What was the REAL reason for invading Iraq?
95483
Oil most likly. Look we caught saddam but bin laden is still free about 5 years later.
576079
The troops should never have been there in the first place.\nI'm not saying I thought Saddam was a good man- he was a moron. \n\nBut let's look at another factor: who said these guerrilla soldiers are actually insurgents? The Iraqi military were trained for years by the US and the UK. The standard procedure if the UK were successfully invaded is for the auxiliary troops to begin assassinations and terror campaign against the invaders. The Iraqi's are doing just that and the insurgents are the foreigners going in to Iraq to help them.\n\nI don't remember hearing any Iraqi's saying they wanted they're country invaded. Do you?\n\nIt's the same old story of politicians sending troops to war while they sit back and get rich. Of course they don't send their own children off to war, just other peoples.
786807
There are a lot of different theories. But the reason Bush himself gives is that Iraq and the "Axis of Evil" are a threat to American safety, either by hiding terrorists, supporting terrorists, or making weapons of mass destruction (WMD)\n\nMany claim there are other reasons though, including for resources (oil) and for power and control in the Middle East region.
971359
Something perhaps they should have thought of BEFORE they invaded. \n\nOh yea and Bush LIED about that. There was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda until AFTER we invaded.
927117
Because of all the WMDs that Saddam had.\nNo, wait a minute, because we wanted to spread democracy.\nOn second thought, it was to pursue the War of Terrorism.\nWait, it was because we went in and we have to stay the course.\nHang on, gimme a sec... \n\nI don't really know.
866402
Yes it was just. Saddam Hussein illegally invaded another country with the intent of stealing their oil and land.\nThe world united against him for this unjust act he committed.\n\n    This is in no way relevant to todays war.
653400
because they keep attacking countries that are rich in oil. when they say (example Operation Iraqi Liberation) it simply means'oil', they attack so they can steal other countries oil.
108936
Oh gosh, don't even get me started. I'll try and make this as brief as possible\n\nBush's reasons for invading Iraq:\n1. To find weapons of mass destruction\n2. Because of Irag's alleged link with the 9/11 terrorists\n\nDid we find WMDs: Nope\nDid we find any proof or even evidence of a link between the 9/11 hijackers and Iraq: Nope\n\nWhile, i agree that saddam hussein (excuse my spelling) is a bad man, he kept stability in his country and posed no direct threat to us. It is not our responsibility, nor should it be, to decide who is good and who is "bad" and then take steps to remove them when we see fit. \nHad Iraq actually posed a threat to our national security I may feel differently, but Iraq did not pose such a threat.\n\nUnfortunately, our intelligence organizations are partially to blame, however, there are also individuals in the political realm whom are responsible.\n\nWhy did we not listen to the U.N. or Hans Blix? Are we too arrogant as a country to listen to what the international community has to say, especially the U.N., and organization we helped to create?\n\nOh my, i could go on and on and on and on, but i don't feel like typing that much.
574053
The original premise for invading Iraq was the alleged presence of WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and possible ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda.  Both allegations have been proven false since the invasion.  Whether Saddam's overthrow has made the region more stable will not be answered for years, possibly decades.\n\nThere are parallels between Iraq and Vietnam.  In both conflicts, our troops were not fighting an enemy which clearly identifies itself.  Another similarity shared by Iraq and Vietnam is the lack of well-defined goals for victory.\n\nWhile it has been speculated oil was the primary reason for invading Iraq, that remains largely unproven.  Statistically speaking, Canada and Mexico provide the largest chunk of imported crude oil to the United States, followed by Saudi Arabia.  It appears the decision to invade Iraq was based more on socio-political reasons (i.e. establishing a Western-friendly regime) than it was for acquiring natural resources.
190812
Persoly i thought if there were gonna invade iraq, it would be a good choice, elimating a dicactor, and injecting liberalism to the islamic area, despite other bad motives (oil) \ni am astounded at how iraq is stil unstable, and how the u.s is turned into the occupational forces
156952
Well no ones answer will be objective (except for mine of course LOL).  The fact is that their were multiple  Terrorist training camps in Iraq and bush made it clear that we are against any country that harbors terrorists.  Sodom Hussein also gassed thousands of curds.  Leading to the weapons of mass destruction accusation.  Manly he was an incompetent leader who had invaded other countries before and wouldn’t have a problem with doing any thing that would kill innocent people.  And no it wasn’t for oil.  If it was than why am I pay so much for it.
