Why invade Iraq and not Iran?

Question

I am by no means one of those die-hard anti-Bush guys. I am conservative. However; I do question Bush's Middle East policy. We invaded Iraq on the premise that Saddam had WMD's. Keep in mind that when we invaded Iraq, we had no idea that Saddam even had WMD's. To make matters worse, he never even hade WMD's! We now know for a fact that Iran has WMD's. I thought that Bush labled Iran, Iraq, and North Korea on the, "Axis of Evil". If we take over Iraq because they might have WMD's, why not do the same to Iran now that we know they have WMD's. Look at North Korea. They even tested a WMD a few months back. They are on that Axis too. If you look at it, we picked the absolute wrong country out of the 3 to invade. We know Iran and North Korea have nukes. Where is their invasion. Its unfortunate that we picked the country with no nukes to invade.

Answer 1

Trust me, if Iran had pulled their nuclear stunt after 9/11, we would be reconstructing Iran right now and the libs would be telling us to cut and run from there.

Actually we did find WMD's. We found 600 canisters of mustard gas in 06. Even if we hadnt found a drop, that still wouldnt erase the conditions that led to military action in the first place.

The whole uproar over N Koreas nuclear program didnt happen until after we invaded Iraq. Same with Iran. And you have your facts wrong, currently Iran does NOT have the capabilties to deploy a nuclear weapon. Experts Ive heard have predicted anywhere from 2-20 years from now, they will. So we have all that time to exhaust diplomatic efforts until a military strike. It doesnt matter anyway because Israel isnt going to stand by and wait until a nuke levels one of their cities. They will probably respond before we do. They way we are going anyway in this country, we will have a spineless democrat in office that wont be able to combat Iran.

We picked the right country at the right time, Saddam had to go because he wasnt cooperating with the UN and we werent going to take chances after 9/11. But hopefully that regimes like Iran, N Korea, and Syria will take a look at what happened in Iraq as an example of countries that hate the west and try to undermine it.

Answer 2

Iraq was more of a problem in 2003 and Ahmedinejad was not in power until 2005.

North Korea is being handled. They are wanting multilateral talks because through the Patriot Act, Bush's administration has frozen most of North Korea's overseas assets including $25 million in a personal Chinese bank account used for black market sales. Bush has placed a stranglehold on so many overseas banks of nations that support terrorism by outlawing U.S. Banks from lending money overnight to overseas lenders.

The lack of cash is forcing North Korea back to the table where it is making key concessions in tearing down its nuclear weapons programs in exchange for cash and food. It has taken several years to do this, but North Korea is bending and some significant and quiet victories have been won. Read the Wall Street Journal's coverage of this. It is amazing what has been done here through legislation that Bush and Congress passed and what is being done, but not reported.

Bush and Congress are trying to do the same thing with Iran. It will take longer is all. Bush is also sneaking more carrier groups into the Gulf and the Pentagon has drawn plans for the invasion in which they estimate they can wipe out Iran's air force and Navy in twenty minutes and destroy their nuclear reactor on the first day. The very news that Bush was bringing a third carrier group into the Persian Gulf and also the financial pressure of the Patriot Act were significant factors in Iran releasing the British sailors without an apology. Iran's hardline leaders caved in and overruled Ahmedinejad because they knew they were on the verge of a war they cannot win with nuclear capability two years away.

Answer 3

First, are you aware that wikipedia can be added to by anyone, whether they know what they are talking about or not? It is not a good research tool unless it is backed up by other sources. Now, so what? I don't know who invaded who when 20 years ago. It is not relevant. What is the blooming point? Since the Iran/Iraq war, both govts have changed a lot, & so have the issues. The one recurrent theme is the dangers of theocracies in the world. Iran has one, which has less power than they did during that war. The people of Iran are getting fed up with their rule & are showing it at the ballot box. On this side of the world, Bush is rattling sabers at them when his total supply is in use elsewhere He can send in cruise missles & bombers, but that is all. The ground troops are tied up in Afghanistan & Iraq. The generals are against sending 50,000 more troops in because they just plain don't have them. All but the newest recruits have all seen action, some of them for the third time. Meanwhile, there is a power vacuum in Turkmenistan since the ruler there died last week. That country sits on what I read as about 25% of the world's natural gas supply. They are vulnerable to theocratic takeover also. They border both Iran & Afghanistan. What is who going to do about them apples? I think it would be useful to pay attention to today's realities. We can't do anything about what happened when. For black girly: All I meant is every source for research should be backed up by other research. Every source has a bias. Don't even trust me to be completely objective because no one can be. You are looking for truth. Keep it up.

