Were the terrorists hiding out in Iraq?

Question

I was talking to someone, and the topic came up. I don't want sarcastic remarks about the war, I want an honest answer: Did we go to Iraq because we think the terrorists who were behind 9/11 were living there? Is that the official reason from Pres. Bush?

Answer 1

It was not about oil. It is not about oil now. The only oil coming from those old , broken down Iraqi wells is used to service the Iraqi people. Seen any news reports of any tankers leaving Iraq?? No... because there aren't any! USA, UK, and German Intelligence all indicated Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction. Why not believe that? The man gased 4000 Kurds. Massgraves have been discovered. Isn't gas a weapon of destruction? There are terrorists in Iraq, funded by Iran and Syria. Fortunately, the Iraqi cheftans have had enough of them too and are now fighting alongside the Americans.
Regardless of what happens, the world is rid of Saddam and his two blood thirsty sons.

Answer 2

There is quite a bit of debate whether the terrorists are in Iraq. Some say no, others say yes. Some people say we went in because of oil, some people say the government was behind 911, some people say US soldiers are intentionally killing innocent people. Early on I even remember reading that the US went in to recover a UFO that crashed in Iraq. Some people will say anything because they hate Bush so much nothing else matters.

I really think we still don't know the real answer why we went in to Iraq and it is terrible that people keep getting killed but there is no way anyone can guarantee that for every weapon we lay down, the enemy will do the same.

Answer 3

Mention of terrorists only after war. As far as known there has been no evidence. The terrorists all came from Saudi Arabia according to Media versions after9/11. 27 Saudis. President Bush also claimed it was to get rid of a Dictator. This was considered strange as at height of Saddam's mass murders it has been said a blind eye was turned to them as Saddam was an ally of The U.S.A. at the time. Supported against Iran in The Iran-Iraq War . Only in 1991 during Gulf War was Saddam bad because he invaded Kuwait which contained large oil fields and U.S. soldiers. Not snide comments just observations. Also propaganda campaign to convince people Saddam linked to AL-QAIDA. Could be never happened all in paranoid mines of fewThe 2nd Iraq invasion.

Answer 4

There were no terrorists in Iraq then, but there certainly are now thanks to the "foul five" (Cheney, Rove, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz (Sp??)The criminals responsible for 9/11 were based in Afghanistan. We had every right to go in there and get them. We had no rational reason for going into Iraq. It was the worst case of political buffoonery seen in the last five hundred years. Because of Iraq we failed to get Bin Laden. Bush's reasons changed each time the previous "irrational" reason failed. We are still there because Bush needs to "save face." He blew it and don't think he doesn't know it. The real tragedy here is all those fabulous men and women who died and are still dying for absolutely nothing - nothing.

Answer 5

If you read the report on Laden's latest tape, he did established his network in Iraq. That network has been destroyed by U.S. Army but it is resurrected again.

The planning on 9/11 was from Laden and his associates. It is not only pointing to Laden but the whole organization established by Laden.

Terrorists were hiding in Iraq but now they are getting out. They are preparing new attacks.

Answer 6

I really doubt that was the reason in the first place, history will never give us a real honest and clear answer on that one. I can't express to much about the subject, but this is something that is everywhere, not in lands far away only. If you think about it is really a state of mind of a few.

Answer 7

no, we didn't go to Iraq because we thought the terrorists who were behind 9/11 were living there.

Answer 8

sorry Iraq had nothing to do with 911 when the hunt was on they started in Afghanistan for al-qaida Osama bin Laden how we ending up in Iraq bush said they has weapons of mass destruction and they got Saddam Hussein's but when the truth came out there was no weapons of mass destruction Bush just wanted to finish what his father could not do they should never left Afghanistan

Answer 9

They thought there were weapons of mass destruction, and they also had intellegence that came from good sources (supposedly) that the terrorists that were behind 9/11 had been partially funded & some had trained in Iraq. Now, here is my take on the whole Iraq situation. People got mad at the 1st Pres. Bush, when in the early 90s he pulled out of Kuwait, because he had promised the American people that he wouldn't go into Iraq and take over. He just wanted to help Kuwait get their country back, when Sadam & his cronies went into Kuwait and took their country over. Bush #1 did what he said, but it made people mad that he didn't let the troops go on in and take Sadam & the Republican Army out, but he kept his word. Then a treaty was signed & Sadam agreed to get rid of his weapons of mass distruction & people from a group set up by the United Nations were to keep watch & go into Iraq and destroy any weapons of mass destruction that were found. The problem was that Sadam kept moving the weapons & there were and still are bunkers over there in that sand that are soooo deep that they are impossible to find. Pres. Bush would have won his second term if an Independent runner had not have taken votes from him. His name: Ross Perot. He was a genious in business. He wasn't worried so much about war and weapons, as he was in the economy. So, when he took so many votes from Bush, Bill Clinton was elected. A man who was more worried about where he was going to get his next BJ than he was in the security of our country. Osama Ben Laden was behind the 1st bombing of the World Trade Centers. (yes, 9/11 was the 2nd time he did it). The 1st time was bad enough, but nothing like 9/11. For eight years, Clinton was not interested in the Middle East. Osama Ben Laden was also behind the suicide bombing of a U.S. Naval ship while Clinton was in office. He was also behind the bombing of a U.S. Embassy in Africa. So, why didn't Clinton go after him?? Who knows? What Clinton did do was go to war in Bosnia & Croatia (Europe). What's with that??? Christians & Muslims wanting the same land. Sound familiar. But he didn't want to get in a hornets nest in the Middle East, so he played it safe & we sacrificed military on that ship and in that embassy. We also sacrificed people in the Trade Centers the 1st time they bombed it. Clinton did nothing... So, guess what happened. Eight months after George W. Bush took office- woops-9/11. Isn't that odd? Now Bill's wife if running. Of course I think she had all the brains in that duo, but she's the devil incarnate in my opinion. So, let me tell you what I think. I think that when they did go into Iraq this time, they did find terrorists and they did find weapons of mass distruction. Sadam Hussien & his sons were not just terrorists to us, they were as bad as Hitler ever was. They were terrorists to their own people. They were also weapons of mass destruction, because they slaughtered their own people by the thousands. So, you tell me if you think they found terrorists and/or weapons of mass destruction. I say yes.. But that's my opinion & everyone has one.

Answer 10

The "Terrorist"s are staying at 1600 Pennsylvania ave,and have been since the 2000 election!