Can somebody vaguely elaborate on why we are in the middle east. I have no clue what the war is about.?

Answer 1

OIL

Answer 2

Well it kinda started a long time ago. The most recent bit I'll start with is European colonialism at the turn of the century. Europe had most of the world split up amonst itself. Then came WWI.
After that some countries wanted independence. So some new countries were born, like Iraq and Iran. The borders in the Middle East were drawn up in Europe. Then we had WWII. After this, even more countries wanted independence. Most got it, except Indochina and a few others, but that develops into a whole different can of worms. And Israel was almost not born, but made it. Then we had the Cold War, where everyone was playing "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". And everybody was getting weapons from everybody else. Sides changed often. You also get a lot of little "Wars of National Liberation". This is usually seen as a time of "Wars of Proxy", the Super Powers supplied both sides to see who had the best equipment and tactics to get ready for the "Big One", WWIII. Which fortunately never happened.

Then we had detente and a bunch of heavily armed little countries that were getting tired of being pushed around and used by the "Imperialist West". And evidently, they have really long memories in Southwest Asia. So we, the West, got blamed for everything that went wrong in Southwest Asia. The USA in particular, because we lent aid and support to Israel. Who the Arabs, with some justification saw as foreign invaders, tried to destroy a couple of times.
So you have these countries with "Nationalistic Pride" movements wanting reform and change from the corrupt governments put in place by the Superpowers. Usually it was a case of "He may be a bastard, but at least he's OUR bastard." This was not the best policy, but evidently this didn't come into most of the planning sessions because they thought that we were going to nuke each other off the face of the earth any day now anyway.

Then we see the rise of Isalmic fundalmentalism. And they hate the West. Everything wrong in the Muslim world is our fault. So we see this thing coming at us a mile away.

And ignore it, more or less, because we have gotten used to feeling safe between two oceans. And we have short memories.

But they have long ones over there.

And so one bright and sunny day, two airliners filled with people, plow into the World Trade Center one after the other. Another plane crashes into the Pentagon. And another plane goes down in a field in Pennsylvania.
Altogether almost 3000 people killed by some estimates.

So al-Qaeda is found to be responsible. They have received funding and training from many countries in the Middle East. Notably Afghanistan and Iraq are found to have ties with al-Qaeda.

So we went where the enemy was, and that's why we're there. It's not oil, we get most of our oil from Canada and countries in South America. France is Iraq's big customer for oil. It's not because somebody wanted to finish Daddy's war, though that did feel good.

We are at war with people who want to force their world view on YOU. We were offered two options, follow Islamic Fundalmentalist doctrine, or die.

We took a third option. We fought.

Answer 3

Oil is the only reason to go in there. In the world scheme of things iraq isnt that bad, its people had running water and jobs, the streets were somewhat safe and there was some money. If the US wanted to do some good why didnt they go into Africa and help stop the warlords who kill hundreds of thousands or stop slavery over there. Anyone who has a brain could realize that the US isnt trying to help a country for 1 trillion dollars for nothing, they would want something in return right, oil, or else we could have spent this money helping all the poor people in the gettos here at home who are suffering economic hardship and violence as bad or worse as the iraqis. That would make some more sense right, fix once wrong at home before you fix someone elses.

Answer 4

Personally I think it was a moderately good idea gone bad. I don't think it was for solely capturing of their oil fields. I think they were planning on giving Iraq back to their citizens and making it a democracy which would make it a friendly nation and another nation for trade. Yet, the problem with this is Iraq does not know how to be a democracy in the short time we are trying to do it in. Our country took hundreds of years to get to were it is today and our democracy is still not perfect. Honestly, I think it was another attempt to spread democracy and some how make it just grow with no problems. Democracy is so complex a form of government it would be nearly impossible to make Iraq into one in such a short time and have it stick. It would be like giving a Ferrari to someone that just got their drivers license. They just don't have the experience to know what to do with it and how to control it.

I do think Saddam being removed from power was a good thing, but I think getting involved with this countries affairs the way we did was not the best way.

Yet, we are there now no matter the reason, be it for oil or something else. So what we have to decide now is whether to stay and hopefully make Iraq into a civilized nation or pull out, bring our soldiers home, and let Iraq do what ever they want with their country and have us play a more modest role in their countries development.

Answer 5

The President's father, the first President Bush, engaged in a war to liberate the many different Iraqi peoples, including the Kurds, who supported us in a failed overthrow. The start of that war was on the surface Saddam Hussein's takeover of a small oil rich country on his border I am too tired to remember at the moment.

