America can take away the threat from Saddam potentially giving chemical weapons to terrorists and install a puppet government that is Pro America, then we could strong arm Saudi Arabia when dealing with extreme Islam. Unfortunately unless we lessen our dependence with our enemy (Saudi Arabia) they will continue to be the base of Islamic terrorists.

America had to go in Iraq- hopefully our boys will be given better "rules on engagement". Currently the pentagon is handcuffing our boys. Thus why we are dieing out there. Let them do their job. (Bomb them into submission!)

This is why we are in Iraq.

Answer 3

Probably the same reasons you found during your perusal of many "vast sources". Except coming to the conclusion that the war was NOT justified. Especially as relates to Mr. Bush and his blaming 911 on Iraq AND that some people still believe it! It's just mindboggling!!.
btw - there were no chemical weapons. Nor were there any other weapons of mass destruction. If there were your president would have had a Press Conference or State of the Union announcement to pat himself on the back. We would also have learned just where these "WMD's were taken or if they were destroyed. So no, no WMD's my friend.. It was all a pipe dream.

Answer 4

There were different reasons for invading Iraq, and not all of them were related to terrorism. A big one was that the first Gulf War was never officially over. There was a truce signed in the desert that called for Iraq to disarm completely of certain weapons which included WMD and long-range missiles, and to cooperate with UN inspectors to prove they were doing so. Iraq was also to stop shooting at the U.K. and U.S. surveillance planes, which they continued to shoot at throughout the truce period. So, 11 U.N. resolutions aside, they broke the truce non-stop through 11 years of trying to bring Iraq under the original agreement.

Saddam was having internal problems as well. Saddam was planning for another conflict with the U.S. and U.K. and knew they would lose, which is where the "Saddamist" fighters came from. We knew, partially because he said as much, that he was planning to attack the United States. It wasn't so much that we suspected Saddam of having anything to do with 9/11, but we had grave concerns that he would intentionally ally himself with the likes of Bin Laden and give them weapons. Even conventional weapons in the hands of terrorists can cause big problems. Saddam proved that he was a danger, publicly stated his intention to attack the United States, and it was not in our national interest or the interest of anyone to allow him to get away with not complying with the truce. He had to go.

Had this gone as hoped, Iraq would be a stable democracy that could start a cascade of democracies in the Middle East, thus alleviating some of the concern of fundamental Islamic terrorism spreading.

Answer 5

Justify the war in what manor?

The search for WMDs?

Obviously Saddam had chemical weapons capabilities or he wouldn't have been hung for his crimes against humanity. The destruction that he caused not only on the Kurds and his own people, but to the forces of Iran during the first gulf war (the one in the late 70's early 80's) showed this even before the U.S. got 'directly' involved. Saddam's nuclear capability was quickly vanquished when Israel pulled its daring strike in 1981 on the Osirak plant and it never recovered.

The 1991 Gulf War where the U.S and Coalition forces crushed the Iraqi military, found many remnants of that biological and chemical arsenal (I dont remember seeing anything showing a redevelopment of nuclear weaps). The remnants ranged from old, rusting chemical/bio delivery devices such as arty shells and bombs, to the SCUD missiles, to the immense fixed artillery pieces being built into the desert sands, meant to toss artillery shells at Israel. Most if not all of these were secured or destroyed by the coalition forces.

Since 1991 Iraq has been under the UN sanctions which were really only enforced by the U.S. and Britain. Granted there was much smuggled into Iraq during the UN sanctions period, I don't think that there was enough 'room' to smuggle an entirely new chemical, biological and nuclear development program into the country.

Add what I said above to the fact that the Bush administration never provided clear proof that Iraq had the weapons in the first place, and I feel that we can strike the WMD reason for invading Iraq off the list.

Now, the connection to terrorists?

Another reason that the Bush administration tried to put forth for invading Iraq was that Saddam supported terrorists like Al Queda.
This was true, in a broad sense; Saddam did support terrorism. Except it wasn't the likes of Al Queda. Saddam had his own terrorist organization in his Intelligence organization. Yes, it is widely known that Iraqi intelligence was tasked with some terror operations in the U.S., but those operations never came to fruition.
The fact that soon after this assertion was made, that Saddam had close ties to Al Queda was a complete joke. It was widely documented even before the 1991 Gulf War that Saddam was quite secular, and he quashed much of the conservative religious base in his country while he was dictator. Some think that the Iraq vs. Iran conflict in the 80's was more over secularism vs religion then it was geopolitical. It was also widely recognized through the late 90's that Saddam and Bin Laden hated one another, enough NOT to do business with each other. I'm sure that some terror organizations operated in Iraq with out Saddam's knowledge, however, Al Queda certainly didn't operate in Iraq to the extent it does now both in training areas and operations. No proof was ever shown BEFORE the war started when Bush and Co. were making their case that Al Queda operated in the ways they were claiming they did.

