Who started the war on Iraq?

Answer 1

The roots of this war can be traced back to the middle ages and before. It is about the control of trade routes and land and resources. The US is involved as a "Johnny come lately", probably had no real interest in being there, but has been sucked in. There have been comments that the US should just "bomb" them back into the middle ages. These comments demonstrate total failure of those who would suggest this to realize, first, that this part of the world is still in the middle ages, and second, that camels will survive long after Hummers and Land Rovers turn to rust. Sadly, this civil war is not winnable by any outside nations, and will continue long after the US leaves. Study history, and you will discover that many nations, indeed, all of the superpowers, have attempted to control this region unsuccessfully during he past twenty centuries. Even Rome failed.

Answer 2

The United States. The Bush amdinistration had about 30 different reasons for the war including:

We don't really know what Iraq's intentions are...let's get them before they get us.

Saddam is bad...mmm 'kay.

Saddam is a hater.

Whether or not Saddam had WMDs...He really, really wanted them.

Saddam may have had something to do with the anthrax scare that followed 9/11...err...maybe.

Iraq, the kind of secular state al Qaeda is opposed to, teamed up with al Qaeda...for some reason.


The US should have deposed Saddam during the first Gulf War in '91.

Iraq was a weak country...easily trounced.

Iraq, a weak country, was a threat to the entire world.

Err...If not a threat to the entire world, Iraq, a weak country, was a threat to the US.

Err...The weak nation of Iraq is mainly a threat to its neighbors.

Err...Iraq was a threat to Israel, even though Israel has the best military in the region (does the Six Day War ring any bells?)

The war in Iraq will spread democracy and capitalism throughout the Middle East.

The war sends a message to other nations...don't even think about considering the possibility of supporting terrorists who may or may not bomb the US.

The children... won't someone please think of the children.

The war in Iraq will create peace.

Saddam really, really wanted nuclear weapons.

Invading Iraq defends freedom...yeah...freedom.

Saddam was violating international law by really, really wanting WMDs.

When future historians write the history of the USA, we don't want them to call us sissies for not invading Iraq.

Revenge! Saddam once tried to kill George W. Bush's father the first President Bush.

The war will be good for the economy: "When there is regime change in Iraq, you could add 3 million to 5 million barrels [of oil per day] to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy." Presidential Economic Advisor Lawerence Lindsay in the Wall Street Journal -- September, 2002.

Dick Cheney's flypaper theory: He predicted that invading Iraq would draw all the evil doers in the region to Iraq where we could kill'em all. I guess if there is one thing Cheney knows, it's killin'.

God wills it! According to one of the President's cousins, President Bush sees the war in religious terms: "George sees the war as a religious war...His view is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And we as the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know."

Answer 3

The Alabama Air Guard, led by President Bush, defeated the Iraqi Fleet as they were sneaking up the Patomac River to Washington DC.

Answer 4

A panel of 13 individuals put together by the presidential staff after 9/11 that was intended to select the greatest threat of terrorism to the united states. Then we attack it. As the president appointed this panel it would ultimately be him as he is the one that followed it then went against the UN and waged war against them. Sounds a lot like the third reich to me.

Answer 5

Every citizen, politician, and intelligence agency of the United States that supported the decision and "wanted to see action taken following 9-11" ( I admit that I am one of them who did). Although no weapons of mass destruction were found, it is still believed in the International world leaders minds that he (Saddam) had it hid and good. Now if those weapons not found in Iraq in the hands of Saddam, it could be potentially located by jihad terrorist. Whom would most definitely use it on their own people, neighbors, and eventually the West.

Also taking into consideration that once the US entered with the "shock and awe" campaign, and eventually found none of the weapons reported by our US and other countries intelligence (including Russia) communities. We could have easily left Iraq in that condition and state of disarray. But then critism would have "still followed" from humanitarian advocates nothing would be politically different today, it would just have a diffferent talking and accusation point for them. For our lack of attention to help re-build Iraq into its pre-state status (with a government in place) and the US truly allowed the Iraqis to decide how "they" wanted to "re-establish their own government and country". Iraqis could have become a communist state without any inference by the US with the help of China, Russia, Iran, and Syria to mention just a few. But instead Iraqis by large "voted for democracy" for themselves in their elections and have re-done their own fair constitution for all religous sects and people in Iraq. And is one of the reason why the US is still there (majority of Iraqis and government people still recognize the threat from outside influences and wants the US there), the Iraqis wanted nothing to do with re-establishment with the aforementioned countries (they had no trust with those countries). Could it be because their (other countries) interest there would have been much greater then the US? We would be in the wait and see position if we did leave and how safe would that make the US and its allies(not to forget Germany who also recognized the Middle East threats (Iran) and are allowing the US to put up and maintain their missle interception program there to protect Germany and its neighbors).

Finally, take all of the past into consideration (1) Saddam failed to comply with the UN inspectors and kicked them out(physically). (2) Saddam had set himself up for his own demise due to military strengh posturing in the Middle East. Historically following the US attack on Iraq, it was learned that Saddam had indeed complied with the UN. But, lead his defiance campaign to allow a show of strength for Iraq(done that way so Iraq would not look weak). Iraq military from years of war was practically broken down to a level "of Iraq being no threat in that region and abroad". He rolled the dice and crapped out. (3) Saddam crusade to de-stabalize the Middle East, and also bringing harm to our allies out there. Saddams military plans was to dominante everyone in the Middle East into one big entity to be commanded under his will and power.

Now with these facts and you can go and study this Middle East stituation.

Who really started the war on Iraq? ( do not to forget the Intelligence given was not collected and complied by Bush, his advisors, or congress). But, Bush is taking all the flack for it. You can appreciate a President that is determined by vision and not the American or outside polls taken.

Your answer is everyone started it from Saddam to the US and the countries who are coming against us right now. Before then and when the attack started countries in the Middle East could have stepped up to the plate to stop this attack. But all others wanted Saddam (the butcher and madman) out of the equation to build up their influence and military posturing in the world.

Look at Iran today a prime example of what I speak of, along with its puppet state Syria and terrorist militia's groups. Iran and Syria could NEVER win a war with the US militarily (with or without our US allies involved). Additionally the financial ramifications and the amount of wars the US is fighting, the war with Iran could take us out of its super power status. The US is the only country currently defined as a super power, the Brits lost that status after years of war and had still not recovered from it( because of $$$$).

Answer 6

GEorge Bush

Answer 7

Saddam buy keeping out inspectors and continually violating the no fly zone, were just preludes. That is why the President had all the support that he did. Saddam had a choice that would of had a different outcome had he not been so defiant.

Answer 8

the current one? The president.

Answer 9

George W. Bush.

Answer 10

Bush.

With the consent of Congress.