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

2007-07-08 15:03:23 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

19 answers

Official Reasons
Pre War
- Iraq is working on weapons of mass destruction!
- Iraq's Baath Party has links to Al Qaeda!
- Iraq under Saddam is a threat to the free world!
Post War
- We couldn't prove any of the above after winning, so we really did it to liberate Iraq! Nevermind the plight of the people in Tibet, Burma, North Korea, Uzbekistan or the countless other nations with punks in charge.

Theories
- For Oil!
- For Revenge!
- To give really good contracts to your favorite contractor companies!

2007-07-08 16:12:13 · answer #1 · answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7 · 1 3

We invaded Iraq because those who head the industrial military complex were not making the money they were making during the Cold War.
We went into Iraq because they were going to switch from Petro-dollars to Euros
We went into Iraq to get the upper hand on the oil reserves

We went into Iraq to establish a military presence.

It wasn't about resolutions, lots of countries have refused to follow resolutions placed on them.

It wasn't WMDs, the report initiated by the George Bush administration say there were none. See the Duelfer report

It wasn't terrorist at Saddam's control, the area with the terrorist camps were near the Turkish border protected by the U.S. No fly zone, thus outside of Saddam's control.

The Congress did not vote for war, they voted to give George the authority to use force if needed, No war has been declared on Iraq.

2007-07-09 18:46:12 · answer #2 · answered by Black Dragon 5 · 0 1

The excuse was that they had weapons of mass destruction. After we bombed the country the government said, "oops, we made a mistake". There were no weapons of mass destruction. Then Bush said we had to stay there to take down Saddam. After that he then said that we need to help them create a democracy. Most people believe it is a religous war as well as w war for oil. Want to know why our gas prices are rising, there is your answer. No proof has been shown that Sadam was in on the attack against the U.S.A. algada (however you spell it) were the ones who created and attacked our great country. Osama Bin Laden is their leader. He is supposedly in Afganistan.

2007-07-08 22:45:58 · answer #3 · answered by lana s 7 · 1 1

We're all confused about that issue; especially, GW Bush.

First, it's about the WMD.

Next, it's about freeing the Iraqi people from the tyrant, Saddam Hussein.

Next, it's about forming a democratic type of government. Or is it a Republic?

Or do we just a country that will give us good deals on oil?

Why did Halliburton move its base of operations to the Middle East?

Why are we still in Iraq without a plan to escalate the occupation, or withdraw?

Like I stated earlier, confusion...

2007-07-08 22:11:49 · answer #4 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 2 3

Many reasons. The idea was to spread democracy and defeat the ideology that is responsible for radical Islam by giving an alternative to the dictators that Arabs are ruled by.

WMDs are also another reason. Saddam prevented access to UN weapons inspectors and even kicked them out, so his behavior was fishy, to say the least. The fact that none were found would suggest that this was simply grandstanding on his part.

Connections to Al-Qaida were another major reason. Iraqi intelligence revealed that Al-Zarqawi (who was killed in 2006) received treatment in Iraq for a broken leg in 2002 and was hiding out in Baghdad during that time period. He was part of Al-Qaida and had formed his own offshoot terrorist group in Europe, al-Tawhin. By this, he was a notorious gangster/terrorist, and he was wanted world-wide.

Some will say that oil was the main reason, but that has very little if anything to do with it. The first Gulf War was mainly about securing oil supplies in Kuwait (the USA even admitted it as part of the mission statement on numerous occasions). If the Iraq War was about oil, then US troops wouldn't be so interested in providing security to the residents of Iraq. As a matter of fact, it would be quite simple to secure the oil fields of Iraq with minimal casualties.

According the the US Congress, there were 23 reasons, as stated in their declaration of war against Iraq, for the invasion. I'm sure you could find it on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your interest. It's good that you're open-minded enough to ask.

2007-07-08 22:16:58 · answer #5 · answered by nazariusrudius 2 · 3 4

There were dozens of reasons starting with the violation of 17 UN regulations. Also there was the widely held belief by all world leaders that Saddam possessed WMD's as well as nuclear capabilities.

Since Congress voted to go to war, that's what we did.

Since going in there we found they'd moved most of the WMD's out into Syria (many were identified in the last attack by Hamas.) Also Al Qaeda training camps were found there (and the leader of the terrorist group was proven to have been in Iraq the whole time.)

2007-07-08 22:18:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous 7 · 2 4

Several reasons, it really depends who you ask, some people say due to the terrorist camps in Iraq, most people say for WMD's. Then the many consipiracist claim it is for oil.

It would be really nice if we could agree on why we went over there, but people against the war have to find some horrible reason to justify them being against the war.

2007-07-08 22:10:26 · answer #7 · answered by cliffburtongodofthebass 2 · 3 3

because the Iraqi Army which could only resist for 3 weeks in the invasion and surrendered after 100 hour ground war in Desert Storm was a massive threat to the US.

2007-07-08 22:21:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Because we could. Cold war was a major bummer but this would not have happened during the good old days of the Soviet Union.

2007-07-08 22:11:23 · answer #9 · answered by John Doe 2 · 0 2

Based on the moronic replies to your question, I'm guessing that you're no more closer to understanding than you were right before you asked this question. Despite all the "witty" comments, there's really no substance.

Kind of like "Weapons of Mass Deception". A very un-funny, un-clever, solves nothing, attempt at wittiness.
It's all so dull.

Saddam was a punk.

2007-07-08 22:19:05 · answer #10 · answered by Bumblebee711 5 · 2 4

fedest.com, questions and answers