What were the reasons that the War in Iraq was initiated? Are the Actions of the United States in Iraq legal?
436223
Legal, yes.   The primary reason for the initiation of the war in Iraq was due to Saddam Hussiens violations of United Nations Security Resolutions.   I believe he was in violation of 15 of them for over 11 years.   The biggest of those violations was failing to allow weapons inspectors inside his country to make sure he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction or other chemical and biological weapons.    He was warned for 11 years, and did not care.   9/11 happened and woke the United States up to the fact that these 3rd world country tyrants can no longer get away with what they are doing.   George W. again, through the United Nations warned Saddam that we were no longer going to put up with his actions and gave him a deadline to comply with all the resolutions.   Saddam openly stated that he didn't have to listen to the world and would do what he wanted.   George W. gave Saddam a deadline and simply said, "On this day, or any day after that..the United States is going to come in and take you out of power and once and for all find and destroy any weapons of mass destruction."   Saddam laughed.  The United Nations warned the United States not to take any action again Iraq.   The deadline approached and Saddam made an attempt to show compliance with UN Resolutions with a data book of over 14,000 pages.   The US Studied the book.   British intelligence and Egyptian Intelligence convinced the United States that Iraq did have WMD's.   The 14,000 page document was proven to be over 10 years old and mostly useless information.   George W. went back to the UN and was told to stand down and not take action against Iraq.   George W. went to Congress and Congress supported him with the invasion and subsequent liberation of Iraq from Saddam.   \n\nWhile no WMDs were found, many weapons that put him in violation of UN Resolutions were found, including intermediately ranged missles and chemical and biological weapons.   Other intelligence documents were found indicating that Hussien had moved his nuclear programs to Libya and his hardware to Syria.   Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Liby turned over ALL of it's nuclean information that they claim was theirs, and not Saddam's.  \n\nIt's anyone guess, and easy to bash Bush.   But if the truth has to be know...it's a great thing to have a president with a set of balls that's not afraid to go agains the United Nations and do what is actually best for national security and the freedoms we enjoy here in the United States.
961201
Well, the true reason is kind of multi-pronged.\n\nFirstly, it was for oil. However, not in the way that the "those evil war mongering republicans are all poopy heads" crowd seem to believe. Like it or not the US economy is highly dependant on foreign oil. The previous regime in Iraq first tried to take over Kuwait, a major producer that sits directly on the gulf. Additionally, that regime made it quite clear that they intended to use their influence on global oil markets in any way they could to harm western economies. Can you imagine a world where a single very anti-American dictator controls 70% of the worlds oil supply and chooses not to sell to us at any price but rather give China, a major rival, access to virtually unlimited supplies at cut rate prices?\n\nSecondly, it was about breaking up the web of state funded terrorism. Like it or not there are a large number of middle eastern fundamentalists who are actively working to wipe America off of the map. This is not some new phenomena that has taken place since we took action in Iraq. This has been brewing for decades. I know that it is an unpleasant realization to some, but America is at war and we did not start it nor did it begin with the invasion of Iraq nor with 9/11. Middle eastern fundamentalists declared war on the US more than a decade ago. Unfortunately, most Americans are too busy carrying on with their normal lives to realize this as a clear and present danger. One of the insidious attributes about international terrorism is that there is no single nation-state that the US can point to as the "enemy". This gives state sponsors of terrorism the luxury of calling the US an aggressive bully when we take action against them. Iraq was one of many enablers in the international terrorism network. There are others. It is my hope that America will not have to learn the hard way that it is better to deal with such threats early even though such actions may not appear politically correct rather than wait until a mushroom cloud erupts over Israel, the UK, or the Eastern coast of the US.
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.
55683
He didn't lie,The invasion was based in part on foreign intelligence reports. As for the "Illeagal" war\n\n As much as people may hate the idea, but yes the war is legal under Article 1441, Acting under Chapter VII (articles 41 & 42)of the Charter of the United Nations.\n\nArticle 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.\n\n\nArticle 42\nShould the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.\n\nThese are the two articles that the United States and Britain used to enforce the existing cease fire agreement. I used the term "cease fire" because no actual peace treaty signed,and hostilities could resume at anytime. \nSource(s) \nhttp://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm...\n\nhttp://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapte...
