If stability in the Middle East is so important, why did Bush invade Iraq?

Question

After all, a fully-contained Saddam Hussein had been stable for 12 years.

Answer 1

You call the Middle East 'stable' during Saddam's rein?!?! You need to stop smoking all that dope..........the Middle East has always been unstable, there was no way we could make it more so.............

Answer 2

We will probably never know all of the reasons exactly as to why we went into Iraq. Three areas of thought have been put forth as to the reason. 1.) Saddam was allowing terrorist into his country, and while to us seemed stable, to the middle east he was not. You see how we are not liked by many in the middle east for going in. Imagine what the people in the middle east felt having a person kill his own people and try to invade a neighboring country. The people over there did not really like him. This is a popular idea among the wars supporters and could be the correct reason why the U.S. went into Iraq. 2.) For President Bush to get back at Saddam. While this is a popular idea among the wars opponents, it does not seem correct since he would have risked being impeached by a democrat controlled congress. 3.) To get the middle east on board for global trade, and a global government. This is a popular idea among opponents as well, and it does look like it could be correct. For a world government to work you would need to have control of the worlds most precious resource-oil. Not because we need the oil, but because the world leaders need the oil leaders on board with them to have the new government work. This also makes since because the democrats are not really doing anything about the war except talking. It only appears that they oppose it for political reasons. The middle east has to be stable for a "new world order". This will be acomplished by getting the proper political leaders in place. Look to have other countries leaders replaced by force to get this to happen in the near future.

Answer 3

Stable? Your definition of this word is certainly different from mine.

Prior to their explosion from Iraq in 1999, the UN inspection teams had destroyed 48 long range missiles, 30 chemical warheads, 40,000 chemical munitions and 690 Tons of chemical agents. We had no reliable inspections for over two years before the invasion.

Given this valid information and Saddam's history of using his chemical arsenals to kill over 20,000 people during the Gulf War, including an estimated 5000 Iraqi Kurds - do you still consider his presence in the Middle East "stable?"

Answer 4

Iraq was anything but stable. It was oppressed. The United states entered Iraq to stabilize the region.

Answer 5

Partly because Clinton signed the bill to liberate Iraq. Bush is just the one who did something about it.

Saddam had not been stable. He was executing people for disagreeing with him.

Answer 6

Because Bush didn't like Saddam, and Bush thought he could do a better job in Iraq.

We all know how well that worked out.

Answer 7

Unless of course, you're one of his political enemies...or a Kurd...or live In Kuwait...or live in Saudi Arabia...or you happen to be one of his girlfriends....or one of his son's girlfriends....or Shiite....or, well you get the point.....I hope.

Answer 8

to bring democracy??? what a joke.... we're so busy minding the business of everyone else and our country is falling apart.... there's a saying... clean your own home before trying to clean someone elses...leave them alone and mind our own business for what we've spent on an illegal war every american could have medical insurance..... that's sooooooooo wrong..... our children and their children will have to pay for this huge mistake made by this idiot and his greed... may bush, cheney, and the queen devil condi rot in hell

Answer 9

To spread democracy - at least that's whats left after you strip away all the other "reasons" that the right throws around.

Answer 10

Saddam was busy funding the Palestinian suicide bombers during that time.