why didnt the usa,start war with iraq, prior to sept 11terrorist attack on twin towers?

Answer 1

They needed an excuse?

Answer 2

Wars like any undertaking cost money. Unless there is a specific cause or benefit for fighting no one will undertake to start a war.

In the case of the war with Iraq the question is why did we attack Iraq in 2003? Clearly the reason was not the 9/11 attacks. If that had been the case we would have attacked in spring of 2002 or earlier, not 2003.

What changed in 2003 was that the Iraqi's converted their foreign accounts from dollars into Euros and began to take steps to sell their oil in Euros as well. These actions had very negative repercussions for the value of the dollar and more significantly it became evident that unless something was done quickly the value of the dollar would continue to decrease if the Iraqis carried out their plans.

An aggravating factor was the development of Kurdish oil fields which was leading to steady increases in Iraqi oil exports. Thus, not only was the dollar facing pressure from a looming Iraqi change to Euros, but the oil being poured into Euros was projected to increase steadily.

From a political point of view the Iraqi moves were especially dangerous because if they succeeded in creating a Euro market in oil it is possible Russia, the #2 oil producer, would convert to Euros as well and that would be devastating to American finance.

To forestall these possibilities the war with Iraq was initiated and all oil exports from Iraq were terminated by U.N. mandate in 2003.

Answer 3

Prior to 9/11 their was the Clinton administration and the Bush administration was still attempting to put its agenda in shape. However, there was another reason. Generally the United States has only responded to requests for help in the internal affairs of foreign countires rather than openly meddle in them, this is specially true of the Arab countries since 1923 when they financed the revolution of the Abdul-Azeez Al-Saud against the Sherrif Hussein of Mecca and Medina. True, as any power that can will do, they have pressured various governments when it has been to their advntage, but the internal affairs of foreign countries have been considered precisely that - their own affairs! The expansion of American policies to include direct intervention can be described in this way American policy makers saying "We know your system and your government may be corrupt and cynical but it is your government and an internal affair that has nothing to do with us. However, the dirt of politics in the Middle East finally hit our doorstep and now we have not only a moral obligation, but a duty to set it right." That is a pretty justifiable stance for American policy makers to take.

Answer 4

Because the Iraq War is a consolation for not been able to find Osama bin Laden. It's got nothing to do with 9/11

Answer 5

Bush used the "attack" on 9/11 to get to go to war with Iraq. He would not have been able to get everyone behind him for this war if 9/11 didn't happen. He lied about it and that is why some people voted to go to war and have since changed their minds and know want to get out of Iraq. That is why so many people believe the conspiracy theory. Bush was low in the polls, people were really getting discouraged with him. Suddenly their is an "attack" and the whole country comes together, his polls rise and we are told Iraq is attacking us. They weren't and we still have not gone after Ben-laden, why you ask. Ben-laden wasn't behind 9/11 either so why should Bush go after him.

Answer 6

properly, until eventually at present, the twin Towers. yet once you count extensive form the Allied Deaths to boot to the U. S. troop deaths, we've got surpassed the twin Towers numbers. And in case you integrate the Afghanistan and Iraq deaths, we actually surpass the twin Towers. yet it extremely is conflict, and that's to be predicted.

Answer 7

1990 we went to Kuwait to fight Iraq and Saddam who was touching oil fields. The liberals / Democrats wanted us to pull out. Clinton didn't have the testicle fortitude to finish the job so he agreed to pull out.

Then the Clinton regime started military cut backs and closing bases. Hilary's heath care reform cut military benefits. For active duty and former military personnel who served their country. Guess they thought that if you did away with the military then the Clinton's won't look like cowards.

Clinton was given information on how and where to catch bin Laden. Clinton was afraid to act.

When 9/11 attack occurred we had a new president that had prior military service and wasn't afraid to do the unpopular thing - DEFEND OUR COUNTRY and support the military.

Answer 8

i think that [a] we both should have stayed the first time and not let those deaths be a waste and [b] when the USS Cole was attacked resulting in many US deaths then THAT should have been the time for the word of retaliation to be more effective..IMO the loss of the men aboard the Cole was sadly pushed to one side and ignored by the political agenda

Answer 9

People read sgtmoto answer and tell me this is not a typical American answer.. Killing conscripts makes them feel good ya and civilians and their own and other troops from different countries,the USAF pilots got a bad deal when they were ordered to kill a British tank against the pilots wishes as he new it was friendly then th US used him as a scape goat.. BLAHHH BLA BLA SGTMOTO..

Answer 10

Clinton did not have the moral authority to send any soldiers into combat, nor did he have the intestinal fortitude to commit troops to battle with 'a true enemy.' He preferred lobbing a few cruise missiles whenever there were impeachment proceedings and to relieve the Americans outrage at terrorist attacks against us.

Answer 11

We did. Don't you remember the Gulf War? We just didn't finish the job then. But the results would probably be the same.