Why are we in war with IRAQ?
554146
On the pretense of WMD, initially.  That turned out to be a hugh mis-judgement, putting it on a charitable note.  Now, America would be wholly irresonsible if we just quit.\n\nTo your ancillary questions:  US should get its own house in order and help others when others would help themselves.  Not by unilateral invasions.\n\nAmerica so far has gained notoriety around the world, hypocricy, bully and probably much less charitable names as called by terrorists.\n\nIt is very sad.  It can only be hoped that the Iraqi government can now manage themselves peacefully so that American men and women in harms way can safely return home.
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.
437407
Officially, we aren't at war.  Only Congress can declare war.  AND war can only be declared against a nation with boundaries.\nThis war on terror is about as lame as the war on poverty and the war on drugs back in the 80's.\n\nI hate the fact that friends of mine have been killed defending a foreign policy that will only keep us embedded in turmoil for years.  It discusts me!
82685
We should not support this war at all. Our president just wanted to show that he was reacting in some way. However, he has created a mess in Iraq.
730331
I really appreciate your sentiment for it is what we were all brought up to believe is good about this country.  But may  I suggest that this is not a war.  It is an occupation by the United States of another country.  We were told that the people of Iraq were being held in oppression by the horrible dictator Saddam Hussein, and that they would be throwing flowers at our troops for setting them free, we would be welcomed with open arms.  Why do you suppose we have had to stay for three years, fighting door to door with citizens who desperately wanted us to enter their country and set them free?  If our policy was so concerned about their human rights, why are they fighting us to the death?  I offer this thought for discussion, for it sounds to me like we were not told the truth about what we are doing there, and the Iraqi people have made it very clear with the sacrifice of the own blood, that they do not like what we are doing?  If we were oppressed by a dictator and someone came in to set us free out of the goodness of their heart, would we fight them door to door for doing so?  I think not.
837009
I feel that there are very few noble causes for war. If Iraq had done some sort of action against Americans, or if they did some sort of action against one of our allies then maybe. We went over there to make rich men richer. We are an occupying force in that country. If another country invaded us to make their rich men richer I would fight until i gave out my last dying breath. I'm sure this is what the Iraqis are thinking. I am not ready to enlist for this war. "Terror" is a braod term. by deffinition there are many American terrorists in America. Its a farce and false pre-tense for war. Iraq did not bomb the world trade center. There are many countries that have prro leaders. Are we going to bomb and occupy them all? Maybe if they had lots of money to loot. A noble war is the war on hunger. enough said.
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.
680241
a) Because, having been attacked on our own soil, we really did not want that to happen again. So, we pick someone who we already knew we could beat (Saddam), in an area of the world guaranteed to tick off our enemies (Iraq, holy sites all over), with the added benefit of there being a brutal dictator in charge so we could tout how freedom loving we were. Now that we've invaded it, the terrorists are blowing up either (1)trained military troops, whose job it is to die for our country (as opposed to children flying to a school field trip), or (2)other Muslims, thereby sowing hatred and discontent between people who will find it easier to kill each other than Americans.\n\nb)Having lost his mind, Saddam decided to thumb his nose at the world community, saying the UN had no power over him, thereby giving us the pretense to invade. We really DID believe, at least some of our leaders, that there was the thread of WMD, so it was a nice reason as well. WMD was the 'slavery in the Civil War' issue, to get support for the war. \n\nc)A HUGE portion of the US military is now dead-center in the middle east. It's called Projection of Power. The most dangerous potential enemies are there...look at Iran's nuclear ambition. It would take a matter of weeks to be in Tehran.\n\nd)Oil...if we need it. We're paying way more for gas than we ever have in the US. This war was not about the oil of the current day...but about oil in the future. At very least, we can leave people in power that will be more friendly to us than have been in the past.\n\nWars are about power and resources. That's what this one was about, but it was more about power than resources. This was the US projecting its power in order for another 9/11 to not occur (on US soil...if Arabs fly planes into the Grand Mosque of Sandy Suffering, that's okay.)
