Why do people still believe Iraq was a threat to US?

Question

The nuclear material debacle was an obvious hoax.
The chemical weapons production trailers turned out to be nothing.
The aluminum pipes turned out to be for irrigation.
Saddam killed all terrorists in Iraq- no competition for him.
The mission (of getting rid of Saddam, not tracking down the terrorists sent from Saudi Arabia) was accomplished many years ago. Why are we still there supporting a puppet government?

leafyquee- clinton was a bozo, he might have gotten all the weapons in the strike or he MIGHT HAVE BEEN WRONG!, but most importantly HE'S GONE NOW!!! Get over him! Japan was a threat in the '40's- should we attack them now?

Answer 1

Because Rush told them so and anyone who disagrees, just "Hates America and want the terrorists to win"

Answer 2

We aren't, our Government is. What can be done to fix the mess that was created should be the real question. If we leave then not only will the Iraqis kill themselves, other countries might try to take it over since Iraq is in a very vulnerable state. Not to mention we would have very bad relations with other countries (more than we have now) for abandoning what we initiated. It was a mistake but there has to be a solution. It no longer is about who was right or wrong but what can be done so we can pull our troops out.

Answer 3

Because we helped create a civil war that we are now stuck policing. Those who still wish to believe, despite the evidence to the contrary, that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 are holding desperately onto a fallacy so they don't have to examine the real reasons why we are there too closely, or admit that they were hookwinked by Bush and Cheney. Unfortunately, part of the result of our actions in Iraq has been that terrorists now move there freely.

Answer 4

There's a grand delusion among the Neo-cons that an ascending Shia movement will stabilize the region.

HOGWASH!!!

Saudi Arabia supports the Sunni's, GWB and his cronies are at the Royal Families beckon call. A major conflict of interest that puzzles us all especially considering the fact that the 18 radicals with box-cutters that started this whole mess were Saudi nationals.

Answer 5

Because a number of people will believe anything that comes out of the mouth of a suit with an American Flag pin on his lapel.
Some country band playing patriotic songs simply turns them to jelly.
The fact that we put Afghanistan( where the terrorists really are)on the back burner to launch an Unjustified attack based to lies in order to seize control of Iraqi oil and to turn great profits for Dubyas Pals doesn't matter to them.

They wouldn't know a lie if it ran up and bit them on the *ss.

Answer 6

Iraq is probably more of a threat to the US with Saddam gone. Saddam was just a threat to his own people and the rest of the ME.

Iran and Hezbollah want Iraq. Do you think we should just let them have it?

Answer 7

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.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
{SNIP}

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. 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}

n four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.
{SNIP}

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
{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. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

-------------
ETA hey you asked and this is my answer. i am using Clinton's words because they explain the situation. the situation which had NOT CHANGED since he left office. if he did or did not destroy Saddam's weapons doesn't matter, BECAUSE SADDAM STILL ACTED AS IF HE HAD THEM OR WAS GETTING THEM.

IF BUSH IS GUILTY OF HAVING BAD INTELLIGENCE, THEN WHAT ABOUT CLINTON? i've never heard of any weapons being found by him either. i did hear he had an empty aspirin factory bombed, but i don't know if that is true. my point is, why does everyone blame Bush when Clinton had the same intelligence?

Answer 8

The war there is just a disasterous smokescreen to distract from Bush's oil grab. Where has all that oil money gone? With the stolen Iraqi oil, the Iraqis are esentially financing their own destruction.

Answer 9

They are not a threat to us any longer. I dont know who says they still are.

Answer 10

U don't know much about Saddam Hussein do you?