why are we really in Iraq ?

Answer 1

To Kill people, see the sights. Win Hearts and minds...You name it.

Answer 2

wow, some really ignorant answers here. I will give you the real reason. guess what? its not because "we have to fight them there to keep them from coming here." that is just a catch phrase.

we are in iraq for multiple reasons.

first, the new world order needs a place in the middle east to have bases in. Iraq is a good central location for a base, near to iran. they knew before iraq that iran would be next.

second, the new world order needs to take control of iraq in order to try and take control of the middle east. The middle east is the only thing that stands in the way of world government.

third, lots of money is being made in iraq.

fourth, bush thought we had to go to war with somebody to get 9/11 off of the front pages, and keep people from finding out the truth about that.

Answer 3

We need to establish more control over the supply-side of the energy/oil-production industry so that we can keep supply low enough for the U.S. to purchase refined product at a rate well in excess of what anyone else can buy. This secures better prices for American businesses and a huge private-sector economic advantage in the global marketplace, while simultaneously preventing any other country or countries from purchasing enough oil/energy to develop their economies to the point where they could seriously begin to rival the U.S.

Another major factor is that we are still fighting the Soviets, who after failing to take over the Middle East themselves (Afghanistan 1980's, U.S. backed Mujahadeen), resorted to a strategy of internal energy production coupled with a plan to create an OPEC-style natural gas cartel. Victory against Russia that does not involve nukes does require beating them decisively on the economic and political fronts, which starts with getting enough control of energy resources to counter Russia's attempts to manipulate the market.

Finally, let us npt forget about China. If the Communist Chinese could buy enough oil to build enough factories to put their entire 1.3 billion population to productive work, they would become as powerful as the U.S. if not moreso within 10-20 years (imagine what this would do to the environment).

The bottom line is that from the perspective of geopolitical strategy, the United States best interests lie in remaining the world's economic and military superpower. A major part of maintaining that status has to do with controlling world energy supply and pacing the growth of competitors' economies. Had the Russians been successful in Afghanistan, the Berlin Wall might still be standing.

Answer 4

Power; US strategic global dominance.

Eliminating a threat and hopefully creating another US-friendly government in the process.

It's NOT about terrorists. We are creating more worldwide because they have a new reason to hate us. Nice recruitment tool.

Obtaining a stable source of oil, even if it is controlled by Iraqis, will be a more reliable (and perhaps cheaper) supply than under Saddam Hussein.

It's not about oil, but it is however a perk. It's about US strategic global dominance and influence.

Answer 5

1. Because we began something with good intentions, accomplished it, but had no plan as to what to do when it actually was accomplished.

2. Because our fearless leader is a megalomaniacal egoist who cannot admit a poor decision, whether to appoint the wrong person for the job or wear an ugly tie, so he will keep us there until it's no longer his decision to make.

Answer 6

To liberate a country that used to be a dictatorship and so they can't harbor terrorism which would pose a threat to the rest of the world.

Answer 7

To stop Alqaeda's jumbo jet red squadran from following us over here after we leave there. McCain's supporters here on Yahoo say, that Alqaeda is just waiting for us to leave Iraq so that they can follow us to Americain in their jumbo jets and crash into our buildings again.

I guess, Alqaeda is so stupid they don't know how t use GPS to get to America, so they have to wait to follow our navy over here. that's why we don't cut and run. I guess.

WoW! That guy leftsmack, seriously blamed Clinton for Iraq. LMAO...seriously I am LMAO, he actually wrote a book on it too...OMG!!

Answer 8

Simply put: A stable Middle East, which includes giving those people the opportunity's that everyone should have in their life.

Answer 9

Because Clinton and his cronies wanted us there:

Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright, February 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.”

Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, February 1998: “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: “When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime.”

French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: “There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right...in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.”

President Bill Clinton, December 1998: “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.…I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again….” Clinton, July 2003: “…[I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in ’98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn’t know it because we never got to go back there.”

General Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat….Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons….He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.”

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean [D], September 2002: “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.” Dean, February 2003: “I agree with President Bush—he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents, and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given.” Dean, March 2003: “[Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons.”

Former Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation Robert Einhorn, March 2002: “How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate, and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously—and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner.”

Senator Bob Graham [D-Florida] and others, in a letter to President Bush, December 2001: There is no doubt that…Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs….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.”

Representative Nancy Pelosi [D-Calif.], December 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.”

Senator John Rockefeller [D-W. Virginia], ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, October 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.”

Answer 10

War profiteering.