Can someone tell me how Iraq constituted such an imminent threat and danger to the US that we had to invade?

Question

Im still lost as to how the Iraqis were a direct threat to the US (and please dont pull out tired lines like they MAY have had WMD's). I can name MANY countries that DO have WMD's ........... I dont see us invading them anytime soon.

I specifically want to know what clear and imminent danger Iraq posed to the US that made it worth us sending over 3000 soldiers to their deaths for.

Harry O - please explain to me how Iraqi's were involved in 9/11 ........ im serious, please explain, otherwise the sandbox is over there where you can play with the other kiddies, while us adults have a discussion.

As for Houston FX - So rape is a good enough crime to invade a country? Well I shall expect the US to be marching through every member of the UN then. Honestly, your answer is so pathetic, I wouldnt piss on it if it was on fire.

Answer 1

No, honestly no.

Answer 2

Say you have 3 kids.
Now, say that 3 of your neighbors made threats to your children.
Then, 1 of those neighbors actually carried out the threat.
Now, the other 2 neighbors are still making threats about your other 2 children.

What do you do?
Sit idly by waiting for the next one to strike, or do you strike first?
What has to happen before you take action?

Yeah, it might have not been an imminent threat, but it was a threat. Saddam kept testing Americas patience by shooting planes and blocking weapons inspectors and numerous other things. All that time bartering with others to get a hand up on America.

Again I ask, what would you do?

Answer 3

Your right it wasnt over the WMD's. And a lot will say it was over Oil.... The WMD's were a scapegoat, but the main reason was for george bush jr, to finish seniors business. Saddam has always been considered a threat to the United States because of his demeanor. Saddam had that country under control through fear, and when we went in there, oh man, these people have never lived without fear, or with freedom, and the country is in such disarray it will be years before that country is under control. Second reason is to form democracy in the country and build allies, so that as soon as their country is established, Oil companies and other franchises can move in to capitalize on a new country. But right now, its a country in transition, in such a mess, that if we pull out now, that country will be back in the stone age, not like they already are, but they will be lost for years to come, and be over run with even more terrorist groups to take control of a country. So because bush and CONGRESS, not just one man, invaded this country, they have to finish what they started, and most americans dont have patience, but this is a situation that has to be resolved as bad as you want to pull the troops out. I agree we should not be over there, because for one, the iraqi people are two faced and are not worth an american life! But this is what we are faced with and need to resolve this for the new generation of Iraqi's....

Answer 4

Iraq did not pose a direct threat to the US but the US has been very pro-active in implementing their foreign policy especially in the Mid East - in the past and now.

The Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17, 1998
(President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs...) may provide some kind of insight as to Washington's think on policies/actions in the Mid East. I think you should read it.

www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Answer 5

Iraq became no longer a danger. North Korea IS a danger (portion of W's *axis of evil*) yet we will not invade it because of the fact it has NO OIL! Iran is now being centred by using the neoCON administration because of the fact it HAS OIL! Pakistan (a meant "best pal") is a fanatical usa with nuclear weapons and yet we will not invade it because of the fact it HAS NO OIL! that's the figuring out factor.

Answer 6

In some real sense this question is purely academic and political and is unrelated to the more important question of what the U.S. policy should be in Iraq today and in the coming months. As in most wars, events have a way of taking on a life of their own and the decisions that are being made today concerning Iraq have virtually nothing to do the original justification for the war. The consequences of leaving Iraq before the mission is complete should be the policy maker’s only concern at this time.

The war in Iraq was never justified on the basis of an “imminent” military attack from Iraq who, of course, didn’t possess either missile technology or aircraft that could reach U.S. shores. That doesn’t mean that Saddam couldn’t have attacked a regional U.S. military base or another U.S. ally in the region as he had in the first Gulf War. The U.S. had maintained the “no fly zone” in northern Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in order to protect the northern Kurds from Saddam’s revenge. The most important and most controversial justification for the liberation of Iraq was ‘regime change’. Saddam had been given ten years to come into compliance with the U.N. resolutions which were imposed on him as the instigator and loser of the first Gulf War. It was, admittedly, a pre-emptive attack on an out-of-control and dangerous leader who was in violation of nearly every surrender agreement, compensation agreement and U.N. Security Council resolutions and sanctions.

