what was the purpose of the iraq war?

Answer 1

Oil. Oil pipelines. Money. Contracts for Bush's friends.

The end.

Answer 2

This question will be asked by history teachers for the next thousand years. The answer will depend on who writes the history books.

Many think that the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam was a plan sitting on a shelf at the Pentagon ever since Bush number 1 had to pull out back in 1991 and when the opportunity presented itself after 9/11, they dusted it off, justified it with lies and went forward with it without thinking about the consequences.

Answer 3

Remove an evil murderous dictator who was supporting and paying suicide bombers, establish a democracy in a part of the world where most citizens have never had a chance to have a say in their futures, which will someday give potential suicide bombers something more to live for, like a job and freedom to choose their own destiny, and give us a land base on the west side of Iran.

The WMD issue is just a distraction by liberal anti-war activists to try to justify their opposition to President Bush.

Answer 4

Here's a thought :
to all you 'we did it for the oil' people...in todays world OIL (or more precisely, the access to it ) is the single BEST reason on the planet to go to war.
Saddam - for those of you who either don't or won't aquaint themselves with the FACTS (there are lots of you on this board- you know who you are)...gave us the opportunity (through years of violating the terms of the Gulf War Ceasefire ) to oust him.
Blame him, not Bush.
The danger of Saddam having WMD was VERY real (even though the same politicans who said so for years now pretend that Bush made the whole thing up), couple that with his support and financial incentivizing to Palestinian suicide bombers (if you are FOR terrorism, you are AGAINST us...remember?)
Now add in the fact that Saddam is a sworn enemy to the US and is in a position to choke off a huge portion of the worlds oil supply...do any of you bozos understand just how quickly that would topple the western world?
Obviously not or you wouldn't sneer at the idea that oil is an acceptable reason for conflict.
It has little to do with oil companies and everything to do with our survival.

Answer 5

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199052,00.html
There are plenty of sources out there that explain this. President Bush had a standing ovation when he said the Taliban could not hide no matter where they went. To confuse it more they are interchanging Taliban and Al Queada. People keep saying there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they forget that Mustard gas and nerve agents are considered biological weapons of mass destruction. Maybe no nuclear but the rest was present and accounted for.

Answer 6

To show anybody looking for a fight with the USA that there will be retaliation. "Don't tread on me" is not just some old slogan, it still applies today. Don't mess with me boy, or you are going to pay, big time. Best defence is an offence. Look at Gaddaffi's response if you don't think so.
By shifting the battleground to Iraq it ties up America's enemies resources there, and makes attacks on American soil less likely as resources are stretched. America can afford the financial and people drain more than its enemies. It makes good sense.

Answer 7

Historically, the REAL reasons wars are waged are not fully disclosed to innocent civillians, who by nature oppose wars because of the threats to their land and their lives.

Searching for mass destruction weapons really didn't pan out too well--and we should've called Bush's bluff on it, too. And since when did we really care what some country's dictator was doing in his country?? Quite possible Saddam, not exactly an angel, was a patsy; a cover for US war justification.

Terrorist hunting??? Notice too we don't have a lot of press coverage on what's going on in Afghanistan, either. Strange how fast we shifted wars from Afghanistan to Iraq, isn't it? You don't just do that--unless something is being threatened rather quickly. And the only things there in Iraq are their innocent people, Saddam and OIL...hmmmmm......

Well, can't use up Saddam much anymore, no mass destruction weapons found there yet, Iraqi's are quite accustomed to the dangers of life in their country....still leaves OIL out there--currently in US military ( and Halliburton....a-hemmmm ) control.

As far as US war history goes, we don't do too well fighting "dirty wars" as example shows in Vietnam; Iraq is TODAY'S Vietnam---with far less casualities.

Bottom line: The Iraqi cities and townships, all too glad to have US troops battle the "insurgency", need to stand up for themselves and let go of their dependency of our Army troops; who need to be sent home safe. Note on those "insurgents", they're NOT Al-Quaeda nor do they support Saddam: they're released murders and serial killers---all with an itch to scratch. Some surely are bucking for Al-Quaeda recruitment, but they're likely NOT what meets their criteria.

Halliburton has para-military crew on staff....well trained big boys with big guns--I say let them control the Oil stations and send payment check to Dick Cheney. But it's time our troops exit Iraq and come home safe.

Answer 8

I think the purpose of this war was hat George Bush thought there were "weapons of mass destruction," and Bush thought that Saddam helped Bin Laden with the 9/11 attack on the Two Towers.

But the real reason from Washington D.C. is to begin bringing freedom and democracy to the Arab world.

Answer 9

don't you mean is was is the past tense the war is still going on. The government will tell you that it is to stop terrorist and to oust Saddam well we got Saddam and now they are trying to set up a democratic government there. Bush in my opinion wants the world to be a one world government. you should check out my last question. Also Iraq controls quite a bit of oil so if we can get our hands on it that will be better for us. So in my opinion the war is over oil

Answer 10

It's hard to say, it keeps changing. At one point it had something to do with WMD. That didn't pan out... I heard Dubya being interviewed once and it sounded like he wanted to avenge Saddam's allegedly having attempted to kill his father. At other times the rationale was Saddam's human rights violations (which I don't recall anyone in the White House or congress expressing concern about prior to the invasion of oil-rich Kuwait- if anyone has links to the contrary, feel free to provide them). Lately there's talk about fighting terrorism- despite the lack of a link between Iraq and 9/11 (again, if I'm wrong, provide the link), and the fact that our "ally" Saudi Arabia has undeniably produced many of the terrorists involved with 9/11. The more the pro-war camp tries to explain all of this to the rest of us, the more hopelessly convoluted their case becomes.

Answer 11

Well the Iraqis are fighting the insurgents from other countries who are trying to keep the people of Iraq dominated like Saddam had them. Our troops are there to help the Iraqis and hep try to keep the insurgents from murdering so many innocent people.