Why are we in Iraq? Yes Sudom had to go but if we're there becouse of genocide then why are we not in some of the countries in Africa where innocent women and children are murdered by the thousands? WMD's? Where, I haven't seen any reports of nukes discovered in Iraq, have you? There is no explanation that can't be refuted. Oh,wait what about oil? Ever since we have been in Iraq what has the gas prices done? Shoot through the roof. Could the U.S. government(as people not the system) be padding their pockets with money made from the manufaturing of war goods? They done it during WWI. Could we be at war for personal gain??? Please help me shed some light on this subject. (And I'm only a Junior in High School!!!)
213701
Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil.\n\nHe also has his own personal reasons, at one point in a speach when talking about Saddam he said "You have to remember, this is the guy who tried to kill my Dad.". But at the end of the day we can only guess.  The only way to get a real answer is to do a ton of research and keep up with current news.  Bottom line though... no matter how much you know noone is going to be able to give you anything better than an educated guess.
567161
Q Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq ? \nA Because they had weapons of mass destruction. \n\nQ But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. \nA That's because the Iraqis were hiding them. \n\nQ And that's why we invaded Iraq ? \nA Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections. \n\nQ But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we? \nA That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll  find something, probably right before the next election. \n\nQ Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction? \nA  To use them in a war, silly. \n\nQ I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them? \nA Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves. \n\nQ   That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had  all those big weapons with which they could have fought back? \nA It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense. \n\nQ I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did. \nA Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway. \n\nQ And what was that? \nA Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country. \n\nQ Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country? \nA Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people. \n\nQ Kind of like what they do in China ? \nA Don't go comparing China to Iraq . China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops and help make US corporations richer. \n\nQ So if a country lets its people are exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people? \nA Right. \n\nQ Why were people in Iraq being tortured? \nA For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured. \n\nQ Isn't that exactly what happens in China ? \nA I told you, China is different. \n\nQ What's the difference between China and Iraq ? \nA Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist. \n\nQ Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad? \nA No, just Cuban Communists are bad. \n\nQ How are the Cuban Communists bad? \nA Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured. \n\nQ Like in Iraq ? \nA Exactly. \n\nQ And like in China , too? \nA I told you, China 's a good economic competitor. Cuba , on the other hand, is not. \n\nQ How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor? \nA Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, the US government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us. \n\nQ But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba , and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists? \nA Don't be smart.\n \nQ I didn't think I was being one. \nA Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba. \n\nQ Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement? \nA I told you, stop saying bad things about China . Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway. \n\nQ What's a military coup? \nA That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States. \n\nQ Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military
471884
I'm out here in Iraq and trust me... please trust me when i tell you that it's not all the same or to prevent genocide. Keep in mind that most if not all countries were forged by wars. Specially our great U.S. of A. Need less to say that I pray  everyday for myself and my brothers and sisters in arms because Sh!t is going to hit the fan once saddam is executed...Once more this is nothing like Hotel Rwanda, nothing all,
206259
Yes, Seneca said that.  Interesting that you would quote him. Do you know what his point was in saying "Be careful that your enemies dont get your weapons"?  Sounds a lot like that quote is very much in support of limiting nuclear proliferation Would it be best if nobody had nukes?  In the 50 years before nuclear weapons were invented, over 100 million people were killed in wars.  And in the 60+ years since, is that true?  If the US destroyed all of it's nuclear weapons, do you seriously believe this would end the problem?  That countries like North Korea and Iran would generously quite trying to build them?  The US, along with the EU, is trying to stop other countries from building nuclear weapons.  Are you trying to say that because the US, France, and the UK, among others, have nuclear weapons, that they should not try to stop proliferation?  Are you saying that the US and those other countries should get rid of their nuclear weapons, and thus would miraculously cause everyone else to stop building them?  Think about it-the US is hated by many powerful countries.  If the US got rid of their nuclear weapons, would that tend to make those countries more eager, or less, to build a weapon that, once the US had none, could aid these other countries in actually defeating the US on a battlefield?  Think through your argument- The US having nuclear weapons may be a problem, but it is unrelated to nuclear proliferation.  And, the US is not leading the battle to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the EU is.