854164
Well international law only declares war illegal when the act (usually an invasion of one country's territory by another) hasn't been authorized by the UN Security Council.  War however almost ALWAYS starts with one country invading another, hence I doubt that any regime intent on overrunning the boarders of another gives a damn about what that corrupt, inept and morally bankrupt organization says therein!
1037508
The reason why we went to war in Afghanistan is that we are trying to get Osama bin Laden.\nThe reason we went to war in Iraq? "Oil"
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.
1055735
Whe the Iraqi government takes over Iraq.  We pulled out of Somalia prematurely, and conditions got worse than they were before we went in.  We pulled out of Vietnam prematurely, and conditions got worse than they were when we went in.  There is no time limit for war.
133821
Hi there,\n\nI think the reason is to show off their power or the greed for power.\n\nHere's why I think so-\n\nThe USA first attacked Iraq and captured Saddam Hussein near Tikrit. The reason Mr.Bush gave for that is that the USA suspects some biological weapons in Iraq.\n\nAfter the war was over but nothing revealed, Mr.Bush apologized for this bliss by saying that he received false intelligence reports. Now that's easy, it's the same thing as I kick you hard and then apologize. Whatever the damage should be done, it was done. \n\nSo I think the reason for these attacks is not any terrorist threat to USA or the greed for oil, but it is just to show off it's power to the world after the attack of Sep 11th. I just think it is a ploy to scare away the people. It means something like Mr.Bush wants to say "We are rich, we are powerful, we can do anything, so don't mess with us."\n\nI don't mean to offend all the Americans out there. I just told you my opinion about the attacks. If I offended anyone, my sincere apologies. And let me make it clear, I'm not being partial to Mr.Hussein. I think he ruled Iraq for quite some time with an iron fist.\n\nI just told you my opinion frankly, but anyone of you here are free to disagree with this. After all, everyone has their own thought process. \n\n\nrule wid style n luv@vinny
223231
In some cases it is legitimate.  These are cases in which there is a clear threat being posed, often with WMD's.  In the case of Iraq, however, military action meet none of the criteria for legitimate preemptive military action.  There was no valid threat, and the invasion was illegitimate.  Each case should be evaluated independently.  To claim that all preventive strikes are legitimate or no preventive strikes are paints an unrealistic picture of the world.
454393
The Four Reasons\nwhy "We the People" must\n uphold the Constitution of\nThe United States of America\nand hold those who violate it accountable\n\n\n0. The invasion of Iraq is illegal within the framework of the laws of the United States Constitution and the United Nations Charter.\n\n1. The invasion of Iraq has been planned for many years by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an organization founded by a small group of right wing political ideologues and corporate elite dedicated to promoting American global leadership. The PNAC signatories hold the most powerful positions in the current administration and other highly influential political offices. Read their Statement of Principles and note the signatories. Read the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" for a detail of their military strategy for American global  hegemony. The Downing Street Memo and other key documents unambiguously indicate that the policy of regime change in Iraq was planned as early as July 2002 and "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."\n\n2. Many members of the Bush Administration are convicted criminals. The World Tribunal on Iraq held it's culminating session in Istanbul in June 2005 and declared the Bush Administration guilty of starting a War of Aggression, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity as indicated in their Declaration of the Jury of Conscience. A War Crimes Tribunal held in NYC on August 26, 2004 found many members of the Bush Administration guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and high crimes and misdemeanors for which they are impeachable (audio of Ramsey Clark). The International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan convened in Tokyo, 2003 found the Bush Administration guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity for the invasion of Afghanistan. The Brussels Tribunal has conducted "A Hearing on the Project for the New American Century" to discuss the nature of a premeditated, preemptive wars - a "war of aggression" being the highest international crime. In 1992, an International War Crimes Tribunal found the senior officers in the first Bush administration guilty on 19 counts of Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and other criminal acts in Violation of the Charter of the United Nations, International Law, The Constitution of the United States and Laws made in Pursuance thereof, for crimes committed during "Operation Desert Storm". View a list of our `elected' officials, their appointees, and their criminal offenses.\n\n3. There is no degree of separation between the current administration and those who control the means of production, the means of communication, and the military-industrial complex. Those individuals will benefit unfathomably from this and many future wars already planned by the PNAC. View information on who is making the money from the "War on Terrorism".\n\n4. "We the People" pay for "Operation Iraqi Freedom", the staging of "multiple theatre wars", and the killing of the innocent peoples of foreign lands in the name of Freedom and Democracy, while 'elected' officials pass radical legislation taking away our rights and controlling the flow of information.
