If Iraq was not about terrorism ,what the heck was it about ?

Question

can you provide proof if not just give me good skinny,,,

insanity we have all gone off the deep end.

insanity we have all gone off the deep end.

who is the real TRUTH SEEKER,,,I got <2> one is a fake,,which one,,lol,,

Answer 1

If we were wrong about terrorism in Iraq, how come there are so many taliban insurgents there? How come so many people under Osama Bin Laden have been killed or captured in Iraq? All those people in our terrorist jail were capture in Iraq. Its a war. Get behind your country.

Answer 2

Terrorism is not an ideology nor a government but a method of fighting used by people who do not have access to weapons and are not backed by any particular entity such as a government. It has been around since before the common era. That is well over 2000 years. Unfortunately no matter what anyone does it will continue to be an option for many ages to come. To reduce the effects of terrorism on the population in general society needs to understand what they are angry about and possibly eliminate the cause of the anger. Often the terrorst states anger at a state or philosophy when it is really some small thing that triggers their anger. That something is often very unimportant to most people in the grand scheme of things as other ways can be developed to accomplish the same goals.

The terror tactic is used to intimidate people. Those intimidated often think the terrorist is larger in number, surrounding him, and better armed than the terrorist really is. Those terroriszed have fallen for exactly what the terrorist wants them to do. He wants them paralized so as not to respond to attacks or to be so frightened that he thinks there is a terrorist under every rock or lurking behind every tree even if the terrorist is not within hundreds of miles of his victim. Those who are not frightened, intimidated and who are clear headed are very able to deal with the terrorist and outsmart him.

Iraq is about revenge against Saddam Hussein who threatened the life of Geroge H. W. Bush. Even before the 2000 election Dubya made it clear he intended to take out Saddam.

Answer 3

According to many it was about "unfinished business", such as having the renewed opportunity to do what the previous President Bush could not, which was take Hussein out. Especially since after that failure, Hussein had the idea and plan to do away with the elder Mr. Bush!

In my own humble opinion, I think sometimes, it was something that had to start somewhere_and I'm exclusively referring to that long awaited Middle East war of wars_and why not begin by Iraq?

But definetely_as time and evidence has proven_there was no link between Al Queda and Hussein. Or between any terrorist group or individual, and Iraq.

Answer 4

Bush's list of excuses:
* WMDs http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313
* Saddam--Al Qaeda Connection to 9/11 http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm
* UN Resolutions violated by Saddam http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html
* Liberate the Iraqi Citizens http://prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/131006liberatediraq.htm

Bush's Secret Agendas:
* Revenge for Daddy Bush
* Private Oil Subsidies
* Private War Profiteering thru Weapons Sales, Haliburton, etc..
* Enrage the Middle East to target oil-rich Iran next

Answer 5

Energy $ control and all the weapons of mass destruction that were found. Saddam had to be removed by some one. If some believe it's about freedom and democracy the don't remember who supported the Shaw of Iran, Saudi princes and Saddam vs Iran. The proof is in the history + the corporate connections.

Answer 6

If you remember any recent history, Iraq problems started years back when England partitioned part and gave it to Kuwait. In later years kuwait decided to "angle drill for oil into Iraqi territory, and Saddam invaded to reclaim his land and oil.
At that time the UN and others got involved and the United States of course, with the blessing of the UN put together a coalition of other nations to run Saddam back into his territory,and if that was not enough, because of his attitude toward the United States, we decided to impose other sanctions against him and Iraq, accusing them of having weapons of mass destruction, which even now was proven to be false.
About the "angle drilling", the US declared it was not possible, but our oil units in Alaska have been doing just that for years.
Also, remember that at one time, Saddam was considered a good friend and ally, and we supported him in his fight against Iran. Like all of our friends, when he decided he was not going to be our puppet, we turned against him, big time.
Name off the like situtations, Castro, Noriega, the Iranian's, and many others, when we cannot control, we fight them.
Terrorism was not a factor with Iraq, they had no part in 9/11, was not accused as being terrorist state, and had no terrorist problem until we invaded, a situation we created, and now another Bush excuse not to leave.

To mamatad: Bush had no right or authorization to remove Saddam, as his UN mandate was only to drive Saddam back into Iraq, also it is and was against international law to remove or assasinate a leader of any sovereign nation. Bush fulfilled his Un obligation when Saddams troops withdrew.
Now to those that bring up the subject of Saddam placing a contract on Bush Sr. again look back at history, it was Bush that placed the first contract to kill Saddam,and paid the Northern Kirds millions to do the deed, Saddam found out and killed those involved, then went after Bush. Our Bush started this contract killing idea when he could not legally go after Saddam any other way.

Answer 7

It is all about Neo-Con power and money. Lots of cash is finding the pockets of decision makers, due to investments in the military-industrial complex.

Win ? How does someone having an opinion on this war determine whether we "win" or "lose" ? And while you're answering that, define "win" for me please.

:-o

Answer 8

Well the fact that Saddam Hussein was one of the more successful Arab leaders at keeping terrorism out of his country should be proof enough. And of course, we now know Bush, bin Laden and 9/11 were completely unrelated (Bush said so himself).
Look at the place now - are there more, or fewer incidents of terrorism? So if the point was to fight terrorism, at the very least it was a misguided and grossly incompetent effort.

Answer 9

it is hard to "prove" what the war in Iraq is about. However, many have proved what it is not about. It is not about terrorism and 9-11. By process of elimination , it leaves things like control of oil or forcing democracy on the Middle East one country at a time starting with Iraq.

Answer 10

Alan Greenspan said it was for oil. Others say it was to remove Hussien because he threatened Bush Sr. Some say as payoff for major campaign contributors. Yet others would say that it is a diversion from the fact that Bush promised to get Bin Laden and hasn't. Take your pick.

Answer 11

control of the flow of oil and the fact that George the First didn't complete Desert Storm by removing Saddam when he legitimately could. Shrub wanted to remove the 'diss' from his daddy's record so he concocted the whole WMD thing to 'finish daddy's war'.....it's what happens when they give little boys the keys to the liquor cabinet, they start to feel ballsy.