Any one remembers why we invaded Iraq?

Answer 1

WHY???? there never was any reason except "just because"!!!

Answer 2

in 1990 Saddam Husein invaded Kuwait for no reason at all other than greed. Saddam was also after Saudia Arabia as well.

A 23 member coalition of nation of which the USA comprised over half the total force defeated Saddam and regained freedom for the Kuwaiti's

Certain resolutions were passed by the United Nations after Saddam was defeated. Most of these had to do with the disarming and dismantlement of his weapons programs. Specifically his stockpiles of chemical and Biological weapons ( He DID have them) and his nuclear weapons development program (He didn't have nukes but were trying to get them).

Saddam was required to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors to insure compliance with the resolutions.
He refused.
Time and time again he refused.
Every time he refused the USA with the UN backing us told him cooperate OR ELSE!

Saddam would pretend to start cooperating then suddenly turn around and kick out the inspectors.
Again he was told to cooperate OR ELSE!

and again he would pretend then change his mind.

for over a DECADE Saddam kept playing around and refusing to cooperate. The UN was a toothless tiger. they would never go beyond talking and threatening "or else" they would never fight him or punish him. Saddam knew this and continued to make a joke of the UN.

Finally we here in the USA decided ENOUGH BS!!!!
and we told Saddam one last time "Cooperate OR ELSE!" and this time we WILL come for you if you don't cooperate regardless of the UN.

Saddam decided to call our bluff and then found out.... we weren't bluffing..

All the other "reasons" you hear for the war are not actually reasons. The REASON was the UN resolutions that Saddam kept flaunting.
the Added benefits were oil concessions, freedom for Iraqi people, the downdfall of Saddam himself.

Reasons such as "George Jr finishing what Daddy started" are NOT why we went to war there but are the "Icing on the cake" so to speak. killing two birds with one stone...etc.. choose your own metaphor. But if that were truely the only reason, then we would not have ever gone to war.

People need to stop listing to the liberal left and their idiotic and ignorant of facts rants that they claim as a "truth" which is nothing more than their lack of reasoned BS.

Answer 3

Yes, I do remember. That mission is over.

Thankfully, our military leaders, if not some of our political leaders understand that missions change and our mission there is now different. The mission in Afghanistan changed as well. The original mission in Afghanistan was completed within 45 days successfully.

The follow on missions in both places will and need to continue for some time.

Answer 4

Yes

Answer 5

I know what we were told, and it wasn't that we were going in to rescue the Iraqi's from Saddam. That was a secondary consideration. We were told Saddam was a threat to the US. Anyone who questions that can simply refer the speeches Bush gave in the lead up to the war. They're archived on the white house web site.

Answer 6

To begin with, it's important to put the war in context. We must remember that we have been trying to remove Saddam Hussein from power since the Gulf War.

After September 11th, it became apparent that simply going after Al-Qaeda was not going to be enough to prevent future attacks. First off, if you simply target Al-Qaeda, what happens if the core of group simply changes its name or groups with other anti-American terrorists? Furthermore, how can you effectively target terrorists protected by the power of a rogue state? The answer is, "you can't". In addition, the training, resources, & protection provided by those rogue states is the very thing that enables a group like Al-Qaeda to become capable of pulling off the sort of attack we saw on 9/11. So in order to prevent future 9/11s, you have to go after not just Al-Qaeda, but all terrorist groups with global reach and the rogue states that support them.

First of all, there simply was no significant difference between the position the Bush administration had on Iraq's WMD and the position held by prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, or John Kerry. In short, the overwhelming majority of Democrats & Republicans in Washington believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Secondly, given the size of Iraq and the fact that Saddam Hussein's totalitarian regime was not cooperating with the UN inspectors, there was no way, even had they been there for a hundred years, that Hans Blix and the rest of the UN inspectors could have confirmed to anyone's satisfaction that Iraq was not producing WMD. Even a year after the war, when our inspectors have had the run of the country, access to "secret documents", and have been able to interview Iraqi scientists without Saddam's"minders" being present, our WMD teams have still not been able to definitively say there are no remaining stockpiles of weapons in Iraq although we certainly suspect that to be the case.

Third, it isn't as if our intelligence agencies and the politicians citing them were totally wrong about WMDs and Iraq. As David Kay revealed, Iraqi scientists were working on weaponizing anthrax "right up until the end" and had restarted a rudimentary nuclear weapons program in 2000 & 2001.

Furthermore, there were certainly many other reasons to go to Iraq. Saddam Hussein was an avowed enemy of America who had started two wars of aggression in the region, was steadfast in his support for Palestinian suicide bombers, and brutally oppressed his own people.

Indeed, we are fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. And while none of us are happy that our military is risking their lives fighting against terrorists in a foreign land, it could be worse. Instead of fighting the finest soldiers in the world in Iraq, Al-Qaeda could be murdering unarmed American civilians here in the US, at a time and a place of the terrorists' choosing. Iraq has turned out to be irresistible flypaper for terrorists and quite possibly, we here in the US may have been spared terrorist attacks because of it.

If a beachhead of democracy can be established in Iraq, there's an excellent chance that we'll see Democratic reforms start to sweep across the region where anti-American tyrants are keeping their populations in control by the skin of their teeth. The influence of a free Iraq could in time help lead to a free Iran, a free Syria, a free Lebanon, a free Saudi Arabia, a free Egypt, etc, etc. We're not just shooting for an Iraqi Democracy, we're hoping to see freedom spread across the entire region.

The Bush administration's decision to take down Saddam and help the Iraqi people build a better, freer country was not just the right thing to do, it is without question in America's interests.

Answer 7

To put more American base in Iraq and be the Policeman of the middle east but unfortunately it seems it did not work out properly,you cannot program Iraqi brains.

Answer 8

Iraq wanted to sell their oil for euros instead of dollars, like Iran and Syria, that's why we are trying to invade Iran too. Many other countries are following suit and US cannot attack the whole world.

Answer 9

YES I DO W M D's along with a large list of other things.

Answer 10

In an attempt to protect ourselves from terrorism and prevent Saddam from funding them and giving them weaponry that could be devastating to the people of the U.S.

Not saying it was a proven reason, not saying we pulled it off, just saying that was why.

Answer 11

The reason if you think about it is to make the idea of globalization work. It is a foothold in the middle east and it appears as if middle easterners are just not on board for the One World Order idea so Bush invaded.