I need straight answer about the JUSTIFATION FOR WAR IN IRAQ?

Question

During WWII

We attacked, invaded and occupied Japan because it was japan that attacked the US 12/07/1941

That's as black and white as it gets.

Why black and white?

Because the government that attacked the US was the SAME one that we fought against.

But my understanding is that congress found "No credible link" between Saddam and Bin Laden in the 911 commision report.

Given this US Congressional conclussion, ON WHAT SOURCE of infrormation do the war proponents counter this congressional rational.

I DONT WANT A TON OF INSULT AND DISRESPECT FROM SOLDIERS - like in my first question, I JUST [[ HONESTLY ]] want to find out what you know, HOW it is you are so convinced about:

the connection between Bin Laden and Saddam and 9/11.

What website can I go to?
What book can I read?

I DON'T NEED ANY MORE INSULT AND DISRESPECT, (my original post) I JUST NEED ANSWERS, SO IF YOU ARE GOING TO SPIT ON ME [AGAIN] at that point you are just an amimal with a machine gun

Answer 1

First off you need to learn a little about history. Yes, Japan attacked us. Did we immediately go after Japan? NOPE, we took a lot of losses in the Pacific with the strategy of maintaining the balance. The main focus of the U.S. was Germany and Italy which is why we went straight to Europe. We then went after two countries which DID NOT directly attack us but supported Japan's decision to attack us.

How is that any different then what is going on now? Intel for the last 12 years prior to 9/11 said that Iraq was trying to acquire a nuclear bomb. If that was not good intel then why did the UN have inspectors there? Why are the U.S. forces over there finding 20 year old bombs they just "happened to miss?" Answer is because they were hiding them and moving them from sight to sight. This makes me wonder what slipped out that was usable before we invaded in 2003. Keep in mind there were military convoys leaving Iraq.

Iraq has been a supporter of terrorism. I included a link to an article which mentions these links before the war over there began and how Kerry basically walked into a trap when he tried to say there was no terrorist support in Iraq before the war during the 2004 presidential election.

If we truly are at war with terrorism and not just muslims or Bin Laden then a factory for terrorists is definately a legitimate target in my opinion and Iraq was a supporter of terrorism financially and logistically.

CIA Analysis, January 2003--Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report):
"Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel and other allies."

Does there need to be a link between 9/11 and Iraq and Bin Laden? Absoulutely not, Iraq has a link with terrorism and needs to be dealt with. We need to take out any government that supports terrorism and let that country rebuild themselves and if they support terrorism again...do the same thing. Don't waste years in a war that we can not win because America forgot how to fight a war. If that makes me an animal with a machine gun then so be it because we need more troops ready to fire weapons without thinking of being charged for killing someone trying to kill them.

Of course, above all we need for America, liberals, and Democrats to support our word over the terrorists. We know that terrorists dress as civillians, will lie while being detained, and commit suicide bombings. Yet, if a guy holding a gun gets shot dead wearing civillian clothing and the others say it was a civillian our Democrats and liberals keep pressuring it until it becomes the "truth." If a detainee in Cuba, where I personally spent a year of my life, says we mistreat him then it is held as the truth by Democrats, liberals, and McCain.

Do people not realize that our enemy is outsmarting them? I know if I was being detained I would say I was being mistreated even if I was getting Tri-tip every night of the week and allowed to do whatever I wanted to do.

We are taking an offensive in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak and people want to say that we need to focus on the country that attacked us. We didn't take an offensive with Japan until the outcome in Europe was determined. We have done things better in this aspect then we did during WWII. We attacked the country that had the fugitive and harbored his terrorist group before going elsewhere, can't say that about WW II.

I know I am an animal but oh well, we haven't been attacked in 5 and a half years. Clinton managed to get us attacked 5 times in 8 years. Give me George Bush over a Dem anyday because for as many faults as the guy has, he has managed to do one thing, and that is to keep civillians in America safe.


EDIT: For LEE T

A little history lesson for you. Since you obviously know nothing about how Saddam got into his position. The U.S. had NOTHING to do with it.

Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963. Ba'athist leaders were appointed to the cabinet and Abdul Salam Arif became president. Arif dismissed and arrested the Ba'athist leaders later that year. Saddam returned to Iraq, but was imprisoned in 1964. Just prior to his imprisonment and until 1968, Saddam held the position of Ba'ath party secretary.[14] He escaped prison in 1967 and quickly became a leading member of the party. In 1968, Saddam participated in a bloodless coup led by Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr and Briyan al-Reddyb that overthrew Abdul Rahman Arif. Al-Bakr was named president and Saddam was named his deputy, and deputy chairman of the Baathist Revolutionary Command Council. According to biographers, Saddam never forgot the tensions within the first Ba'athist government, which formed the basis for his measures to promote Ba'ath party unity as well as his resolve to maintain power and programs to ensure social stability.

Although Saddam was al-Bakr's deputy, he was a strong behind-the-scenes party politician. Al-Bakr was the older and more prestigious of the two, but by 1969 Saddam Hussein clearly had become the moving force behind the party.

In 1976, Saddam rose to the position of general in the Iraqi armed forces, and rapidly became the strongman of the government. As the weak, elderly al-Bakr became unable to execute his duties, Saddam took on an increasingly prominent role as the face of the government both internally and externally. He soon became the architect of Iraq's foreign policy and represented the nation in all diplomatic situations. He was the de-facto leader of Iraq some years before he formally came to power in 1979. He slowly began to consolidate his power over Iraq's government and the Ba'ath party. Relationships with fellow party members were carefully cultivated, and Saddam soon accumulated a powerful circle of support within the party.


STOP SPREADING THE LIES!!!

Answer 2

You want a simple answer to a very complex issue. You will not get it on Yahoo Answers sorry.

However you asked...
"What book can I read?"

You can read the following.

From Beruit to Jerusalem- Thomas Friedman
A Quick and Dity Guide to War-James Dunnigan and Austin Bay
The Satanic Verses-Salman Rushdie
Guerilla Warfare- Che Guevara
Black Hawk Down-Mark Bowden
Seapower As Strategy: Navies and National Interests
The Wrong Side of Brightness-Austin Bay
Dereliction of Duty- Robert Patterson
Tribes and Power: Nationalism and Ethnicity in the Middle East- Faleh Abdul-Jabar
Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East-Philip S. Khoury and Joseph Kostiner
Judgment Day-Dave Hunt
An American Feminist in Palestine: The Intifada Years- Sherna Gluck
The Veil and the Male Elite: A Feminist Interpretation of Women's Rights in Islam- Fatima Mernissi
Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East-Dave Fromkin
God Has Ninety-Nine Names: Reporting from a Militant Middle East-Judith Miller
Epicenter: Why the Current Rumblings in the Middle East Will Change Your Future- Joel Rosenburg
What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East- Bernard Lewis
Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy And the Next Great Crisis in the Middle East- Ali Ansari
At Your Own Risk: An American Chronicle of Crisis and Captivity in the Middle East- Tom Sutherland and Jean Sutherland

Start with those and then I think you will have some idea with what we are dealing with.

Answer 3

The first Gulf war ended in a cease-fire and NOT a peace treaty. The war would resume if Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the cease-fire.

1. Violations: Refused repeatedly over 10-years to allow UN weapons inspectors unrestricted access to potential weapons storage sites or research centers.
2. Numerous violations of the "No Fly zone"
3. Attempted assassination of ex-President Bush during a visit to Kuwait.

So why did we not finish of Iraq in the nineties? Because the President was a democrat (Clinton) and when he proposed an invasion of Iraq he was thwarted by a Republican controlled Congress. They believed he was doing to get folks mind of the Lewinsky affair.

Answer 4

Sigh. More refusal to confront reality from a Questioner who should know better.

(1) America was at war with Japan LONG before Pearl Harbor. Something about siding with the Nationalist Chinese and sending fighter squadrons (the infamous "Flying Tigers" to fight alongside Chiang Kai-Shek as ostentious "mercenaries" that people keep on forgetting about.

(2) America imposed a 100% steel and petroleum EMBARGO on Japan in response to Japan's invasion of French Indochina half a year before Pearl Harbor - a move that was guaranteed to provoke the resource-starved Japanese to strike out at the rest of Asia and the United States.

"Black and White"? Bullshit. The Ameicans had been wargaming Pacific War scenarios facing Japan since the 1920s (Re: "War Plan Orange"). If you want to throw in complicity between FDR and "Winnie", it gets even more convoluted.

(3) If you think websites and books are going to educate you on the full truth of what is going on behind the scenes, you're out of your mind.