Answer 4

First off, alot of the people posting have not done any research and are answering on impulse. Iraq was absolutely the wrong country to attack. Saddam had a secular military government. Unlike the Theocracies (Islamic religious states) such as Iran and Syria. Saddam's regiem was juxtaposed to Iran's and Al-Qaida's philsophy. They wanted him gone more than anyone, and we played right into their hand. He had kept Iran neutralized by a decades long war, and when we removed him from power Iran was able to exert their authority in the region. I think we can all agree regradles of our party affiliation that that is what has happened. As far as Iran is concerned, first of all we don't ahve the military capacity at this time.rRecruiting is down, 3, 500 dead, over 25,000 injured or amputated. and our National Guard can't even respond to Natural Disasters in this coutry. Also, Abidinijad's party lost some ground in their last elections, his party actually lost 2/3rds of their seats in the government. Which means Iranian civilians are 2/3rd opposed to his hardline anti-US rhetoric., the problem with that is he is not the real power, the Ayatolla is. He is the Head of Their Religious Theocracy and holds the absolute power.

I also like all the posts saying "Saddam got the weapons out of the coutnry" WOW! how much sense does that make, he could have defended the coutnry and his family and himself but didn't? Might I also remind you, we have an intelligence budget greater than the GDP of most countries and the msot advanced spy satelites anywhere. We can read your license plate from space, but we couldn't see caravans of WMD weapons and labs running across the country to Syria? That is just the staunch supporters excuse for being wrong. Wake up people. Also, We taught Saddam how to make Chem and Bio weapons in 1979 throught he early 80's to fight Iran, that is how we knew he had them. However, as we knew and as the weopns inspectors knew, he lacked the capaicty to make them after 1995. These types of weapons have shelfe life of aboutt 2 months at the most 6 months, and they are no longer weaponizable. So there was no way he still posessed dangerous weopons in 2003.

Answer 5

You need to do a little more research before you start your rant next time:

1). Iraq did have WMD's and used them on his own people (the Kurds) and against Iran during the war between those two countries. Iraq had a history of pursuing nuclear weapons technology and Israel bombed their facility in the early 80's. 16 UN resolutions ordered Iraq to destroy and verify the destruction of "all" WMD's and Iraq refused to comply.

2). North Korea has entered into negotiations to dismantle their nuclear weapons system. They are currently in default of that agreement.

3). Vice President Cheney announced last week that the US is ready to use force to dismantle Iraq's nuclear facilities if needed.

Answer 6

Why the focus on WMD? Iran has no nukes. And back in the spring of 2003 North Korea didn't have a functioning nuke either.

This wasn't supposed to be about WMD. It was supposed to be about 9/11 - about getting back at the governments who sponsored and supported 9/11. Bush changed the subject.

3 countries' governments (in addition to Afghanistan) principally supported the Taliban and Al Qaeda: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Pakistan also has nukes, by the way. Pakistani intelligence was the CIA's main go-between with the Afghan mujahedeen during the 1980's and maintained its relationship all the way to 9/11 (and to this day). Saudi Arabia was the other principal financier, and remained the Taliban's (and Al Qaeda's) biggest bankroller through 9/11. UAE state-controlled banks provided the money laundering, and UAE royals partied with Bin Laden in their hunting camps. Read the 9/11 commission report - you'll see plenty of mentions of Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Pakistan - and virtually nothing about Iran or Iraq.

Oh, incidentally, Halliburton continues to do business in Iran via one of its off-shore subsidiaries.

Answer 7

The Bush administration invaded Iraq because they thought it was an easy target.

They thought they could wrap up operations in six months tops.

They thought they were really going to find huge stockpiles of WMDs, ready to go.

They thought a pliant and grateful regime would hand over control of the oil fields right away.

They thought the whole country would love us.

They thought the whole thing would cost sixty billion dollars at most and might even make money.

***

I am by no means against the use of military force.

I am simply against the misuse of military force, by idiots.

Answer 8

We invaded Iraq to enforce the 17 UN resolutions to make sure he would not get WMDs. Quit trying to rewrite history.

We could not afford to allow Saddam to get nukes. He was working to get them.

We had to start there because of the unenforced resolutions.

Iran does deserve a stop on our tour.

Answer 9

Iran does not have nuclear weapons, just a nuclear enrichment program in its infancy. Said program could also be used to nuclear power (however that is something that will have to be closely monitored)

Why not invade Iran? Iran is one of the most vibrant middle eastern democracies. There is a high standard of living. Iran also boast progressive policies with regards to human rights. Although many may not agree with the current leader, Iranian society is much more progressive than most of it's neighbors.

Answer 10

Iran shows glimmers of hope in regards to democracy. Just a few weeks ago student staged a protest against Amadinejad during one of his speeches at a college. They got away with it. Amadinejad is unpopular and will probably be voted out.

An attack on Iran may well cause a rally to the flag effect likek the one we experienced here in America after 9/11. Bush went from very unpopular to getting the highest approval rating of any president. We don't want to give Amadinejad that boost.