1100273
First of all, George Bush invaded Iraq for two reasons: 1) he wanted to 'get even' with Saddam Hussein for humiliating his daddy during Desert Storm; 2) Big Dick Cheney wants all that oil that's swimming underneath Iraq's sand.\n\nSo, Bush initiated an illegal, unconstitutional war that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis and more than 2,500 U.S. soldiers to date.\n\nTHE U.S. WILL NEVER LEAVE IRAQ UNTIL DICK CHENEY HAS AN IRON-CLAD, ROCK-SOLID AGREEMENT IN PLACE TO GET ALL OF IRAQ'S OIL. His sole objective is to make his Halliburton honchos richer and richer and richer. \n\nSo, the Republicons will never let our troops withdraw. George Bush's administration (especially Cheney and Rumsfeld) is filled with the most evil, corrupt, incompetent people ever to occupy the White House. Combine that with the most evil, corrupt and incompetent U.S. Congress in America's history, and you have the perfect set up for a government that is out of control. \n\nCheck out the new blog - BUSHWACKER!\nwww.blogger.com\nhttp://al-aback.blogspot.com\n\nThe Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress should be impeached - or tried for high treason. If convicted, they should all face a firing squad.
799361
One of the biggest factor that most people aren't aware of is that in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwaiit they weren't going to stop there.  They had plans on continuing the invasion and invading Saudi Arabia as well.  That is the only reason Saudi decided to let troops occupy Saudi soil during Desert Shield.  Because we swooped in and held Iraq at bay as well as using patriots to stop the scud missles directed at Saudi governement relations were good.  Although many Saudi citizens did not like our forces on their soil, they wanted the US to leave after Iraq was driven out of Kuwaiit.  They were afraid US troops would influence their country.  Saudi was very strict on what troops could bring into their country.  No bibles, alcohol, etc.
1085530
It may be viewed as a Crusade, although the battle is not in the Holy Land (aka Jerusalem). \n\nLest I mistake your question for purely rhetorical value, our involvement in Iraq is based upon:\n\n1. The assumption that Iraq had WMDs\n2. The assumption that Saddam Hussein was funding anti-American and anti-Israeli terrorism\n3. The assumption that Saddam posed a threat to stability in the region\n4. The belief that Saddam had committed crimes against humanity\n\nThere has been no evidence found of the first assumption, although credible evidence indicates that the U.S. provided chemical weapons to Iraq during its war against Iran, the latter of which was considered an enemy to the U.S.\n\nThere has been little evidence found of the second assumption, which makes sense given that Saddam was a secular person of Sunni descent, and the radical theology underpinning Al-Qaeda has far more support among Shi'ites than Sunnis (although terrorists represent only a small, radical fringe of Islam, and there are terrorist groups with chiefly Sunni members). The terrorist attacks on American troops are mostly opportunistic by pre-existing groups or precipitated by new groups that have sprung up in response to the invasion.\n\nThe third assumption is debatably true. Saddam's armies invaded Kuwait in 1991 and fired missiles into Israel in 1992. \n\nThe fourth assumption (I labeled it a belief) has strong evidence behind it, and currently forms the basis of the ongoing trial.\n\nThe motivation for the United States has nothing to do with religion, although it is an unfortunate coincidence that a mostly-Christian nation has invaded two mostly-Islamic nations, as this adds fuel to the fire of radical beliefs that hold that the United States is the enemy of Islam.\n\nThe next president elected will be a Democrat (since the GOP is out of political capital at this point), and will probably close out the current operations (since there's little public support behind them). Hopefully, whoever is in office next will be able to gain more credibility and provide a more effective diplomacy so the military solution is not resorted to.
1162445
The answer is not clear cut as there are many theories being bandied about on who is responsible for the attacks on the 11th of september 2001.\n\nThe clear answer is that The USA invaded Afghanistan because they believed the culprit for the attacks on Sptember 11th 2001, on the United Sates of America, to be the Taliban. As we now know, the Taliban denied the attacks and the origin of the film showed by 'Fox' news purporting to be Bin Laden, the leader of the Taliban, claiming responsibility for the attacks is unknown.\n\n'Conspiracy theory' suggests that the long answer is that the invsion was a calculated step to bring the USA closer to controlling the countries known to own major oil reserves. The USA governmnet held the Taliban responsible for the attacks in the USA on the 11th of Spetember. It was then purported that the Taliban (read up about the origins and history to the current time of the Taliban) had links to the Iraqi government, S Hussein, and that the Iraqi government had access to Nuclear weapons/ Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was based on this 'intelligence' that the USA invaded Iraq. This 'intelligence' has been found to be misinformation by both the USA and UK governments. Saddam Hussein is being charged for 140 murders of Curds. These men were found guilty of crimes against the state by the sovreign Iraqi courts and were sentenced to the maximun penalty of death. In Iraq, you can be sentenced out of your presence.\n\nThe USA invaded Afghanistan because they needed a route to Iraq. Controlling Iraq means that the USA is able to add momentum to it's economy by using it's two main money makers, the military and energy.\n\nYes, there is oil in Iraq.
122731
A better question would be why we're in Iraq in the first place.\n\nI still don't know.
555272
American attacked Afghanistan to go after the Taliban and Bin Laden for their involvement in the attack on 911.\n\nWe invaded Iraq because our President is a fool who wanted to help his rich oil buddies and used 911 as an excuse. We were better off leaving Saddam in charge.