Some political chicanery occurred and American Troops were not allowed to finish the job and oust Hussein. The younger George Bush did not forget this. He may not be a huge intellectual but he is loyal to his family.

Cut to 9-11- 2001, Al Qeda and such. A war is launched to overthrow the Taliban, a nasty bunch if you believe women have any rights other than being chattel of the men that were born of the same women they suppress. Supposedly this would help fight the Al Qeda who were responsible for the death of 1000's that fateful day. Bully for women who think the only reason to have to wear a Chador is sunscreen and fashion.

This war against terror is sidetracked for the ousting of Saddam. The Iraqi people are in more danger than ever and we are in another no-win situation like Vietnam. The enemy is ignorance. Ignorance begets fear aggression. There is a verse I heard on Public Television tonight, "Education is the duty of every individual, male or female." Peace be with you.

Answer 6

Saddam attacked and invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. The international community formed a coalition and ran them out of Kuwait, back to Iraq. We then signed an armacist with Saddam which he spent the next several years violating at every opportunity. He threatened america, fired on coalition aircraft patroling the no fly zones, and sent money to families of palastinian suicide bombers while harboring terrorist such as abu nidal. eventually, the US and UN gave up on diplomacy as a means to get Saddam to comply with what he agreed to. Bush then asked congress to authorize use of force in Iraq. While I dont agree with some of the military decisions on how this conflict has been handled, it is necessary, we are winning, and we need to let our troops finish what we started. We cant run off and leave innocent civilians to sectarian strife, economic colapse, starvation, and a pack of wannabe warlords tender administrations.

Answer 7

1/20/1961
Washington DC

"WE SHALL PAY ANY PRICE, BEAR ANY BURDEN, MEET ANY HARDSHIP, SUPPORT ANY FRIEND, OPPOSE ANY FOE TO ASSURE THE SURVIVAL OF LIBERTY. JOHN F. KENNEDY."

Inspiring words in the early days of the Cold War.

The Middle East has been a collection of Monarchies and mostly Dictatorships in modern times. They have been fighting against themselves and others as if it was a career field. Ref Hamas and Fatah, Sunni and Shiite, etc etc.

They have been hugged, given aid money, fed, clothed and yes armed by many different countries for many different reasons.

It has to end. They have to come out of the 1st century. They NEED self directed governments. They need time to get their s*** together. they need real economies with work, they need real educations, they need to see a light at the end of the tunnel that is not a train coming to run them over.

The US Revolution lasted 8 years. 1775-1783
The current Constitution was not completed until Sep of 1787 and ratified by the 9th and confirming state until Jun 1788. Rhode Island was last in 1790.

This is not an order of fast food. This has been coming for a very long time. It is long overdue. It must be completed!!!!!

SSG US Army 73-82

Answer 8

1. Iraq's non-compliance with the 1991 cease fire following the UN Peace Enforcement Mission.
2. Iraq's brutal repression of its civilian population.
3. Iraq's hostility towards the U.S. as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on the life of former U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush and Iraq's firing on coalition aircraft tasked with ensuring "no fly zones" in compliance with resolutions of the UN Security Council.
4. Member of Al Queda were known to be in Iraq.
5. Iraq continuing to aid and harbor international terrorist organizations.
Those are the reasons contained in Public Law #107-243, the 2002 authorization for use of military force against Iraq.
The measure passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 296-133 and in the Senate by a vote of 77-23.
Those reasons I've listed above mirror those contained in Public Law #105-338, the Iraq Liberation Act, which was passed and signed into law in October of 1998.

Answer 9

We are in Iraq because Geo. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and their followers (neo-cons) all believe that Iraq is both a center of World Terrorism and a prize to be had.

The Prize is Iraqi Oil. It's well known that Bush and Cheney are both Oil Men. They cannot imagine our Economy without Oil. To them this means we need to secure the flow of Oil. This means controlling Countries that have a lot of Oil. Iraq fits this perfectly. (Most of the Middle East does, too.)

As to Iraq being a center of World Terrorism, the evidence seems to be contrived. I'm sure I'll get some Thumbs Down for saying that, but it's true. Anyone watching the News anywhere other than Fox knows this.

This was all setup before Bush was elected. "The Project for a New American Century" Think Tank was endorsed by Cheney and Rumsfeld in the 90's. They wanted an excuse to invade Iraq. (They called it a new Pearl Harbor.) They thought the invasion would go easily and they could then invade Iran and control the whole Middle East.

