Why is America and England at war with Iraq, what did the country of Iraq do?

Question

This is a serious question, what started it and are there any other countries at war over this issue? whatever it is?

What is its objective, what will make them satisfied that they can end it.

Saddam Hussein is dead, and his political regime have been ousted? why still there?

Sorry I should of said Great Britain, just seems to me their is nothing great about colonialism did Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have a choice or do they just have to do what they are told to do by the conquerors.

Answer 1

scottdman2003 said "We attacked Iraq mainly because of the WMD that was believed to be in the hands of Saddam. He broke UN resolution after resolution. All he had to do was allow inspections and he kicked the inspectors out. Our fear was that he would allow much of the believed WMD to fall into the hands of people like Osama Bin Laden."

The problem is all the experts said Saddam didn't have WMDs. A couple of months before 9/11, both Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell gave evident to Congress specifically saying that there was no evidence Saddam had WMDs - so either they were lying then, Bush lied later or someone fell asleep on watch.

We claimed to be attacking Iraq because he ignored UN resolutions, but we take no steps to force Israel to keep the many more resolutions passed against it. And if we were trying to enforce the will of the UN, why did the UK and the US ignore it?

We ask about the weapons inspectors. At the time of the invasion he was co-operating with them (true, it was only because there was an army at his gates, but he was co-operating). Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors were asking for more time - a few more months because they were making progress. Instead they had to pull out because of the invasion of Iraq by coalition forces, which made it too dangerous to remain. In other words, the invasion of Iraq impeded the work of the UN weapons inspectors.

Saddam would not have given weapons to Bin Laden. Bin Laden hated him as much as he hated the western world. He called for the overthrow of Saddam, and called him an apostate (something which under Sharia Law is punishable by death). If you think logically, why would Saddam, whos only aim was power, give weapons to a group that wants to overthrow him and wants him dead?

The war with Iraq was more to do with global politics. An American think-tank called "The Project For A New American Century" (PNAC) was set up whose mission statement says that the aim of US foreign policy should be to maintain the nation's privileged position as sole world superpower in the 21st century.

In 2000, PNAC produced a report called 'Rebuilding America's Defences'. In it it says "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." In other words there should be a US presence in Iraq should be IRRESPECTIVE of whether Saddam Hussein steped down or was overthrown.

The report also says that there should be a permanent U.S. military presence in the Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. It proposed "regime change" not just for Iraq, but Iran and Syria and for Asian powers like China and North Korea. It even called for the U.S. to consider developing weapons of mass destruction, including biological weapons.

The worrying thing is that many and former members of PNAC hold or used to hold key positions in the Bush Administration. These include:
George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld (former Secretary of Defence)
Karl Rove
Richard Armitage (former Deputy Secretary of State, 2001-2005)
Jeb Bush
Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Richard Perle (Chairman of Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee 2001-2003)
Paul Wolfowitz (head of the World Bank, former Deputy Secretary of Defense)

This isn't wild conspiracy theory - all this information is available to PNAC's own website (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). The fact that since these people have got into power, events have come to pass as outlined in the report (invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the current sabre-rattling with Iran etc) suggests one of the reasons for the war with Iraq is the neo-cons trying to impose their own wierd version of Pax Americana on the rest of us.

Answer 2

Basically Iraq invaded Kuwait back in 91. Kuwait was the major producer of jet fuel for the world. Hence why the US and Europe initiated the first gulf war.

The US and allies did not invade Iraq because Iraq had Chemical and Biological weapons and remnants of a nuclear arsenal. If the US/allies had invaded Saddam and his cronies would have used those weapons on the invaders. Think of the number of casualties the US/British have now an multiply that by 10 or 20 or more.

I don't recall there being a formal surrender but any way, trade sanctions were placed and by means of providing Food and Aid we(US/Allies) were allowed to send inspectors to disarm Iraq, also because I don't think there was a formal surrender, Iraq still had an army. There for we(US) had to protect, under previous treaties and alliance, Arabia and the other bordering countries. These treaties go back to the end of WW2.

