why did invade Iraq?, why are we still in Iraq even if Saddam Hussein is dead already?, it doesn't make sense

Question

why did Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld claim that Iraq still had Weapons of Mass Destruction even after the UN Weapon Inspectors went into Iraq and didn't find any?, and yet we still haven't found any Weapons of Mass Destruction?, it's so stupid. Now that Rumsfeld is gone, why do Bush and Cheney still say there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 even after the CIA says there was no link?, why don't they just admit that the Iraq War was a Mistake and pull the damn troops out already!!!!, I can't stand the ignorant, stubborn Republicans who agree with all of Bush and Cheney's lies, and whats more surprising is that after the first Iraq War in 1991, Dick Cheney was against going into Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power, which he realized would have disastrous consequences, and he was right because we are dealing with them now, what made him change his mind?, what role does Oil play in this war?, why is Bush obsessed with it?

I mean, "Why Did We Invade Iraq?", sorry about the grammar.

Answer 1

i'm sure it had something to with bush's personal grudge against saddam for trying to kill his dad and the fact that he was annoying the saudis.

we're still there because #1 if we leave, the saudis have already stated they will give money to the sunni muslims there (their plan all along i'm sure), so they can take power. but #2 the neo-con movement which bush is a part of wants to spread democracy all over the world and #3 iraq has the 3rd largest conventional oil reserve in the world following saudi arabia & iran. but the insurgents there attack & destroy the oil fields on purpose (from about 115 billion barrels to 5 billion) so that's why our oil prices won't be going down anytime soon

now, we either have to secure that oil or give up, but if we leave the saudis will then have a complete monopoly on the oil in the middle east.

Answer 2

Point 1. Seeing that the U.N. weapons inspected were blocked for years by Saddam Insane and not all the country was searched do think it wise for the U.S. not to go in and look? After all if they managed to build and use the bomb in the U.S. you, whiners & wimps would be crying "Why, Oh! Why did we not take military action against Iraq?"
Better to be safe than sorry living under a radioactive cloud

Point 2. It also had to do with the fact that Saddam Insane was an unstable dictator, in the region he had attacked Iran and invaded Kuwait and was known to be financing anti-American terrorists or did you forget that in your question / rant.

Point 3. This mission in Iraq as with Afghanistan was sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council.

Point 3. An Invasion is the name of the first part of the campaign where American and Allied troops went over the border into Iraq with the intention of taking Saddam Insane from power.

Point 4. After achieving the removal of Saddam Insane, do you really think it wise to pull out and leave the region in a vacuum where the Iranians could just stroll in and take control??

Point 5, the common misconception that this is all about oil is one of pure ignorance, how much Iraqi oil ever arrived on the shores of the USA either before the invasion or after??

Point 6, the U.S. needs to stick it out and finish what is started this can be done by giving their full support to the new Iraqi Government.

Point 7, Real life conflict is not like a movie where all problems are resolved in 90 mins' with time out for ad breaks.

Answer 3

They invaded Iraq for the same reason they've done everything they've done in the middle east for the last fifty years or more: They want influence in the world oil market.

This is not the same as saying "they want cheap oil." They do not want cheap oil. On the contrary, they want oil to be as expensive as possible, without affecting demand.

It's therefore necessary for them to have military dominance over the middle east. That's the only part of the earth where there are massive oil reserves, and which is also open to such military aggression.

The invasion of Iraq was ensvisioned, and was being argued for, long before 911. This is well known. 911 made it politically convenient to do so, it was not the motive.

The people pursuing this policy, effectively on behalf of our domestic oil industry, have proven incompetent, or deceitful, on at least a couple points: The WMDs did not exist, and the war ended up costing over half a trillion dollars (and counting), rather than the sixty billion or so they publically claimed it would cost beforehand.