716945
I do understand that you are not the ones responsible for America's actions in Iraq, Americans. I am from Egypt and I of course don't agree on the war from the begining, it was like a breach to the Iraqi Sovreingity rights...ridding the Country from Saddam's governemnt is something that people Iraq had to do, and does not require the help of anyother country; in other words, it is an internal affair; and what America did is an interference in the internal affairs of Iraq. It Also caused much damage to both sides, Americans lost lots of soldiers there in vien and it consumed alot of money that could have been used in a better way. Also Iraq now is in a state of disturbance, and I don't see that the American forces are able to control the situation there. Gureilla warfare is not easy to handle...so, since they already did what they wanted, they got rid of Saddam, and established a new government too, they should leave and leave it to the new governement to take care of it, because they already fail to sustain a stable climate there. If they insist to stay, then that can be nothing but occupation, which is of course something that is unacceptable...right?
1095036
Because going to Iraq was a big mistake. Because, president Bush lied to the American public about the reasons for going into the war. No one is complaining about the Afghanistan war, the other war that Bush decided. But Iraq was decided based upon lies. That is just criminal, it was not a political mistake, it is criminal and he should be punished accordingly.
233826
The USA is not aggressive.  We are passive resistant.  We have, since the Revolution, never started a war and only reluctantly, entered into the ones we were in.  \n\nNO we did not start the war in Iraq.  When your neighbor is beating his wife, you do not start a fight by stopping it.\n\nI sincerely hope you all forget to vote.
767052
When I foreigner asked me why did USA attacked Iraq. Where are the weapons of mass destruction, Where are the chemical weapons.
165275
War can divert manpower and materiel from peaceful uses to preparation for and conduct of war.  This can leave a country in debt for future generations.  Every country has the right to protect itself from neighbors (or any other country) that would take their land or resources or harm their people.  War is never justified when there is no provocation.  Of course a country like Nazi Germany invented provocation to start war with Poland then murdered all citizens that opposed Germany (and most of the Polish Officer Corp).  Saddam invented reasons to attack Kuwait (and murdered many of its citizens) and ignored UN sanctions after they were driven back.  Iraq became an outlaw nation bent on conquering its neighbors.  Saddam modeled himself after Hitler and his early mentors were Nazis.  He had to be stopped to give world peace a chance.  Now Iraq has a brand new Democracy and a good chance to join the fellowship of peaceful nations.  Leaving Saddam in power after the first Gulf war was a big mistake but the coalition that existed at that time would not support his total removal from power.  He then murdered thousands more of his own citizens, especially in the south.  War often saves lives if performed surgically and timely.  Many believe that the UN should prevent war.  However the UN is not a coalition of Democracies (although there are many Democracies represented).  The UN is more an international debating society that at least might prevent gross miscalculations and buy time for diplomatic solutions to problems.  The strength of NATO is that an attack on any member is an attack on all members of NATO and NATO members do not attack each other.  Even the use of the A-Bomb saved lives ending WWII because the militarists there were prepared to sacrifice every man, woman and child to protect the Japanese homeland following a war they started and conducted with gross brutality throughout Asia.  Good luck with your debate.
863298
Two separate issue.\n\nWas there any valid reason for going to Iraq in the first place? Arguably. Even though Bush changed justifications like some people change socks, it's arguable that deposing Saddam wasn't a bad thing. So, even though it was a uninlateral act of agression, and in violation of international law, it could be argued as a good idea.\n\nHowever, staying in Iraq 3 years after "Mission Accomplished" is a different question, and has a very different answer. It's not the job of the US military to play local police indefinitely, or the role of the US to force a country to change it's legal or political system. \n\nIt's bad enough we toppled their own govt. Whatever reasons we might have had to do that, don't justify remaining there, especially given how unwanted we are, and given the ongoing loss of life.\n\nSeparate issues. Going in the first place, arguable. Staying, no.