Was one of the reasons for "regime change" in Iraq intended to reduce a future nuclear threat against Israel?

Question

In the event of a major regional war over the last century, who eventually gets drawn in to mop up? The U.S. and often at great human cost: 116,516 U.S. soldiers killed in WW1; 292,131 U.S. soldiers killed in battle in WW2. Not to mention the millions of casualties from other countries.
statistics source: www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html

Answer 1

We are trying to stop anyone and everyone from being blown up by rogue nations. Keeping nuclear bombs from insane jihadist dictators seems smart to me.

Answer 2

The only problem with that theory is that Iran was and is closer to a nuclear weapon that Iraq. If we take the Bush Administration at face value, that they thought there was WMD, then maybe one could make the case this was preempting the Great MidEast War of 2050.

However, the evidence doesn't really support that they had nuclear weapons. The thought was mostly around that they possessed anthrax and mustard gas. Nuclear weapons were just a sound byte, a la "smoking gun becoming a mushroom cloud."

And to the poster above, Sadaam was anything BUT an insane jihadist dictator. Out of many players in the Middle East, he was a somewhat rational actor. Bastard yes. Insane. Not in the way you are thinking.
And to assert that he was a jihadist ignores everything about Sadaam and jihadism in general. Sadaam was a secular leader. bin Laden loathed him. In fact, before Desert Storm bin Laden asked the House of Saud is he could fight the Iraqi Army in Kuwait with the mujahadeen. bin Laden wanted Sadaam dead as much or more than Dubya. He wasn't a religious wackjob.

Answer 3

Your theory falters on the fact that Iraq didn’t have nuclear weapons and wasn’t developing them. In fact, it appears that Saddam had long ago abandoned his quest for nuclear weapons. The Bush administration concentrated a lot of effort on trying to build the case that Saddam was building nuclear weapons but the experts kept saying that the evidence was basically nonexistent.

The aluminum tubes that the Bush administration said were going to be used for uranium enrichment had already been judged by the experts as being suitable for only for conventional weapons.

The Bush administration needed the “mushroom clouds” in order to hype the threat that Saddam supposedly represented. It was just part of a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Answer 4

Americans have become laughing stock by invading Iraq first and now pushing Iran for the same. Iraq and Iran were busy fighting each other for over a decade. All that Iraq did was to provocate Israel and USA simply by firing one scud missile everyday on Israel. And, now, the entire Muslim world including Iraq adn Iran have united to face the Americans. Israel is never perturbed from any threat. But, Americans behaved in a childlike fashion in handling the comflicts in Arab world.

Answer 5

Baghdad Did Not Fall - It Was Handed Over
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2946.htm

Arabic media are using the word "safqa" to explain the sudden collapse of Baghdad and the Iraqi regime. Translated into English, "safqa" means "a deal made fast and in secrecy."

In Powell's own words, proof that they knew Saddam had been disarmed and did not have weapons of mass destruction in 2001.

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

Saddam Reached Deal With US Before Attack: http://www.cloakanddagger.de/lenny/HOME%20PAGE%20STORY%20COPIES/SADDAM%20REACHED%20DEAL%20WITH%20RUMSFELD.htm

Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein cut a deal with the United States before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov said in an interview published on Thursday.

Thirteen Myths About the Case for War in Iraq
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15305

Saddam Suddenly Looks Innocent
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/1697713.php

There are all kinds of anecdotes about Saddam doing dreadful things, entire books written about them, but the source of all of them is the same pool of people who have been feeding faked “evidence” of WMD and al Qaeda connections to our government. Can it be that there is nothing that Saddam has done all these years that cannot be justified as the permissible acts of a head of state acting in defense of his people. Yes, he invaded Kuwait in 1990, but in retrospect that was a really easy war to justify, given the economic warfare being conducted against Iraq by the Emir of Kuwait. I mean easy in relation to now having to justify this American invasion and destruction of good chunks of Iraq, on false premises

http://wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=3643

Cheney - Saddam Siphon Billions

Under Cheney, Halliburton Helped Saddam Hussein Siphon Billions from UN Oil-for-Food Program
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7053.htm

Behind 'Plot' on Hussein, a Secret Agenda
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lindex.html

How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam Into Invading Kuwait
Gulf War 1 - The April Glaspie interview
http://www.rense.com/general69/41.htm

Answer 6

The neo-cons attacked Iraq for Israel and oil. 75% of the American public is against the war. The invasion has created record hatred for America in not just the Muslim world, but the WHOLE world. We are at more risk of terrorist attack now more than ever.

But Israel via its extremely powerful lobby wants this war to continue. So it will. No matter the consequences and no matter what our best interest is what Israel wants, Israel gets.

Capital Hill is Zionist occupied territory.
....

Answer 7

The biggest reason Bush invaded was Saddam was going off of the US dollar for oil trade and going to the Euro...

Answer 8

Since Iraq had no nuclear weapons, nor a program to develop them, obviously that was not one of the reasons for attacking Iraq.

Answer 9

The US is a pawn of Israel, and she should be looking at the long-term interests than be dictated by the influential lobby

Answer 10

No it was to reduce the threat to ourselves. Or do you really think Saddam would use nukes on us.