Aren't we required to have UN approval first? I'm confused. I never knew we could kill people just for the hell of it.
2007-11-24 20:36:36 · 9 answers · asked by airforcewolf 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Also, I don't ever recall us being attacked by Iraq, but I could be mistaken
2007-11-24 20:37:30 · update #1
WE (as in 'We, The People') DIDN"T go to war in Iraq!
THEY (as in the richest people) DID in our name!
Sucks, doesn't it?
2007-11-24 21:10:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
So glad you asked this question, I am currently the self-proclaimed president of the "Why Did We Go To War with Iraq Club", we are many members strong and many of us have children over there fighting a war that no one recalls the reason for and at this stage in the game we don't give a flying crap why, we just want our family members home, safe and alive. So, we continue to pray. God Bless.
2007-11-25 05:35:37 · answer #2 · answered by Bethy4 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, we didn't have UN approval, but we had approval and support from our most powerful allies (basically the UK), and that was good enough for us. The UN was completely against WMDs and supported weapons inspections, but most members didn't agree to invade Iraq.
You should know that the main reason given was WMDs, unless you have been living under a rock. I personally think that was a made up reason though, and there must have been a better reason whether it was suspected Al-Qaeda ties or oil or something else.
2007-11-25 04:55:53 · answer #3 · answered by rath 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Basically,we went to war because Saddam Hussein had an ego the size of Texas. Sanctions had ended Iraq's ability to produce chemical weapons,but Saddam wanted the world to think he still had them. It bolstred his "Arab strongman" persona.
And yes,there was a UN resolution authorizing the invasion. Each december,the UN extends the mandate for another year at the request of the Iraqi government.
2007-11-25 04:51:51 · answer #4 · answered by Perry1961 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The President was assured that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and invaded. To date, none have been found.
2007-11-25 15:27:42 · answer #5 · answered by smt 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
basically, Iraq and Iran are in opposition; one would not help the other. U.S. can attack one of them.
After such a long time of sanction, U.S. got a lot of information about Iraqi military.
In addition, Iraq didn't have Navy. It is much easier to attack Iraq.
2007-11-25 05:05:28 · answer #6 · answered by giginotgigi 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because it was there...
I'm sure many of us are tired of answering this question, so try the 'search' and you'll find the answer you're looking for.
Might not be what you want to hear, but I don't think American troops give a crap about most people's opinions these days. They have issues of their own to deal with... Like not being able to express their opinions about their CinC.
2007-11-25 05:01:18 · answer #7 · answered by Yulik MahBaht 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
to place Iran in "check"
2007-11-25 04:54:31 · answer #8 · answered by emanon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You got me!
2007-11-25 04:46:41 · answer #9 · answered by Karma Police 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