664065
Iraqi civilians living in their country and US & UK soldiers are occupiers. Is it clear?\n\nYou may say allieds removed Saddam and did somethings for freedom and .....\nBut all of these answers are rehash. US soldiers are in Iraq and Afghanistan just for US benefits, NOT FOR DEMOCRACY.\nYou should know, someone like "Saddam" was supported by US several times because at that time US policy and benefits was so.\n\nIf I want to make a decision between innocent peope and professional soldiers, I'll select innocent people who are living in their country and if they had some problems with their leader, it wasn't their fault. It was related to aliens policy and benefits.\n\n> Saddam was one of US friends for a long time, untill US policy was change.\n\n>> Don't forget, allieds are in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are killing innocent people and unarmed men, women and children with some nonsense excuses, SO ALLIEDS ARE ENEMIES.\nI bet, if you was an Iraqi, you was an enemy and of course you tried to kill allieds because they are killing Iraqi people.\n\n>>> Have you ever seen (On TV and movies) ordinary people's resistance against Hitler's army during WWII?\nWho could say, those people were insurgents and saboteurs except of Nazies?
22567
It's all about oil.\n\nWe can't annex Iraq because the rest of the world will turn against us, and even the US can't fight the entire world.\n\nRevisionist history is what Bush is doing. Freedom for the people of Iraq was never mentioned until AFTER we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Before the invasion, all we heard was WMD, WMD, and more WMD.\n\n\nWant to know why gas prices keep going up even though we have control of the the Iraqi oil fields? Because the oil is NOT FOR YOUR BENEFIT. It's for the benefit of the oil companies. Maybe you haven't noticed, but last year, the oil companies made record profits. Not sales, PROFITS. They have never made this kind of money under any other President.
640962
I don't know if the US has compensated Vietnam for war crimes but I feel they should - but not as long as the government is still Communist. And we need to stop committing these war crimes? We wouldn't have to compensate for them if we didn't commit them. Better yet, we need to stay out of these countries. I still can't figure out why we were in Vietnam in the first place - they didn't ask for our help! Nor did the Iraqis.
407516
there are several ways to look at this.firstly the weapons of mass destruction were never found but the iraqs were living under a dictator.sometimes you have to look at the wider angle and decide the real motives behind it was it oil.i dont know but what i do know is this tinderbox is well and truly kindled and people are getting killed trying to stabalise the situation.i feel sorry for all the soldiers and innocent people caught up and being killed  in a confused and volatile country .in my opinion it is a no win situatin for both sides .
360296
??? I question your logic. We didn't go into iraq to SEE if they had wmd - we told the world that there WERE wmds there and we had to get them out. So right there - your logic is off.\n\nFP
496982
OMG you are so uninformed it's almost scary. First of all, "This is about as bad as drinking and driving with a car load of friends and they all die but you in an accident." You mean like Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo? \n\nWMDs - International intel ALL said Saddam had WMDs. The United Nations (HA!) thought he had WMDs. The fact that there weren't a lot of WMDs found could be due to the fact that Saddam was given months of notice before the allied forces swooped in. \n\nShouldn't Bill Clinton have to face charges for not taking Bin Laden from the Sudan when they offered him? Shouldn't Clinton have to answer to the country for slashing our military and intel budgets? How about the fact that he cut and run from Somalia, teaching terrorists that all they have to do is hit us really hard, and we'll run with our tails between our legs. \n\nWho lied?!?!?\n\n"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. \n\n"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."  President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. \n\n"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." \nMadeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. \n\n"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."  -  Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 \n\n"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." \n    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. \n\n"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."  \nRep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. \n\n"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."  \nMadeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. \n\n"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." \n    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. \n\n"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." \n    Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. \n\n"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." \n    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. \n\n"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." \n    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. \n\n"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction." \n    Sen. Ted Kennedy (
291881
Fascinating. Thank you for bringing this up. It is a war crime. The whole of our involvement in Iraq then and now is full of war crimes. \n\nSeems there are no limits to the ugliness of our war. No wonder we are so despised.  \n\nThis is historic, our research with the A bomb was similar in nature; talk about opening Pandora's box...another result of fiddling with the atom. Some stuff should just be left alone.\n\nThe military has a history of testing horrible equipment and macabre medical treatments on soldiers as well as civilian populations. Just another day in the pentagon.