Now came Bush Jr's time at plate. Even with out 9/11 something had to have happened sooner or later with Iraq and Saddam. For most, all the oil that Iraq had/has was not fully utilized under the embargo. Second, the cost of vigilance over Iraq was on the US/British shoulders year after year. So 9/11 opened up a window to invade and put an end to the cash cow of protecting the surrounding lands.

If the US/British leave now, how ever much Iraq seems to be in the pot now, will be in position for complete anarchy for the entire region. Think of Iraq as the line draw between the Persians(Shi'ite) and Arabians(Sunni). The Saudis, Egypt and other Arab countries have unofficially declared that they will not stand for Iraq becoming another Iran. Now those countries don't have much of an army, but neither does Iran. Yet they will invade not only Iraq but each other in means to see that the other side does not gain a foot hold. Now ask your parents what it was like in the late 70' with the gas shortage and vision one now with no quick fix. Back then there was no real shortage, just OPEC playing with the numbers to get the prices up and overdoing it, it took just one call from the white house and the problem was fixed. Now with Iran supposedly having nukes or at the very least dirty bombs and with the arms the Arab states can buy from the US and China, you can see that an endless supply of missiles can substitute for an inadequate army. This is the fear the rest of the oil consuming world has. Even if there are other points int he world that produce oil, the middle east still is the top producer. Now even if the Saudis initiate something with Iran, because of those oil for protection treaties we made back in WW2 we will get sucked into that one as well.

Just like you see on TV, Sunni killing Shi'ite and visa versa in Iraq, those are the fears in some, that the whole of the middle east can turn into.

Why didn't we for see this, cause we thought that the Iraqi people would have been grateful to have a dictator off their backs. But apparently they all actually liked Saddam, even the ones he committed genocide on. Boy, did we read that wrong. Any way, we uncorked the Jenni's bottle and if we cannot plug it back in the whole world is going to be screwed. Or at least those Al gore/planet warming/tree hugger's will be happy cause everyone will be riding bikes and eating the veggies grown in back yards. Think US depression era 1920's but globally.

Long term solution, write your congressmen to enact a clean air/alt fuel law so sever that the the US is forced to look for other ways to provide transportation. Where the US goes, the rest of the world will follow. Then the Middle east can have its Persian/Arab Civil war and we can ignore them like we do with Africa. And hopefully the victor will have an agreeable disposition towards non-Muslims or they can get their technology from North Korea and we can keep on ignoring them.

Answer 3

It started because there was a strong risk of hussein storing chemical and biological weapons, and also a risk it may have become a safe haven for terrorists, much like syria and afghanistan became. and because of oil.
Now hussein is dead, two types of muslims, the sunni's and shia's are fighting for power in iraq. Foreign terrorists are flooding into iraq now, using it as a base to attack western forces, along with many indigenous fighters.
This war will be over when the allies, as in america and britain, are satisfied that a civil war will not take place, that the iraqi civilians are no longer under threat, when iraqs oil exports are no longer under threat and the iraqi army and police are capable of handling any insurgency, to ensure that iraq will never be a threat to the west or the wider middle east.

Answer 4

Yes a perfectly fair question I thought, you have read most of your answers as to why they were there, you make up your own mind on the validity of the answers!!
What did the country of Iraq do? was another question you asked, if you mean the people of that country they actually did nothing more or less than they have been doing for a great number of years, all down to silly religion, that is really no business of the Americans or the Brits. There will be many wars over religion for a long time to come.
Now this peace keeping bit is a bit harder to sort out, what do we do? leave them alone to sort it out?
Like the troops in Northen Island, why are they still there?
Sorry I cant bring myself to advise you, it's just one of those things that you really must read and try to understand all the 'angles' your self and make up your own mind.
Why should you believe anything I say?
I dont belive at least half of your answers so far.

