English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i just want to know why we went over there and if we did what we were supposed to do?

2007-07-08 11:49:50 · 22 answers · asked by joneill1186 3 in Politics & Government Politics

22 answers

There were 3 basic reasons given for invading Iraq. 1) State sponsored terrorism. 2) WMD's witnessed and documented by UN inspectors. 3) They did not comply with any of the dozen or so unanimous UN resolutions, to disarm, and allow inspectors to confirm.

The mass graves are clear evidence that Saddam used gas to kill countless Kurds. So they were there, but if you give someone a few years to get rid of any weapon, and they dissapear, like the billions in US currency he and his son's trucked out of the country...they're most likely in someone else's hands.

It's become clear that all the big name terrorists, went to Iraq to recover from battle wounds from Afghanistan. A 737 shell was also found in a then recently active terror training camp.

I believe we won that battle in the long war on terror, and if we had been allowed to explore for oil here, we'd be home right now, getting ready for the next nation on the list, of those who harbor terrorists.

2007-07-08 12:38:42 · answer #1 · answered by Mr. Me 7 · 2 0

Youre certainly not alone, the liberal media does their best to try to keep that under lock and key!

Since we let him stay in power after 1991 (which was a drastic mistake) Saddam violated 17 security council resolutions including and most exclusively not allowing UN weapons inspectors the type of freedom to do their job. Saddam made an agreement to stay in power that he would allow inspectors free range to inspect and dismantle any part of his weapons programs that they were uncomfortable with that violated UN guidelines including chemical, biological, or nuclear material. Since he wasnt being forthcoming about his weapons programs, the UN unanimously voted (before congress authorized military action) that Saddam was hiding something about his weapons programs but the UN was NOT WILLING to take action against him. Probably because of nations like france that wanted to preserve a corrupt alliance they had with him.

So after 9/11, our leadership, most democrats, and most Americans had had enough of Saddams antics and were very much in favor of military action against them because we didnt want to risk his weapons being put into a bomb that could be detonated and kill hundreds or possibly thousands of Americans on our own soil. The plan once over there is/was simple. (in theory, not practice)

A. Crush their army, check.
B. Find Saddam, check.
C. Make sure he is brought to justice, check!
D. Provide security, check.
E. Boost infrastructure, check.
F. Oversee and facilitate the installation of a democracy, check.
G. Hold elections, check.
H. Target Al-Queda and foreign insurgency, check.

We've done most of it but we have to stay and help with security or it may all fall apart and go to the wolves. (Al-queda) Not a wise decision to hand over the 2nd largest oil fields in the middle east to a group of terrorists hell-bent on terrorizing America.

2007-07-08 12:27:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

There were six compelling reasons to attack Iraq.
1) Saddam Hussein had developed WMDs and confounded UN efforts to account for them. Where did they go? Mission: FAILED

2) Saddam Hussein had ordered the invasion of Kuwait, we defeated his military and left him in power as long as he agreed to our terms. He failed to do so, even breaking the cease fire to attack our aircraft. Therefore the "peace" had been broken and we were committed to respond. Mission: ACCOMPLISHED

3) The success of Al Qaeda's attack on 9/11 encouraged Saddam Hussein to back radical Sunni Islam, essentially siding with our primary enemy. (not all of the evidence is circumstantial) We are now fighting both Al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq, but the new Iraqi government seems committed to fighting Al Qaeda. Mission: to be determined

4) Saddam Hussein was producing numerous different types of delivery systems for his WMDs in violation of the UN, we defeated Hussein and destroyed these most lethal weapons systems. Mission: ACCOMPLISHED

5) Saddam Hussein had a track record of being disruptive not only in the middle east but beyond (thanks to our dependence on oil) The new Iraqi regime lacks the power to stabilize the region. Mission: to be determined

6) Saddam and his sons were despicable tyrants who raped, tortured and murdered for fun. Possibly the greatest international criminals of our time. Mission: ACCOMPLISHED

Hey Chi Guy: Why were you traumatized? Al Qaeda has been trying to bring down the WTC for decades. Do you think maybe you should pull your head out and finally accept that people are trying to destroy our country?

2007-07-08 12:13:44 · answer #3 · answered by smartr-n-u 6 · 3 0

this is one much less us of a that Al Qaeda can use as a recruiting mattress. Al Qaeda knotted up horribly in Iraq with its campaign of violence, lots that Iraqi electorate who usually loathe the U. S. have been greater prepared to paintings with us than them. So, possibly next time Al Qaeda hits us, we are going to easily take over yet another midsection eastern us of a. save rinsing and repeating and finally there is nowhere left for Al Qaeda to circulate.

2016-10-01 04:06:12 · answer #4 · answered by faina 4 · 0 0

There was and is only 1 reason. I watched Pres Bush say on national tv that we were tired of Saddam and the 17 unenforced UN resolutions had to be enforced. After 9-11, we could not risk an openly hostile regime getting nukes.

We removed Saddam-Goal hit
We helped Iraq set up a government-Goal hit
Now we have a different problem, keeping the peace. Had we shut down the border to Iran and Syria most of the peace would already have been won.

2007-07-08 11:56:56 · answer #5 · answered by GOPneedsarealconservative 4 · 8 3

They violated the cease fire agreement made with the UN. They spent years violating their agreement and left little choice but to resume the firing, it also kept Nukes out of another anti-America country. We went to remove Saddam and to rebuild Iraq as a democratic free society, which in turn will damage the terrorists hold over the middle east.

2007-07-08 12:03:44 · answer #6 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 4 1

I believe it was for strategic positioning in particular regard to Syria and Iran. we have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq which puts us on 2 sides of Iran the larger future threat and Iraq is right there for Syria. Strategic positioning is crucial for conflicts. it may cost a lot but it may be worth it. on a side note it took out a very powerful leader, with a very large army, who hated the US and Israel.

2007-07-08 12:01:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

Hey jone . . . naked has got your answer!

Well done, naked! (Never in my life thought I'd say that, lol.)

We went in to bring justice to the Iraqi people by eliminating Saddam. Which we did.

We stayed to help the Iraqi's put together democracy. Which they have.

We are still there because AQ, and unhappy Iraqis are keeping unrest alive.

We will leave once the Iraqi people stand up and take control of their territories and declare that no one has the right to kill anyone, anymore, in the name of Allah.

2007-07-08 16:49:48 · answer #8 · answered by Moneta_Lucina 4 · 2 0

We invaded because Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorists, suppressing his people, trying to get nuclear weapons, and had a history of attacking his neighbors and using weapons of mass destruction. We wanted to get rid of him, and replace him with a government that wouldn't do those things. And it's in the process of working, but we aren't done yet.

2007-07-08 12:04:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

why we invaded iraq? here go ask these people.

Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz.


http://www.newamericancentury.org/

2007-07-08 11:53:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

fedest.com, questions and answers