We are also in Iraq because they ignored the advice of experts:
Summer 2002-2003
Current and former top US military brass dispute White House claims that Iraq poses an immediate threat to the US and that it must be dealt with militarily. In late July 2002, Washington Post reports that “top generals and admirals in the military establishment, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff” believe that Saddam Hussein’s regime “poses no immediate threat and that the United States should continue its policy of containment rather than invade Iraq to force a change of leadership in Baghdad.” The report says that the military officials’ positions are based “in part on intelligence assessments of the state of Hussein’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and his missile delivery capabilities.” The newspaper says that there are several reasons why these dissident officers disagree with their civilian bosses. They worry that if Saddam Hussein is removed, Iraq could “split up,… potentially leading to chaos and the creation of new anti-American regimes and terrorist sanctuaries in the region.” It is also possible, they say, that an invasion of Iraq could provoke Saddam Hussein into using whatever weapons of mass destruction he may have. And even if the invasion is successful, the aftermath could see “mass instability, requiring tens of thousands of US troops to maintain peace, prop up a post-Saddam government, and prevent the fragmentation of Iraq,” the military brass warns. Their position is that the US should continue its policy of containment, specifically sanctions and the enforcement of the US- and British- imposed “no-fly” zones. [Washington Post, 7/28/2002] Responding to the dissenting opinions of these military officials, Richard Perle, current chairman of the Defense Policy Board, says that the decision of whether or not to attack Iraq is “a political judgment that these guys aren’t competent to make.” [Washington Post, 7/28/2002] A few days later, Washington Post publishes another story along similar lines, reporting, “Much of the senior uniformed military, with the notable exception of some top Air Force and Marine generals, opposes going to war anytime soon, a stance that is provoking frustration among civilian officials in the Pentagon and in the White House.” Notably the division has created “an unusual alliance between the State Department and the uniformed side of the Pentagon, elements of the government that more often seem to oppose each other in foreign policy debates.” [Washington Post, 8/1/2002 Sources: Unnamed senior military officials] The extent of the generals’ disagreement is quite significant, reports the Post, which quotes one proponent of invading Iraq expressing his/her concern that the brass’ opinion could ultimately dissuade Bush from taking military action. “You can’t force things onto people who don’t want to do it, and the three- and four-star Army generals don’t want to do it. I think this will go back and forth, and back and forth, until it’s time for Bush to run for reelection,” the source says. [Washington Post, 8/1/2002 Sources: Unnamed US official] During the next several months, several former military officials speak out against the Bush administration’s military plans, including Wesley Clark, Joseph P. Hoar, John M. Shalikashvili, Tony McPeak, Gen James L Jones, Norman Schwarzkopf, Anthony Zinni, Henry H. Shelton and Thomas G. McInerney. In mid-January 2003, Time magazine reports that according to its sources, “as many as 1 in 3 senior officers questions the wisdom of a preemptive war with Iraq.” They complain that “the US military is already stretched across the globe, the war against Osama bin Laden is unfinished, and… a long postwar occupation looks inevitable.” [Time, 1/19/2003]
Entity Tags: Norman Schwarzkopf, Anthony Zinni, John M. Shalikashvili, Joseph Hoar, Tony McPeak, James L. Jones, Henry H. Shelton, Thomas G. McInerney, Richard Perle, Wesley Clark, Kim Holmes
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion

August 2002

Retired Army General Henry H. Shelton, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tells Washington Post, “If we get drawn into something in Iraq, then our focus will go very heavily there, and it will be hard to sustain the momentum in the war on terrorism. That’s the biggest danger that I see.” [WASHINGTON POST, 9/1/2002]
Entity Tags: Henry H. Shelton
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion

So you see most of what you've been told was not forseeable actually was forseen quite clearly. Bush, Cheney, et. al. just ignored what they didn't want to hear.

I know you wanted something short, but just saying "Oil" and "Stupidity" seemed too shallow and a bit hard to believe.

Answer 10

I echo everything desertviking said.....anyone who thinks diff needs an education. Ppl want to come up with with all these reasons that points fingers at Bush maybe he lied to get us in there.....but the real reason was to stop the killing of Iraqi people by there own leader. I

Answer 11

to runsuerun: Your ideas are a little
skewed. Iraq and Saddam Hussein
had NOTHING to do with 9/11. He was
the weapons of mass destruction.
Remember. Noone ever knew for sure
WHO it was who caused 9/11, but
Saudis flew the planes.