Long winded, a couple of tangents, but thats my answer.

Let me add something aside from answering your question.

I believe the recent Iraqi war was needed for a different reason, one which the US armed forces weren't quite prepared to do (in my opinion of course). The Iraqi people needed to be freed from the grips of a dictator who had brought hardship upon their country for more than 2 decades. On top of that, with Saddam in power, it was really the only 'question mark' on the map in the Middle East. Meaning, we had an idea where most of the other countries stood on the playing field, but Iraq was always doing its own thing, being unpredictable. In the scope of international politics, when you're an unpredictable state, you're a dangerous state. The reason Iraq was unpredictable was because of Saddam, and he has since been dealt with. What they, meaning our service men and women, weren't quite prepared to deal with (again, in my opinion) was the various factions of the Iraqi populace that would struggle for power. I'm referring to both secular and religious factions that continue to fight violently, with the religious factions being the most violent.

I feel there is a reason for this unpreparedness, that being no person in the planning phases of the conflict paid adequate attention to the history of the region. If one takes a look at the modern history of the region, (meaning after the glorious likes of Babylon, the Roman Empire, The Greeks, The Persians, etc.) there were only two periods of time where the region was not in some sort of chaotic struggle between different religious factions. The first was during the Ottoman Empire. During the 500 or so years the Ottoman empire existed, the area was is now known as Iraq was two separate provinces with in the empire. One dominated by Sunnis the other dominated by Shi'ites. During this time, the areas were allowed to operate in a form of autonomy and under somewhat calm and peaceful conditions. The only other time the country of Iraq seemed to be united was under King Faisal I. As a result of not taking this into consideration, I feel the Armed forces have quite a struggle on their hands, as shown by recent events.

Ok, done for now :)

Answer 6

You should talk to the punk, 20 year old draft dodgers on this site. They are all anti war of course. But they seem to forget about 9/11. With the advent and progress of communication, telephone, computer, and transportation, terroism is now a world wide problem now.

I tell everyone if we had stayed home after the 9/11, I wonder what Osama bin Laden would have done next? Now his organization is in shambles now, thanks to whom? The same attitude like WW II. Now after the fact, it is agreed that if the US had entered earlier in the war, we would have had less US casualties, but then that is the nature of people. They want freedom and don't want to die for it until the last minute.

Answer 7

Bill Clinton instituted a policy that called for regime change in Iraq and Bush did it.
May God bless every US service man and woman who helped free Iraq and is helping the Iraqi people in their attempt to have the same freedom we have here.

Answer 8

Google Exopolitics for a real eye opener. It's not about freedom, it's not about oil. It seems that buried under the sands of Uruk, an ancient city in southern Iraq, is a real-life STARGATE. The technology this artifact represents is greater than the technology gleaned from Roswell. Well worth any price to gain control of, especially since the Anunnaki are scheduled to return rather soon, now. Incidentally, that's why France and Germany have been fighting us on Iraq all this time. THEY have shadow governments, too, and they want this tech. just as badly as we do.

Answer 9

I think the only way for you to understand that IRAQ is an illegal war by simply coming back home missing a limb or two.
Only then you will have a clear mind to deduce that BUSH lied, that the WAR was a proxy WAR for the sole interest of ISRAEL ,
And that the REAL intention of this WAR was to destabilize the country to focus the ISLAMIC TERRORISM away from Israel into America .
It was not a fight to counter terrorism as much it's a WAR to to siphon the wrath of TERRORISM away from Israel.

Answer 10

I've done enough research to know that there were no WMD found and to see President Bush say that no one ever said that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. HMMMMM Just what were your sources? I'd especially like to know where you found out about the tons of highly enriched yellow cake. Since yellow cake is basically the raw material that is then enriched in centrifuges, I"m pretty sure that it isn't "highly enriched" in yellow cake form. At least I haven't called you any names. Yet