670060
whoblitzell...since the stuff they found isn't dangerous, lets bury it in your backyard, okay? \n\nSaddam was a saint-of course he had no WMDs. That's why he wouldn't give the UN inspectors complete access, right? The guy buried entire combat jets-intact-in the desert. Is it perhaps possible that he has buried other, smaller things as well?
91409
oh !john c. America doesn't have any interest there. What products does the eastern part of africa export to the usa? can't think of anything ? and that is why america won't do anything. if we were a country that was focused on humanity then yes we would be over there in a new york minute.It makes me so mad! because there are millions of people dying there! it also has a lot to do with race wheteher we want to admit it or not.Throwing a million dollars to them means nothing if a evil dictator gets it!
150863
Why did we invade Iraq, oh ya didnt they have WMD's?  That cant be cause N. Korea has six, which they have openly admited to.  Why dont we invade them?  No wait, it was because they were living under an oppressive tyrant, Saddam, right?  Is Iraq the only tyrant oppressing his people?  No what about, parts of Afica where wild militant groups and terrorists are free to roam and do as they please.  So why did we invade Iraq?  It couldnt be to establish a governement with people with previous good relations with the White House, to sell us oil at a good price, could it?  Well then, why didnt they prez. just say so?  I'm sure the American people would have backed him up if he said we were sending our troops to Iraq to die for oil . . . blood for oil, thats a worthy cause.  But, I guess the threat of Saddam having WMD's sounded better.\n\nYou're right on point dog.  Didnt we invite and welcome the Saudis with open arms too?  Is this De Ja Vu?
36274
alot of people are talking about the democracy that was brought by usa to iraq.how do you understand democracy.how can democracy be implemented under occupation.what kind of democracy is there when the occupation army,forigne security personel are above the law,they can kill,humilate,rape,anyone they like without questioning.since an order was passed disqualifying the iraqi courts from hearing any such case.do the worl know that the present speaker of the iraqi assembly was kiked & hit by a simple solder because he requested to enter the green zone to go to his office,this happened to two other ministers and many senatores.is this the human righta the usa brought to iraq.do you think the iraqies dont know democracy!!!!.read thair history.what was the counsel of the nation  1922-1958.now who brought dictatorship to iraq.wasnt it the most stable and advanced arab country till 58!!!.how did saddam climb to power ,he was a mere deserting soldeir who never served nither in the army as a soldeir nor in the govt at any capacity.w2hith no qualifications what so ever accept secendory school and a record of being a murderor when he was19!!!!.how was he made the vice president as his 1st appointment in the govt in 68.which power was behinde him.these are facts & there is alot more.you have destroyed one of the finest countries in the world in the name of democracy and big lies like wmd,9/11,relations with alkaieda.who used to warn saddam when there were several coup attempts against him.why wasnt he removed of power in 1991 desert storm when the coalition armies destroyed his army totally and was at the outskirits of baghdad.he was a sitting duck then.think deeply about these questions.
160228
who did it? well it wasnt the butler in the hallway wilh a candlestick. how many different arab leaders are there in U.A.E.?i wouldnt know.however, it had to be a terrorist group of the arab world. look at the names listed they were all arabic.as for the official story, what we read and saw on the tube was as official as it gets.information concerning this tragic day possibly was edited just to be on the safe side. what i mean is that the story probably had more to it than what was said ,but with the turmoil in the world today, the increasing price of oil and fingers pointed at everyone, why say anything to start trouble? personally i dont think our country is the most advanced in defense or technology.our computers are made up of japans experts and as far as i know our defense systems are made with the same technology. i think there a a few small nations in the world that have come a long way as we have but secrets must be kept.hopefully im wrong but,i have read and surfed the web,i had found many items of interest that are questionable.im not a trouble maker and i think any information gotten will be sufficient enough to sustain my curiosity. i served during vietnam and i enlisted and would do it again. this country is my home and i was proud to serve.
656056
Breaking news -- your brain has not been found.\n\n"500 nuclear bombs (weapons of mass destruction)...?\n\nD'oh!  Hard to make any serious response to such abysmal ignorance as you've displayed.\n\n\nTo all the idiots who think we went to war in Iraq over WMD's, maybe you can sit on your hands long enough to watch Frontline: "The Dark Side."  (Original air date 20 June.)  You can watch it online in its entirety Thursday, June 22, or just read about it.  Link below.\n\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/