Our president went to war with Iraq because?

Question

a. Find WMD
b. Prove to his father he could finish Saddam something he couldn't do.
c. Oil
d. All of the above

Answer 1

Oil? Please. Opening ANWR would have been a hell of a lot easier, but thanks for trying.

Why? Here are a few reasons:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


Thanks for playing.

Answer 2

e. none of the above.

If you think the Iraq war has only to do with President Bush, then you believe exactly what our leaders want you to believe. The so-called 2nd Iraq war led by President Bush is a fiction. There is no second war. The United States has been at war with Iraq long before the President declared war and long before he even took office. It has been one long and continuous war that started with the first Iraq war. The entire Middle-East as well as the American public have been played in order to establish a strategic military presence in a land of unimaginable wealth created by the oil that is there.

Consider the decade of heavy UN sanctions preceding the war. Medicine and basic supplies were not even allowed in the country, let alone any materials to build weapons of mass destruction. There was no question as to whether Iraq could possibly have had weapons, but it would be wise to fabricate a reason that sounded legitimate or else risk strong political objection from the citizens of the United States. Millions of the Iraqi population were dead, dying, or sick as a result of the UN sanctions. The country was demoralized making it all the easier for an invasion. Moreover, well over 30,000 bombs were dropped on the northern and southern "no-fly zones" during a time when the United States was not officially at war with Iraq. This too was to ease the coming invasion. If you wanted to storm in and take a country over, wouldn't you bomb the hell out of it from the north and south to soften it up?

It seems strange to bomb a country that you are not at war with, does it not? Don't think of the US military presence in Iraq as two separate wars. George W is not finishing a job that his father could not do. He is continuing a war that has met its objective from the very beginning: to establish US military presence in the region.

There are dozens of books and thousands of pages written on the subject, but I am not about to cover all of them here. Suffice to say that there is a whole lot of shady $hit going down that most people, including myself, don't know about.

Answer 3

I don't think President Bush should have gone into Iraq HOWEVER, now that we are there we have a responsibility to the Iraqis not to withdraw because if we did it would plunge Iraq into a vicious civil war. We made this mess and we now we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to ensure that 1) there is no civil war, 2) Iran would use the civil war as an excuse to invade Iraq to put down the civil war. Since Iran is largely Shia Muslims, a large part of mid east oil would be in possession of people who supported El Queda, the group that destroyed the Twin Towers. By the way, I notice you left the attack on the Twin Towers off your little list.

Answer 4

F. Cheney convinced him it was a good idea. To Bush seniors credit, he said from the beginning he wasn't going to go into Iraq after Saddam, his sole intent was to get him out of Kuwait and he kept his word.

Answer 5

What is the difference?.. the correct answer is E, the shites asked us to go there and free them from the Sunni's and trumped up a bunch of lies about what he had, because that is how he used to run Iraq.. One threat after another..

After what he did to the Kurds, we had no reason to think the shites were lying..

Loved it Arcticchi!! WTG..wootwoot

Answer 6

e. Saddam refused to obey the 14+ UN resolutions given to him after he lost a war back in '93.

Answer 7

The Comander in chief is doing precisely what an extremely good chief does...is going to shore up the moral of his troops and thank them. it really is difficult adequate flying all a thanks to Australia yet for him to operate Iraq to his supply up record is commendable. i recognize this guy!

Answer 8

How about because Congress authorized it.... ......
but then a small thing like the US Constitution might confuse you.

Answer 9

the caveman is right. you should know what your talking about before you ask stupid question. if you don't know by now than you should be living in another country. you are the same as the fence jumpers.

Answer 10

none of the above ... and tell that pinhead MJ down below here, he/she is a moronic idiot who im sure suffers from nose warts.