What is the war for?

Question

This may sound so ignorant but I still don't know what exactly the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan (i'm Canadian) is for?
I want you to tell me what it's REALLY for, and what the government's are saying it's for. Cause I know there's two different answers.
Thanks for your help. :-)

Answer 1

The war in Afghanistan is a little more black-and-white, we're there because we're trying to find Osama bin Laden, the person largely responsible for 9/11.

Iraq, on the other hand isn't clear. At the beginning of it, we were told we were going in because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he was planning on using on us. Then we were told that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Then we were deposing a dictator and liberating the Iraqi people. Then we were giving them democracy. Now we're stabalizing the region. And all of us well after the "Mission Accomplished" banner got tossed up.

Answer 2

On 9/11/01, the World Trade Center in NYC was destroyed by followers of Osama Bin Laden, who, everyone believes, funded and was intimately involved in it's planning.

He has been cozy for quite some time with the Taliban who were ruling (most of) Afghanistan.

So, we invaded Afghanistan and put a government in place of the Taliban; we didn't actually capture Bin Laden, and the Taliban have been retaking Afghanistan, bit by bit, since.

As soon as the towers went down, Bush saw his chance to do something he said he wanted to do even before he was elected: Take out Iraq's government. (He didn't like him, wanted to show up his daddy, and most of all, wanted a war he thought he could win, so the history books would call him "Great".)

He kept telling his staff to pin 9/11 on Saddam Hussein, which they kept trying to explain was false.

Cheney had been CEO of Haliburton (and had signed off on some really dodgy books of theirs); he saw an opportunity for Haliburton to really rake in the big bucks by quadrupel-charging the U.S. government for support services (which they did), and in selling the Iraqi's oil and pocketing the profits on the side (which they've done, but the instability has made that MUCH less lucrative).

Rumsfeld has long wished for permanent U.S. military bases in the Middle East, and saw HIS chance for that.

What did they SAY were the reasons? (These have changed all along, BTW.)

"Iraq-9/11, Iraq-9/11, Iraq-9/11, Iraq-9/11, Iraq-9/11, Iraq-9/11, Iraq-9/11, Iraq-9/11, Iraq-9/11, Iraq-9/11, Iraq-9/11, Iraq-9/11, Iraq-9/11, ..."

They kept saying this over and over and over, and the press refused to point out it was a lie.

They said that Iraq had an active program of Weapons of Mass Destruction (he hadn't because the embargoes against him made him broke). They SAID (without proof, evidence, reason, or fact behind them) that he was close to getting nukes, had chemical and biological weapons -- basically, they made it sound as though we were going to attack the U.S. any second now.

Again, the press refused to point out that these were all lies.

They've also pointed out what an oppressive brute he was.

They like to babble about "liberty" and "freedom" a lot.

Stabilizing the middle east

bringing democracy to the middle east

Of course, Iraq is less stable, and its citizens have less freedom than under Saddam, but then little things like THE TRUTH have no hold on the minds of BushCo.

There's also the unbelievably inhuman "We'll fight the terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them here" meme. That is, we don't care how many people of other nations are murdered by terrorists, as long as there isn't another attack in any of the United States.

Oh, and they keep saying we're fighting Al Queada in Iraq, which is also not true -- they've never been a major player, and the tiny Al Qaeda there is isn't part of the same organization as Bin Laden's group, as Al Qaeda is decentralized groups, not one big, monolithic group. But most of the Iraqi's we're fighting are Nationals.

So, actually, you were wrong, there weren't 2 different answers, but a lot more than that.

When people lie about their reasons, they tend to change them a lot, so each time one is proven false, they just pick another.

I'm sure there are a lot of reasons they've given that I've left out, but those are the ones I can recall, off the top of my head.

And the press and Congress have pretty much gone along with all this, out of a misguided "patriotism" because we were attacked on 9/11. They abdicated all responsibility just when we needed them most.

Answer 3

In Afghanistan, the Taliban ruling party along with al Qaeda orchestrated the 9/11 attack. That was treated as an act of war, like Pearl Harbor. In Iraq, U.N. resolution 1441 declared that Saddam Hussein had failed to honor his terms of surrender from the first gulf war, was building WMDs and mistreating his people, shooting at planes in the no fly zone, etc. Congress voted to authorize the use of force, including most democrats, who later changed their minds once the troops were in the field.

(I'm assuming you want facts instead of conspiracy theories).

Answer 4

For the occupation of Iraq to give the U.S. a strong geographical position in the Middle East. For the protection of Israel, for oil,and a few other unsavory reasons.

Answer 5

For oil & only oil. American military presence in Iraq has nothing to do with possible terrorist attacks on the U.S.

Answer 6

Do you remember 9/11? Watch the news footage, and you tell me. The war on terror will be ongoing. Those responsible for 9/11 are still out there. The liberal news media constantly blasts Bush, but just how many terror attacks have we had on our own soil since 9/11? Do the math!

Answer 7

Wasn't there a song like that?

WAR , 2, 3, 4...

What are we fighting for..

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

Maybe we had a reason to go in, Saddam was certainly PRETENDING he had WMD and he paid $25,000 per head to suicide bomber surviving families to encourage others...

But I don't see any reason to take up residence there as we seem to be doing.

Answer 8

It's an ego trip for the members of the PNAC and a justification for the Pentagon to exist.

Answer 9

Because of Bush arrogant ego

Answer 10

There is no different in what it is for and what the government is saying.

There is only one answer.

National Security.