I am specifically referring to the case that was being made by our leaders as to why this was something that needed to be done urgently. I forgot what those reasons were.
2007-09-05 06:27:07 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Short term memory loss due to intense use of cannabis no doubt. So here it is again stoner. TERRORIST. Read it slower, or here, I will type it slower. T E R R O R I S T. Better. You will forget in a few hours anyway.
2007-09-05 06:33:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
1. To punish someone, anyone, for 9/11, regardless of involvement.
2. Enforcement of a UN resolution that the UN refused to authorize.
3. To eliminate a "weapons of mass destruction" program that didn't exist.
4. To keep Saddam from transferring nuclear weapons he didn't have to terrorists he had no relationship with.
5. To eliminate the government of a sovereign nation for that nations 'own good' as we define it.
6. To fight "them" over "there" rather than here, though "them" wasn't "there" until after we arrived.
7. To introduce, at gunpoint, Jeffersonian democracy to a region that doesn't want it.
Take your pick or mix and match. It's all pretty much irrelevant now.
.
2007-09-05 07:02:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the original justification was weapons of mass destruction. Somewhere along the line it became association with Al Qeada. Then it was to liberate the Iraqi people. Thrown in the mix is the belief by many that Iraq attacked us on 9/11. Choose your poison. The result is the same.
2007-09-05 06:38:36 · answer #3 · answered by punxy_girl 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The bottom line is that we were lied to and told that the true reason that we were invading was because of Weapons of Mass Destruction. That is all we heard for years. Today we have no evidence of weapons and no osama bin laden...who we were told was the man behind 9-11. Funny how I never hear conservatives mention his name anymore. George Bush's lies have now killed thousands and why....so him and all his buddies can make money off of a ridiculus war. It comes down to the fact that it is a war over religion and Iraqis will never change their ways...ever. Now he has gotten us into a mess that no one knows how to get out of. Seems to me George's lie has cost the American people alot more than Clintons lie about a sexual relation....don't you think
2007-09-05 07:23:58 · answer #4 · answered by jennifer m 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Saddam was still in power 12 years after the first Gulf War, and the neocons were having fits over that. They assumed that he really did have a weapons program, instead of verifying whether or not he did. Also, oil does enter into it, the US wanted to have access to the oil ourselves in order to secure a steady supply of it for years to come. Add these and a few other smaller reasons, and the cons thought they could pull it off and everything would be easy and fun. That's what happens when you put simpletons in power and accept what they say without doublechecking their assertions.
2007-09-05 06:38:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
well:
Iraq was said to be working on building nuclear weapons.
Iraq was said to have huge stockpiles of WMD that they would pass out along with their nukes...to terrorists.
We were told that this was an urgent problem, and that if we waited another 3 months or 6 months before we attacked them and invaded them that they would be mushroom clouds over our cities.
This is why we were told this was extremely urgent and crucial and why confrontation of a military nature was the only option left.
2007-09-05 06:39:25 · answer #6 · answered by me 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Hussein was not living up to his treaty obligations. He was twisting the tiger's tail by giving the appearance of a developing nuclear weapons program. It turned out to be an insane bluff, but given Hussein's willingness to use WMD's, it was considered unwise to ignore the possibility.
Unstated but certain to have been a major factor in the thinking of the leadership is the long-range idea of having a democratic country between Afghanistan, Iran and Syria (and possibly even gently pressing the Saudi royal family for democratic reforms).
2007-09-05 06:59:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because Iraq supposedly had weapons of mass destruction and Saddam supposedly funded the terrorists.
In reality, they just wanted an excuse to go to war so they mad up some BS answers since they knew at first Americans would want something to be done and wouldn't question it until later.
2007-09-05 06:40:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
We were told Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs, was attempting to develop nuclear weapons and was an imminent threat to the United States.
By the way, in September, 2002, Hussein agreed to unconditionally let the UN inspectors back in. They found no evidence of WMDs.
Oh, and it seems "stoners" aren't the only ones with memory loss.
2007-09-05 06:36:58 · answer #9 · answered by OPad 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well, there was the little issue of repeated violations of the cease-fire agreement Iraq signed with us. Or you could look at the repeated violations of the treaties they signed with us. Still think diplomacy works? 12 years and 17 failed UN Resolutions later....
Don't forget - Clinton said that Saddam had to be stopped, by force if necessary. Are you implying that W is so crafty and powerful that he "tricked" Bill, too?
2007-09-05 06:32:51 · answer #10 · answered by Jadis 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The Congress of america, which contain maximum contributors of the Deomocratic occasion voted for the invasion. do no longer forget approximately the failure of the United international locations to enforce their very own resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction. international conflict i replaced into began because of the fact of entangling treaties - a conflict generated via the dying of two human beings. Its interior the historic past books, yet you should study to be certain.
2016-10-10 00:23:05 · answer #11 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