Thus far they have been able to persevere however. A large part of the public still believes, stupidly, that the nation's security is seriously threatened by an unorganized movement of irregular insurgents, armed mostly with secondhand russian small arms, and that the war in Iraq has something to do with confronting whatever threat they do represent.

I think they also believe, at some level, that the war is really about securing gas for their extravagant lifestyles, based on urban sprawl and the SUV as fashion accessory. I think they're willing to see the government borrow any amount of cash necessary, and kill any number of faceless foreigners, to that end.

If so they're mistaken on that count as well, since the war is actually being fought for the sake of corporate profits, which interest would not be served by low gas prices.

Though the people directing the effort, like their lowbrow supporters, do not care how much borrowed public money gets wasted on it, nor how many foreigners they have killed for its sake. They do not intend to fight the war themselves, or help pay for it.

Answer 4

Well, the intelligence services (U.S. and otherwise) believed that Saddam had, or was seeking, WMD's and the elected representatives (President, Repub. AND Democrat Congressmen + Senators) voted to invade. The invasion commenced and a monster was taken out of power. Now it turns out the intelligence may have been incorrect on the WMD's, but the government of Iraq had still been overthrown.

Now, to just pull out would be an utter act of irresponsibility. The result would have tragic and an occupation HAD to occur. At the end of world war 2, I suppose we could have all said, "Woohoo! Hitler's dead and the Nazi's are overthrown! Let's all go home and leave the Germans amongst the rubble of their country." Another government would have surely risen to replace Hitler's. The German people, in their desperation for safety and some semblance of society, would have embraced just about anyone who stepped up and promised them something resembling stability. The result could easily been far worse than what we fought to destroy.

Now it's much easier to say Bush this and Rumsfield that, but we need to understand that we have a responsibility to stabilize Iraq before we can leave. The Democrats understand this. Why do you think there have been no huge pushes to "bring the troops home?" This is the real world not a sound byte.

Answer 5

Not quite, Saddam wanted more money for his oil which Bush refused so Saddam threatened to change the currency for buying Oil from the dollar to the Euro, Bush thought this was unacceptable and decided to take action and steal the oil instead and that's exactly what he did. As soon as he invaded he secured the oil fields and put an American Oil giant in charge ( I believe it is Amoco but I am not totally certain of this name) who are still controlling the extraction of that oil today. Since America no longer has any significant oil reserves of its own it can only carry on doing what it did to Iraq, i.e stealing oil of countries that cant defend themselves (The American way) Watch out Iran, your next. ATB Red

Answer 6

If we pull out of Iraq right now with it being so weak, Iran will come in and take the country for itself and expand the Iranian kingdom. This will cause bigger problems in the future.

We are already building a super-base in Iraq, Balad Air Base, which will house all branches of the U.S. military plus militaries from ally nations. The U.S. already plans to be in Iraq for over 50 years, just like we are still in Germany even though World War II ended a long time ago and Germany is now an ally.

Answer 7

Still in Iraq searching for the ghost of Sadaam Hussein.

Answer 8

Again, this is why we are there.

We have been under attack by Islamic extremists for over 30 years. Look back to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut, to the Iranian hostage standoff, countless embassy bombings, WTC bombing, USS Cole, 9/11. When will it end? The idea of taking out Hussein, did not have anything to do with 9/11 i agree, but the ends do justify the means here in my eyes. Here is why.

Since we have sent our troops to Iraq, where have the terrorist attacks against the U.S. occured? - In Iraq, on their own side of the world. Terrorist groups from all over the Middle East are focusing their efforts against U.S. forces in Iraq. THAT IS THE PLAN. If they want to fight us fine, we'll have the fight, but instead of having them taking up arms (or airplanes) against innocent U.S. civilians, we are sending our professional military to do the job it was meant for - to destroy our enemies.

Answer 9

Saddam did not see the signs. He was too busy playing around. He did not know that the United States of America was eyeing his oil.

Answer 10

Have you ever heard of Taliban and the insurgents you ex-patriot.