Its great and all that Sadaam got overthrown, but what in the world did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

Question

Iraq didn't declare war on us, the 9/11 hijackers all came from Saudia Arabia, I'm still rather confused.

Answer 1

They didn't have anything to do with 9-11....those who oppose the war want you to think that was the reason for the war. It wasn't

Iraq had WMD's that they used to wipe out villiages of their own population,
They were pursuing a nuclear weapons program...
They were violating the terms of cease fire in the first Gulf war.
They were threw out UN inspectors
They violated UN resolutions.
They paid the families of suicide bombers.
They gave safe haven and medical support to al quaeda during the Afganistan war

Answer 2

He not only had nothing to do with 9/11 it is not great that he was overthrown. The populations in Iraq are so divided that they are doomed to have a heavy handed dictator or civil war. They where way better off with Saddam. He may have been brutal at times but he was able to keep the various groups in line and maintain a kind of piece for the people who lived there.

Answer 3

GCB trading - bring on the spin. Let's examine what you have actually said

They didn't have anything to do with 9-11....those who oppose the war want you to think that was the reason for the war. It wasn't.
Then why did Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheyney constantly link the two together in speeches justifying the war. We knew there was no connection between AQ and Iraq - your lot pretended there was.

Iraq had WMD's that they used to wipe out villiages of their own population,
In the 1990s. As has been more than adequately demonstrated they do not have them now. Years of sanctions and inspections were working

They were pursuing a nuclear weapons program...
And getting nowhere with it. Meanwhile while we have been fighting this war we have watched North Korea reach this goal and Iran come close. Good work keeping the world free from nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states.

They were threw out UN inspectors
When the UN secratary General agreed the inspectors had violated thier terms of reference by reporting directly to US intelligence agencies rather than the IAEA. In other words we abused the UN in order to spy on our enemies

They violated UN resolutions.
Not one of which authorised the use of force. They have violated a lot fewer UN resolutions than Israel

They paid the families of suicide bombers.
But not any who have attacked America. Nice attempt at sleight of hand there.

Constantly changing the rationale for this invasion does not change the facts.
It was not authorised by the UN Security council and was not in self defence. Therefore it is illegal.
What flimsy evidence was put forward for this war was based on lies and even if it was not still does not alter the above statement.
While we have stretched ourselves to the limit in order to turn Iraq into a chaotic wasteland, we have also created more tension between the Arab and Western worlds, a recruiting ground for AQ and lowered our own standards to the point of justifying illegal monitoring of our own citizens, torture of other country's citizen, the suspension of habeus corpus and a general wiping of our @ss with our own constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention.

You can't help but be proud of this administration can you?

Answer 4

You really want to know? Read about PNAC then. And then read about neoconservatives and AIPAC.

Here is a little excerpt from Wikipedia article on PNAC:

"From 2001 through 2002 PNAC authored documents supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq[10] and promoted a theory which stated that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."[11][12][13][14]

This was explicitly mentioned in a letter the PNAC sent to President George W. Bush on September 20, 2001 (9 days after the September 11, 2001 attacks)

“ [E]ven if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.[15]
"

Answer 5

Believe me, if you listen to half the bullshit that comes out of Bush's mouth, you will be confused. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens trained in Afghanistan by Osama Bin Laden, this is probably the only true thing that Bush has said in his tenure as president. We are in Iraq because of some vendetta Bush had against Hussein. Iraq was not a threat to the US in any way. Hussein didn't harbor terrorists, like our buddy Pakistan, whom we pay a billion dollars a year to for some ignortant reason, does. In fact, Iraq was the sunni balancing power in the region to Iran's shiite power. In closing, Saddam was a vicious leader, but as Iraq has shown us in the four years since his demise, vicious people need a vicious leader.

Answer 6

The attack on Iraq was not entirely due to the events of 9/11.

When the UN inspectors were thrown out of Iraq in 1999 after Saddam rejected yet another UN resolution - this was resolution 1284. Prior to their departure, they had located and destroyed 48 long range missiles, 30 chemical warheads, 40,000 chemical munitions and 690 tons of chemical agents. Not bad considering they were often denied access to certain buildings and other areas. Given Saddam's dismal compliance with the inspections and his history of using chemical weapons, plus the intellegence we had from around the world, it would have been foolhardy to assume he had actually complied with the UN resolutions and didn't have anymore chemical arsenals hidden away.
After the events of 9/11, the thought of a terrorist sympathizer like Saddam "donating" some of his alleged arsenals to the Islamic radicals was a chance that the United States wasn't willing to take.

Remember, hindsight is great, but it's not available when the tough decisions are actually made.

Islamic terrorists represent a demented ideology of hatred and domination - they do not represent any one particular country. A war on terror is a very complex undertaking - but one that must be fought. Tactics of slaughtering thousands of innocent people must not be allowed to fester and grow. Better we try and eliminate it now - or we may well be fighting a better organized and equipped enemy in the future.

Answer 7

9/11 and Iraq have nothing to do with each other. Iraq was planned out by George W. Bush for oil and revenge. After all, didn't Saddam Hussein try and kill George Bush Sr.?

Yes, most of the hijackers, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, came from Saudi Arabia. Why didn't we go to war with them? Because of oil.

Answer 8

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 it was just used as a good excuse to clean up the mess George Bush sr left.
If Saddam was as bad as intelligence reports said why did he leave him in power after the gulf war because that was after he had gas the Kurds and we are still waiting to see the imaginary WMDs.
All Bush Jr has done has created a breeding ground for angry young men who will become terrorists.

Answer 9

Come to find out, it didn't. BUT, after 9/11 the Bush administration were like bulldogs when it came to terrorists and our country's safety. Someone (CIA probably), with very high technology told Bush that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Distruction (WMD). He had no choice but to check it out, and take care of the situation. We, AMERICA, the country that supposedly has the greatest intelligence in the world, Were wrong. Now, Bush says that b/c we started liberating Iraq, we have to finish.

Answer 10

Iraq had nothing to do with 911. while Saddam did have a training facility for AL qeada in iraq, that cell had nothing to do with 911. check out the 911 commission report.

Answer 11

I only have one thing to say to you people who claim that Bush only went to war for the oil and that he had a hand in planning 9/11. You make me sick!!! Learn to think for yourself and don't swallow everything the media and Michael Moore feed you. I consider myself and Independent and I am not a fan of Bush's because he is too religious for my taste. But you have to give him credit where credit is due. It wasn't his fault that the intelligence he was given was incorrect. He, with the majority support of Americans, acted and declared war. Saddam might not have endorsed Al Qaida but he sure as hell didn't kick them out of Iraq. Besides, the atrocities Saddam committed against his own people were reason enough, to take him out. Have you heard about the town he tried to have wiped out for a snipers attack against him? Have you heard about the chemical weapons that he tested on his own people? The list goes on and on. I would like someone, who say he only attacked Iraq for the oil, to explain to me why the price of oil has gone up since the Iraq invasion. I would also like you to explain why Bush has handed over 100 % control of the oil in Iraq to the new government. The bottom line is that, this war in Iraq isn't going to be as easy like most of you liberals would have liked. You need to stop making excuses for why we shouldn't be in Iraq and find your spines. It is to late to pull out. We have gone in and turned most innocent Iraqi's lives upside down. To do anything other than finish the job would be un American!!!