Perhaps the only difference between the latest attack on Iraq and the first Gulf War (which also was not justified by an imminent military threat to the U.S.) was that although an overwhelming majority of the U.N. Security Council members agreed with the principle of using military force to bring Saddam into compliance with the U.N. resolutions, some of the veto holding members on the Council changed their minds regarding the use of force, instead, they insisted upon giving the sanctions which had already been in place for many years more time in order to coerce Saddam into compliance.

Little did we know then that Saddam had illegal ‘sweetheart’ oil deals with some of those very countries (i.e. France, Russia and Germany) who were satisfied with the status quo. Those financial ‘kickbacks’ went directly to Saddam’s secret bank accounts helping to ensure the perpetual failure of the U.N.’s ‘oil-for-food’ sanctions. Secret internal Iraqi documents discovered only after the invasion gave ample evidence of the widespread corruption of the U.N. program. Ironically, we would never have known about the futility of the corrupted program unless we had invaded and captured those documents.

The question that must be answered by those who are opposed to using military action to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions is: What is the point of making resolutions if they’re just going to be flaunted? Why even belong to the U.N. for that matter? I’ve never heard a reasonable answer to that question from any who were opposed to the war from the beginning. I think it deserves an answer by those are critical of the Iraq war. Saddam was counting on a weak resolve to bring him into compliance and he counted wrong.

What I do not understand and perhaps will never have an answer to is: Why, if Saddam did not have any WMDs, if he didn’t have anything to hide, why in the world didn’t he just allow the U.N. inspectors to do their job and verify that he didn’t have anything to hide?? Was his bravado, his pride worth losing his sons, his family and his country over? It doesn’t make any sense to me, if he really didn’t have anything to hide.

It’s easy to criticize and complain about an unpopular and difficult war, it’s another thing to explain what should have been done to bring Saddam into U.N. resolution compliance. What would you have done differently to force his compliance? Given that hindsight is 20/20, would more sanctions have worked? After 10 years of spitting in the face of his legal responsibilities, what else could have possibly worked? Or do you think that we should have just dropped the futile effort, taken our ball and gone home?

The original mission was regime change, which everyone would have to agree was accomplished with surprisingly few casualties in a relatively short period of time. Winning the peace and stabilizing the country has been an entirely different matter. Many unfortunate mistakes have been made since the original mission was accomplished. The President has already admitted that and taken responsibility for those mistakes. To impugn the original mission because of the mistakes that were made afterward in an attempt to establish security and basic services for the civilian population is not a reasonable conclusion, in my estimation.

Even more of a mistake is to conclude that if the original mission was not valid, leaving Iraq suddenly is now justifiable. The real question, once the ‘blame game’ is over, must be addressed. How do we bring an acceptable level of security to the 40% of Iraq that is still out-of-control? Do we partition the country? What are the other alternatives at this point? When we, as a people, are ready to begin to address these issues seriously, then we will be closer to putting this war behind us.

Answer 7

Saddam got up one morning and farted. That is just a good a reason as any.
They were never a threat. There were WMD's, that we gave them. But they go bad within about 3 years. So he couldn't have had vialble toxins.
I think our troops are being sacrificed for the entertainment of our President. Hell to the chief.

Answer 8

Oh, that's easy, IT DIDN'T

The Iraq war was the brain child of PNAC, an "intellectual" think tank of Israelis and Zionist so called "Americans" (both Jew and non-Jew). They came up with the "necessity" to attack Iraq and depose Saddam for ISRAEL's sake way back in the early 90's. They tried to get Bush 1 and then Clinton to sign on, but they were too smart.

The PNAC traitors struck gold when they came across Dubya. He had the perfect combination of stupidity and greed to get duped into getting into a cluster-fvck of a war in Iraq FOR ISRAEL.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Answer 9

Does 9-11 ring a bell?

Answer 10

The American public has awaken to the fact that they have been deceived..this is why Bush has only a 28% approval rating,the
democrats have control and investigations are taking place !

Answer 11

During the fighting of Afganistan, They were giving comfort and aid to our enemies and terrorists. We could not trust them not to sell WMDs to the terrorists. Even N. Korean leader is not that insane to sell WMDs to them. He doesn't even allow them in his country.