why America troops are in Iraq?

Answer 1

Ok, here we go again:

The world changed for many -- apparently not you -- after 9/11.

-- Saddam Hussein violated numerous United Nations resolutions following the first Persian Gulf War. Saddam's military continuously shot at U.S. and British planes patrolling the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones. He offered $25,000 to families of homicide bombers. We know he possessed chemical and biological weapons because he used them during the Iraq/Iran war, and on his own people, the Kurds.

-- The October '02 National Intelligence Estimate concluded with "high confidence" -- the highest certainty allowed -- that Saddam possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. All 16 intelligence agencies contributing to the NIE unanimously agreed on the chemical and biological weapons assumptions, with disagreement only on how far along Saddam was toward acquiring nukes.

-- Weapons inspectors found no WMD stockpiles, leading many Americans to feel that the president either lied or cherry-picked intelligence to lead us into war. But the Robb-Silverman Commission concluded that the president didn't lie. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's 511-page report concluded that the president did not lie. The British Butler Commission, which examined whether Prime Minister Tony Blair "sexed up" the intelligence to make a case for war, concluded the PM didn't lie.

-- Kenneth Pollack, an opponent of the Iraq war, served as Iraq expert and intelligence analyst in the Clinton administration. Pollack writes that during his 1999-2001 tour on the National Security Council, " . . . the intelligence community convinced me and the rest of the Clinton Administration that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs following the withdrawal of the UN inspectors, in 1998, and was only a matter of years away from having a nuclear weapon. . . . The U.S. intelligence community's belief that Saddam was aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction pre-dated Bush's inauguration, and therefore cannot be attributed to political pressure. . . . Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. . . . Germany . . . Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States. . . . In sum, (SET ITAL) no one (END ITAL) doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

-- Meanwhile, neighboring Iran defiantly pursues nuclear weapons. Bush reasoned that a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq would destabilize Iran, accomplishing regime change without military force. This would encourage the rest of the Arab world to direct their grievances toward their own leaders, rather than against the "infidels."

-- We remain in Iraq because, as former Secretary of State James Baker put it, "[I]f we picked up and left right now . . . you would see the biggest civil war you've ever seen. Every neighboring country would be involved in there, doing its own thing, Turkey, Iran, Syria, you name it, and even our friends in the Gulf."

-- Former Secretary of State and informal Bush adviser Henry Kissinger -- who knows something about the consequences of cutting and running -- wrote, "Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy."

-- The political aim of our Islamofascist enemies is a worldwide Caliphate, or Islamic world. Renowned Islam expert Bernard Lewis recently reiterated his support for the war: "The response to 9/11 came as a nasty surprise [to bin Laden and his followers]. They were expecting more of the same -- bleating and apologies -- instead of which they got a vigorous reaction, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. And as they used to say in Moscow: It is no accident, comrades, that there has been no successful attack in the United States since then. . . . [T]he effort is difficult and the outcome uncertain, but I think the effort must be made. Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us."

True, 2,800 of our best have died. Any figure above zero is a tragedy. But America -- on both sides of the Civil War -- lost more than 600,000 soldiers, or 2 percent of the country's population of 31 million. Of our country's 132 million, we lost more than 400,000 in World War II, or .3 percent of our population. In the Korean War, we lost 37,000, and the Vietnam War saw 58,000 dead.

Many people say that after failing to find stockpiles of WMD, Bush "switched" rationale for the war. Consider this excerpt from a New York Times editorial about a speech Bush gave weeks before the coalition entered Iraq:

"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict."

Still confused?

Answer 2

Given the best information available of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the nation of Iraq under the tyrant rule of Saddam Hussein. Based on this information, President Bush asked Congress for a declaration of war on Iraq in order to use his Commander and Chief powers to send troops to Iraq. Congress granted him the declaration of war through the vote of the senate (both Republicans and Democrats were for the war) sending troops to the Middle East nation

Answer 3

Their mission is to stabilize Iraq long enough to where Iraq will be able to take care of itself. Iraq's president has given a "hard" date of June 2007 on when that will be accomplished.

Answer 4

Anyone who says the war in Iraq has something to do with preventing terrorist attacks on US soil is completely clueless. First of all, the "terrorists" that attacked us were not from Iraq, had nothing to do with Saddam..and in fact were disliked by Saddam. I know the mass media machine easily confuses most of you...and it is understandable that you are so misinformed.

The truth is that we are there to enact the Neo-con PNAC agenda to establish American military rule over the entire planet. The middle east is just one area they need to take over.

Answer 5

People tent to make up their own reasons, I go with the reason given by the President. Saddam was given 11 years not a day or a month.... 11 YEARS by the UNITED NATIONS to let the inspectors in to see what kind of WMD they had. BECAUSE Saddam was a thrent to his own people and the countrys around him, he went into Kuwait to take over, killing innocent men, women and children, raping innocent women and yes children. We have find parts of WMD but he had 11 years to get rid of what he had if any. Seems to me if he didn't have anything to hide he would of let the inspectors for the UNITED NATIONS in, I would of. Because we had 9/11 I dont think the president wanted war with both countries but we had to go after Bin Ladin, and we couldn't let Saddam continue agnoring the UNITED NATIONS. The people who think we are at war in Iraq over oil dont have enough education to understand the reasons so they make up their own. Or they didn't like Bush to begin with. I didn't want Bush but look at the choice we had Bush or Kerry, Kerry had all the some bad habits as Bush but lied badly on top of them all. The USA doesnt get their oil from Iraq so oil is a stupid reason. Personally when Saddam was killing, gassing, raping his own people I thought we should of gone in to protect them. With that being said, Saddams gone now our military has been training the Iraqis for years ( our soldiers get 6- 10 weeks training) I believe our job is done. I didn't mind helping to rebuild what we bombed but were paying to rebuild what the idiots are doing now this isnt fair to the tax payers in the USA. My final straw was when we found out that Iran had people in Iraq bombing them and us, and the head of Iraq said the USA and Iran needed to fight their battle outside Iraq. What was this idiot thinking? Our battle with Iran is because their in Iraq killing and bombing them and us. NOW its time to go, when the head of the country talks big like that I think they feel like they can defend them selfs now and we should pull out and let them do so. OOh and if they can't oh fricken well. If Iraq wasnt full of cowards to begin with their would of never let someone like Saddam rule them to begin with. If a Saddam tried that in the USA someone would put a bullet in him and his pigs sons within 24 hours.

Answer 6

Giving Iraqi security support until they can completely take over.

Answer 7

We are trying to see to it that the Muslims do not kill us all in our sleep, since they are terrorists who don't have the courage to actually stand and fight. I realize that you probably don't care about the thousands killed on 9/11. After all,, most of them were NOT Muslims, so therefore they don't matter to you.

Answer 8

Exterminating terrorist and the ones that master mind terrorism.

Answer 9

good question, when you find out, let me know, cuz im confused. ive been in the military for 3 years and cant grasp why...

Answer 10

Because Muslims are terrorist and deserve to die .....