Unlike you, I have a security clearance, and I take my job seriously. Unlike you, I don't spread lies and disinformation, and I don't indulge in conspiracy theories and don't call military servicemembers "animal(s) with machine gun(s)".

If the full extent of your knowledge has to be derived from open source references, it sucks to be you. Try hitting up various agencies in 50 to a 100 years with Freedom of Information Act requests, because that's the only way you'll fill those wide, gaping holes in your musings about the Global War on Terror.

If you need answers, tough. Dyed in the wool pacfists like you locked in the protest politics of the 60s can't handle the truth.

Answer 5

Its simple Saddam was put into power by the US.The US expected him to be a puppet he was for a while.But then started to do what he saw fit for his country and the US administration didn't like it.The US was no longer in control of him.The Taliban was put into power in Afghanistan to fend of the Russians they did with aide and weapons from the US.The US government media Then linked Bin laden and Taliban together because all of the Investments The bush family had with his family.Then The bin laden family was flown out of the US 1 week after 911 The only flights allowed in US airspace No other planes flew for ages.When they were kicked out There assets were taken and the Bush Family got the lot.These wars will go on for ever or until an international court that The US will listen to Rule on it and the bush family will have to pay all that MONEY back

Answer 6

No. Basic Training and then AIT. Afterwards, you will probably sent to your Unit unless you have an additional school in your contract (Airborne, AirAssult, etc.) If the unit is deployed, more than likely you will be sent to the Rear detachment company and be held back until the unit returns or sent over if needed. It is doubtful you will be thrust into a patrol immediately. It would behoove the PLT SGT and PLT LDR to get you up to speed before they felt you were ready.

Answer 7

Former defense secretary under President Clinton, William Cohen, sent a letter to the newspapers from Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden stating that the Iraqi government would do everything it can to assist al-qaida including militarily.

Recently released documents captured in Baghdad have categorically linked Iraqi military officers aiding al-qadi with Husseins approval.

There is a mountain of evidence that the Iraqi government was aiding and abbetting terrorist attacks against U.S. and with 9/11.

Answer 8

If you really want to know why, I'll tell you what I think (it may be right and it may be wrong). As long as our soldiers are there they are serving as a magnet to draw in the terrorists who so desperately need an outlet to their anger for us. The reason we haven't had another attack here is because they are so focused on our soldiers over there. Less overhead involved if you want to think of it in business terms. It sucks our guys are killed over there. It sucks these people are bent on hating us. But I rather they go up against our heavily fortified and alerted marines and army than on our office workers trying to provide for their families by putting in an honest days work. We had to go in somewhere to provide the outlet to confront their aggression. They have no land of their own. Where else would you have suggested?

Answer 9

i agree that the united states had no justification to go to war with iraq. the un was aloud to check for wmd's and found none, till this day remains ton, i believe it was a perosnal conflict between bush and saddam. I did not want this war to happen in the first place but we r stuck until democracy prevails, if us troops leave chaos will be in iraq for the next century, go to google , key word "loose change" click on the first one and watch that video

Answer 10

This may help clarify things for you
Afghanistan=Japan
Iraq=Italy
Iran=Germany
As in 1941 America declared war on Japan because they attacked them.
they also declared war on Germany and Italy because of thier alliance with japan.
Saddam's intelligence were in league with al-qaeda, Zarquari's insurgents worked with former baathists.
Of course there's no documentation, the iraqis destroyed it so we couldn't prove it.
The WMDs were taken by the insurgents after the invasion, one was used in a truck bombing recently.
Unlike WW2 we didn't attack the Nazis at the same time, we're maintaining an uneasy peace with Iran at the moment (like the Russians and Germans in 1939)

Answer 11

The simple answer why the US went to war against both Afghanistan and Iraq is - ISRAEL. Our military people are dying and our national wealth is being squandered in support of Israel's quest to dominate the Middle East. Go ahead and call me anti-semetic, and a Nazi, and a Jew hater - that does not negate the fact that the United States is under the thumb of war mongering Jews who use Bush as their "useful idiot", as well as both Republican and Democatic politicans to do their bidding. BTW, I am retired military and I respect the rights of anyone to question the motives of our government and military. IMO, many military members are uneducated and ill-informed as to why they are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. The best way to support our troops is to bring them back home and let Israel fight her own wars.