447450
Depending on who you listen to, there are several reasons. I shall attempt to run them down & provide a brief explanation of each, and state my own opinion at the end.\n\n1. Oil. The US needs a source of oil, so we invaded Iraq to get it.\n2. Big Business - The US needed a way to boost the profit lines of big business, and war is the best way to do it.\n3. Freedom - We needed to free the Iraqi's from Saddam's thumb.\n4. WMD's - Saddam had WMD's, he refused to let the UN make inspections, and it's too risky to let Saddam have WMD's.\n5. New Base Location - Iraq makes a great place to project power from in terms of the US military, it is adjacent to the Gulf, and provides ways to reinforce Turkey, as well as keep Iran in check.\n6. Violation of Gulf War cease-fire agreement - Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement of the 1st gulf war, so this war is simply a conclusion of the last war.\n7. Bush's daddy - Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr., so Bush Jr is seeking revenge.\n8. Terrorism - Saddam was conspiring with Osama, so the US had to intervene.\n\nAnd my opinion:\nBush Jr. was obsessed with Iraq, and decided long ago that he was going to end Saddam's rule. He found a reason, Saddam didn't back down, and now we're in Iraq.\n\nHope this helps as a general overview.
1166554
war is part of human nature and it will always be part of our lives...it is the psychological need for conflict that drives our instinct to fight....without it we would be passive and unable to survive as a species
455332
in my eyes, we are in Iraq because of the terorists. everyday suicide bombers kill two or three people and wound 2 times as more. Also US is there to make Iraq a Democratic Government and make it an Allie , then in future wars Iraq is going to help USA.
1073615
The war in Iraq was/is a good thing.  We need to fight for our freedom.  If we don't goto Iraq and fight Terrorism over there then we will have Terrorism over here in the states.  After the war when was our last Terrorism attack?  Don't remember?  Becuse they are all over in Iraq now fighting there.  \n\n2 or 3,000 dead Amaricans?  They are in the U.S. Military they all know that going to war is part of there jobs.  They are fighting for our freedom right now.\n\nNews flash for thoes of you who don't know yet they did find WMD's in Iraq.  (Read URL down at the bottom of post)
859588
Who the hell knows, but we do need to do something.  This war is not working out the way we expected.  We have spent 1/2 trillion and we are making enemies faster than we can kill them.
1009240
a) Because, having been attacked on our own soil, we really did not want that to happen again. So, we picked someone who we already knew we could beat (Saddam), in an area of the world guaranteed to tick off our enemies (Iraq, holy sites all over), with the added benefit of there being a brutal dictator in charge so we could tout how freedom loving we were. Now that we've invaded it, the terrorists are blowing up either (1)trained military troops, whose job it is to die for our country (as opposed to children flying to a school field trip), or (2)other Muslims, thereby sowing hatred and discontent between people who will find it easier to kill each other than Americans.\n\nb)Having lost his mind, Saddam decided to thumb his nose at the world community, saying the UN had no power over him, thereby giving us the pretense to invade. We really DID believe, at least some of our leaders, that there was the thread of WMD, so it was a nice reason as well. WMD was the 'slavery in the Civil War' issue, to get support for the war. \n\nc)A HUGE portion of the US military is now dead-center in the middle east. It's called Projection of Power. The most dangerous potential enemies are there...look at Iran's nuclear ambition. It would take a matter of weeks to be in Tehran.\n\nd)Oil...if we need it. We're paying way more for gas than we ever have in the US. This war was not about the oil of the current day...but about oil in the future. At very least, we can leave people in power that will be more friendly to us than have been in the past.\n\nWars are about power and resources. That's what this one was about, but it was more about power than resources. This was the US projecting its power in order for another 9/11 to not occur (on US soil...if Arabs fly planes into the Grand Mosque of Sandy Suffering, that's okay.)
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.
936400
I prefer to think our war is over and we are providing security while Iraq establishes its democratic government.  I think that has become our role.\n\nLiberals prefer to call it "Bush's war in Iraq," which strikes me as pure terrorist propaganda.\n\nEither way, we are likely to be there a while.
560785
Because our people are being led by a war-monger. We do not want to bother anyone but our greedy leaders just cannot keep their noses out of others business. They say they will do good for our nation when trying to get elected but, when they win they become whores to big business. I am an average American and all I want is to live in peace.