Answer 5

Iraq /Saddam sponsers terrorists and specifically the taliban, Yes teh army has taen down the regimeme and the people of Iraq found saddam quilty and had him hung. But these people have been fighting for centuries and if we were to pull out now they would be taken over by insugents. Most the Iraqi people just want to live their lives, but there has to be stability before the military pulls out.
Technically we are not at war any longer, we are simply an occupying force, just like we are still an occuping force in Germany, Japan, and Italy since WW2, don't hear any complaining about that. We Also occupy many other countries we have bases there and yes we don't have people killed in all thsoe countries but we are still an occupying force there.

Answer 6

We definitely do not want to take over Iraq. We weren't trying to take over Vietnam either. Vietnam was a war against communism. Maybe it was a mistake but we weren't the first ones in it the French were. You don't use correct spelling or grammar but I think you were trying to say you can understand why terrorists attack our country? They are saying "leave out (our?) freaking country alone"?. I believe the terrorists attacked before we went in there, whether it's a mistake or not. I don't personally like it. How dare you say you can understand why they attack when they've attacked your country as well. I'd like to know how much you really know about Vietnam too. Since you throw it out there. No one one is trying to be your hero believe me. But then, when someone does need us-what happens? You don't need to show us pictures either, one of our best friends was killed in April and many of our friends are over there. Unfortunately my husband will probably get a turn in the coming year. Now that I've read your additional details -I see what your problem is now.

Answer 7

Personally I think that there are a couple of reasons why the Us and Britain are in Iraq.

1. Oil, Iraq has more oil than other countries that are has bad or has worse record than Iraq, e.g. Syria.

2. Bush wants to do what his daddy didn't do lol.

3. B liar is a puppet of bush scared of Bush because he is basically a cowboy and it just shows how stupid America is that he got not once but twice!

Answer 8

The president insisted back in 2003 that if Saddam didn't disarm, he would authorize a military invasion to disarm him. Since Saddam didn't have such weapons and the UN Security Council didn't approve an invasion, the US decided to invade anyway using it's own faulty intelligence and it's lust for revenge for terrorists.

Many countries are not physically at war, but certainly is showing dislike of the US and Britain pushing a phony war.

Drake, lol! That's not a reliable source.

Answer 9

UK is NOT "at war" with Iraq. For you to UNDERSTAND why UK is there (which by the way is NOT JUST england - contrary to popular belief UK consists of Scotland, Wales, NORTHERN Ireland and england ! and there are MANY troops from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland there so that's ONE misconception cleared up here !), if you click on this link DIRECT FROM THE HORSES' MOUTH.. you will see why UK troops are there -
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInIraqBackgroundBriefing.htm

QUOTE ".....In view of the Iraqi regime's failure to comply with the will of the United Nations, and based on the authority provided by a series of UN resolutions since 1991, the UK joined a US-led coalition that was prepared to use force as a last resort to secure Iraqi compliance......" UNQUOTE

If we didn't believe this............................

With regards to other Countries - QUOTE "Iraq Coalition Troops
Non-US Forces in Iraq - February 2007
The size and capabilities of the Coalition forces involved in operations in Iraq has been a subject of much debate, confusion, and at times exageration. As of August 23, 2006, there were 21 non-U.S. military forces contributing armed forces to the Coalition in Iraq. These 21 countries were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. " UNQUOTE
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

Answer 10

The invasion of Iraq was illegal.
If we are going to invade a Sovereign country on the grounds that they have weapons of mass destruction, why not Russia/ Why not China? Why not N.Korea? Why not India? And on and on.
OK, he killed his own people (With weapons provided by the U.S.A) So let's go for that one.
So, Why not Zimbabwe? Why not Russia? Why not N.Korea? and certainly why not China?
The Al Queda connection? It is a known fact that Saddam was totally against Al Queda, but between Britain and the U.S we have created a vacumn that will suck in all the terrorist groups around.
The 9/11 horror had nothing to do with Saddamn or Iraq, but president Bush used this as a decoy to invade.
he will go down in history as the man who single handedly created another vietnam out of nothing.

Answer 11

USA and UK are at war with Iraq because they both choose that path. the reason was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which proved later to be completely untrue.
In the UK the majority of the people didn't want the invasion of Iraq to take place but it made no difference, I cant say if the USA was the same or not.