It is hard to give you a clear answer as the reasons for the US invasion have been constantly altered as each of the original reason proved to be false.
Originally it was meant to be to remove "WMD" (weapons of mass destruction). When none was found the reason changed to "Regime Change", Then to bring "democarcy to the region" (cause saddam was a big meanie - funny he was on the US payroll for a decades before falling out of favour).
The US have tried to argue the Terrorist line lately, but this rings hollow. Most of the 9/11 Hijackers were Saudi's not Iraqis. Besides Saddam and Osama have very different ideologies and certainly did not co-operate. Iraq was never a threat to the mainland USA.
Some theories argue it is for the Oil. Iraq has the 2nd largest supply of easily obtained oil in the world (behind Saudi Arabia). Now the House of Saud are not going to be in power forever so it is possible that the next folks to run Saudi Arabia may not want to sell cheap oil the the americans - thus the need to secure an alternative supply. This is just a theory of course.
I think the most telling and sad remark was when George W Bush stated that he didn't like saddam because "That man tried to kill my daddy". It would be a crime if this whole war was just to prove a point and some chest thumping.
What is clear is the US Administration has lied to the world, and to it's own people about both the agenda, mission objectives and success of that mission.
Iraq is now in a nasty civil war between numerous factions (Sunni, Kurd, Shitte and hired thugs), plus Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran are all casting an eye over Iraq's enormous (and largely unprotected) natural resouces.
It will probably get a lot worse before it gets better, which is sad as the US has lost a lot of respect, credibility and spent trillions of dollars to achieve virtually nothing.
sad.
2007-02-11 16:55:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by darklydrawl 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
In a sense, the war began in 1990 with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. In response, the US and other nations waged war in 1991 to throw the Iraqis out of Kuwait; Iraq was soundly defeated. G H W Bush and the other allies perceived a risk of widening the conflict if Iraq were to be totally defeated, and concluded a truce agreement with Iraq to end the fighting. One of the provisions of the agreement was that Iraq would dismantle, in an accountable way, its various weapons of mass destruction, some of which it had used against both Iran and against the Kurds in the north of Iraq. It did not do this; inspectors sent to enforce the agreement were impeded at every turn. More than a dozen UN resolutions followed over the years, demanding Iraqi compliance, all of which were ignored. The statemate persisted until the 9/11 attacks, which convinced G W Bush that having WMD in unstable hands was a risk that could no longer be tolerated. A final demand was made that the agreement be kept; this was rebuffed, but Saddam began to get concerned about the situation and secretly shipped almost all of the WMD materials to Syria, starting in June 2002. The result was that the US and some other countries invaded Iraq in 2003 to depose Saddam and deal with the WMD issue once and for all. The Iraqi military collapsed in short order; Saddam went into hiding, and the US and its allies took over the country. Insurgents, supported by Iran, Syria, and non-national groups elsewhere, have continued to fight the occupation and also attacked civilian targets to get the religious factions to fight each other. Saddam and his top lieutenants were captured, tried for crimes against Iraqi civilians, found guilty, and executed. But the warfare continues. Meanwhile, al Qaeda, Taliban, and other fanatic Muslim groups, who have made no secret of their belief in and reliance on the US's lack of resolution to prosecute a long and difficult war, are biding their time, looking toward a US pullout so that they can take over and resume the sort of activities that they engaged in in Afghanistan. Should this happen, and they recover the WMD materials from Syria, it would pose a significant threat to the United States.
2007-02-11 17:21:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
This war is not like another war ever fought. We are not fight one government or an idea, we are fighting pure evil. We are engaging in the first war against injustice, when people say that we are in this war for oil, they are merely using the old exhausted stereotype of the rich business man sitting on high with a burning dollar and lit cigar, using the small man to make him more money, to evoke anger. If this is true why were we in Vietnam, for the rice? As strange as it seems to some, WW2 was not fought to gain Germany’s supply of bratwurst. They were fought to stop ternary wherever it rears its ugly face. After Sept. 11th the USA said no longer will we wait for evil to act on its own accord, we will seek it out, uproot it from its hiding place and we will bring the fight to them. People accuse the USA of causing all the deaths over in Iraq, but correct me if I’m wrong but are not the terrorists the ones setting off car bombs? Isn’t it the terrorists who are kidnapping random civilians, guilty of no crime but being in the wrong place at the wrong time, only to slaughter them in a manner that I would not wish on even the most brutal of killers? This war is not like another war ever fought. We are not fight one government or an idea, we are fighting evil, not someone we disagree with, but pure evil. This war will not end with Iraq; it is just the starting point, of the long journey to a peaceful world. Anyone who is willing to procure victory from the deaths of random innocent civilians, we will fight them. Anywhere evils minds oppress the masses by nefarious means for their own beliefs, we will stop them. Whenever a person is born, but denied their natural rights, we with restore them. Thou, we may never be able to stop evil all together; we can at least make the choice not to live in coexistence with it
2007-02-12 08:47:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
President Bush used all of your terms to provide his rationale behind the war, especially the war on terror and the weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, none of his goals (shocker) have been accomplished, and Iraq has descended into a civil war because of the rise of insurgent groups post the breakup of Saddam's government.
2007-02-11 16:46:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
hostile to the Iraq conflict yet in view that we began it we settle on to end it. for sure there is the prospect that with Saddam in potential we would have ultimately had to pass to conflict faster or later. Who is favourite with? I purely imagine the money would were more beneficial efficient spent in america of a on kinfolk potential progression. ideas you, i'm no longer some fool who's blindly anti-conflict or anti-protection stress. until eventually actually everyone in the international ceases to be aggressive there'll continually be a opt for for a protection stress. as long as international places compete for land and factors there'll be conflict. those who marketing campaign to end all wars or eliminate the protection stress live in a dreamworld.
2016-11-27 03:00:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
how i respect you for asking this...im just as lost as you are. i dont understand any of this, i think its dumb...my dad tries explaining this to me all the time, and i just DONT understand...and after reading all the responses, im still confused...good luck with school though. :)
2007-02-14 23:33:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by ughhh 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I bet Jimmie Hoffa knows!!
2007-02-11 18:33:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by nathan c 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
. . . You are going to get a LOT of responses on this question- possibly some mean ones too . . .
2007-02-11 16:46:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
i dont think anyone knows anymore.
2007-02-11 17:06:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
"Somone tried to shoot mah daddy".Guess who.
2007-02-11 17:14:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by sickmates 1
·
1⤊
0⤋