Why are WE IN IRAQ?

Question

I mean really supposedly it was for oil, if that is the case why in the world is it still $3.50 a gallon, and should we be fining a new alternative to oil instead, we are the most powerful country with the dumbest leader, now we are there to stop the Shi'a and the Sunni, THEY HAVE BEEN FIGHTING SINCE 600 AD THEY AREN'T GOING TO STOP SOON JUST BECAUSE WE CAME THERE, and no our soldier are dying and suufering and their families too for what?

I mean like yes it was good that we removed saddan but we screwed it up so bad that if we did leave we would be in very big trouble from terr

Answer 1

For the Iraqi's and for America
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Answer 2

It is not for oil you have been lied to. The US does not recieve one barrel of oil from Iraq.

All of the US's oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Venezula ( Citgo) and America.

We are in Iraq due to Saddams continued violation of the UN resolutions and the ceasefrie from the 91 Gulf War.

We also have proof that Saddam was providing Safehaven for Al Quaeda. ( They were both Sunni)

Add that to the intel that Saddam was producing WMDs (Which many believe are in Syria) and the US needs another Democracy in the middle east with the meltdown that is about to happen in that region as a result of racdical muslims.

Also Iraq is a geographical location to put a "Sqeeze play" on Iraq. Iran is surrounded by Afganistan (US Troops) Iraq (US Troops) Pakistan ( US Ally)

Answer 3

We are in Iraq because the UN resolution to topple the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein passed, and we went to war. And, in the process, we potentially stopped the next Hitler.

And, it is not really about the oil. Cash not bullets is what guarantees the oil supplies stay open. Iraq and the other middle eastern oil producing countries know they will be significantly wealthier if they deal with the US oil companies. Which makes more sense? Starbucks selling coffee to anyone that asks, or telling their biggest customer to bugger off?

Answer 4

Refer to
HR 4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
Signed into law by William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton.

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."

You can read it for yourself using the link below. I will say, in the bill itself, it clearly states we are not to use our military for anything more than training others or we can pay others to do our dirty work for us, however, this method did not work and we had to do the dirty work ourselves. Bush was just following the law left by Clinton.

And on WMD's Hillary, Bill, and several other democrats stated several times about Saddam and his WMD's.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Answer 5

gas is something like 5 in europe. an energy company just bought a southern california college to find an alternative, you should go study chemistry. mostly though it's about pride and some people need something to talk about. this guy sucks that guy sucks lets get em and so on and so forth, people were all crazy mob lets kill frankenstien after 9/11 and slipped into iraq afgahnistan whatever arab rhetoric. they do it we do it, they fight amongst themselves we fill our prisons and have our civil rights movements, kkk, and televangelists. usually each side will show the radical crazies from the foriegn place and drum up support for themselves through these issues.

Answer 6

You stupid, snivelling moron. Sorry, but enough is enough.

Iraq was never about oil. That's just the standard line by the left. And you've bought. The same idiots said the same thing about the first Gulf war.

We went because A) Everyone (YES EVERYONE) said Iraq had WMDs, B) Saddam was tyrant, C) There were 11 Al Qeadi training camps in Iraq, D) Iraq was a financial supporter of international terrorism, E) The UN had 12 years of sanctions that didn't work.

Our soldiers and their families are fighting and dying and suffering to liberate and bring piece to millions of Iraqis. They are fighting and dying and suffering to ensure that Iraq doesn't become another Afghanistan. They are fighting and dying and suffering to ensure terrorists don't have another bastion to operate from. They are fighting and dying and suffering to make this country safer. Shame you won't back them up.

So freaking tired of this whiny, pansy ***, can't we all get a long BS. It doesn't work. Its never worked. It never will work. There was no getting along with Hitler. There was no getting along with North Korea (as evidenced by how they decimated South Korea before we got there in full force). There was no getting along with North Vietnam (as evidenced by the rampage after we left). There is no getting along with Islamic Fascism and Islamic Terrorism (as evidenced by 3,000 Americans dead on one day).

Thank God we didn't have a bunch of you people running around during the Revolution. Or WWII. We did have a bunch of you people running around during Vietnam and look at how that turned out.

Answer 7

Should be why are we still in Iraq? We should have leveled the place. Why build the bombs if we are not going to use them? What are we waiting for? Is something being preserved? Why?
If its not the oil then it has to be war profiteering. The people are already free of Saddam. The whole thing is just crazy co-coo bananas!

Answer 8

It is insane. Politicians take our money and ' spread democracy'. Well, those cultures dont do well with democracy. Now the world hates us. Next is Iran. Meanwhile our roads are bad, health care is a problem and crime is rampant here, not to mention poverty. What I dont get is why no one is protesting ,

Answer 9

Think about it if they have been fighting that long what's to say we could done anything to help. However, what if they decide to migrate the extreme concepts to our home land. Think about the crusades. We didn't pick this war. It started long before we were born.

Answer 10

I asked Dick Cheney that the other day, and said he would get back to me. He's waiting on the results of the WMD search

It's amazing how some people are spinning the bad situation in Iraq. 24 million people are free? Free from what? From terrorism? Nope, not free from that. What about the tens of thousands of Iraqis that have died? What are they free from?

Answer 11

Middle East strategic military positioning. Look at your atlas and you will see what Mr Bush has had in mind all along. Too bad he wasn't honest from the beginning.