was iraq a real threat to the peace of the world,or to the usa.did it really have weapons of mass destruction.
153575
3 words: oil, oil, oil.\nAlthough there was no concrete evidence that Sadam had any WMDs it is a good thing that a tyrant is out of power. Why would GW Bush pick on this particular tyrant to overthrow? I believe it is because Sadam tried to assassinate his father. The reason thirst George Bush chose to pick on this tyrant was the fact that if Sadam took over Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia, the US would have been left only drug dealer to support it’s addiction to oil. And anyone who has ever dealt with Sadam knows that he is the wrong person to deal with.\nUnder Sadam, there was no way religious fanatics like Al Quaeda could have any place in the country. By taking him out of the picture, the way have been opened for them to come in.
767052
When I foreigner asked me why did USA attacked Iraq. Where are the weapons of mass destruction, Where are the chemical weapons.
678103
not sure i agree 100%,  taliban was a threat to world peace,  there were un resolutions authorizing use of force,  but we did botch up iraq and should have turned authority over to UN a lot more then we have, but it wasnt imperalistic since there was "some" legal basis.\n\nim not a lawyer of world law but just you know, jim darwin, opinion like a0hole ive got one
1144009
The threat of nuclear weapons being used against the US has been a reality since the Soviets exploded the "JOE" atomic bomb in the 1950s.\n\nThe threat is not new - but there are new players in the Nuclear Playboy's Club. \n\nThe US exploded over 1000 nuclear bombs under the guise of "Testing". The US also exploded 2 that killed hundreds of thousands of human beings (and God only knows how many animals.)\n\nAs yet, no nation except the US has used a nuclear weapon in an act of war. No matter how well justified - it is a fact.  The US is probably very worried that the same hellish threat that they have invented and thrust into the world, could turn against them.\n\nRobert Oppenheimer quoted the Bhagavad Gita - "I am death, the destroyer of worlds."
881117
Because Iraq had oil.\n\nBut really the question should be: why invade anyone? Wars of aggression (like Iraq was and an attack on Cuba would be) are illegal under international law and have been since the 14th century.\n\nIraq was not a threat. It had no connection AT ALL with 9/11, the only terrorists being harboured were in the north (i.e. the area controlled by the Kurds (US allies)), and as late as May 2001 the Bush administration were saying that Iraq has no WMDs and didn't constitute a risk to anyone. The US invaded Iraq for political and ideological reasons, and dragged my country along with it.\n\nThe result - we're in more danger from terrorists now than in 2001.
965270
Iraq was about supposed weapons of mass destruction not 911.
247478
We fought in Afghanistan to capture Osama and friends. That was a justifiable reaction to 9-11.\nThe Iraq war was not then and is not now justifiable.\n\nI should add that the UN resolution did not authorize the U.S. to invade Iraq. Note this from a most conservative analyst, David Pyne, writing in "The American Partisan" before the war: \n"On Nov. 8, under heavy pressure from the United States, the UN Security Council passed a new resolution against Iraq mandating that it disarm itself of any remaining WMD capabilities or face 'serious consequences.' However, many of the nations that agreed to the new resolution were quick to point out that the resolution did not give the US authority to attack Iraq. The US has stated in response that it would use the resolution as authority to invade Iraq if it became evident that Iraq had failed to comply with the will of the United Nations. Iraq has since accepted the new UN resolution and agreed to allow inspectors to resume their inspections without conditions."\n\nSurely people can do better than this to justify the war! Inspections were being allowed, and inspectors publicly stated they found no WMDs, but of course we scoffed at their conclusions and unilaterally interpreted "serious consequences" as giving us the right to invade.
456735
Why we are champions of the free world for it. We must of rid the country of weapons of mass destruction because we didn't find any we overthrew a government, that should be our roll in life. Overthrowing other governments while getting 2500 of ours killed and nobody knows how many Iraqi's. Old men, woman and children was the real problem over there that is why we killed them, and best of all we have ignited a civil war. It just don't get any better then that, unless we can kill a few more baby's in a bombing.
677542
nope...most of it was used in wars in iran and iraq
128606
when the USA gets involved and bombs them back into the stone age as was done in Iraq, I guess it was shown to the world what kind of destruction can create peace.
707584
"Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors."\n\nThat says it all, doesn't it?
908322
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 (
554638
well when President Clinton said the same things about Iraq in office. was he one of those right wing fantics? the weapons ended up in other countries Syria Germany and Iran. countries like France Germany rRussia and Chinia all receiving pay offs from Saddam . War is a terrible thing but giving up to lies of the press is worst.
1147002
There are a lot of BS answers here.  Iraq was in no way a threat to the United States. No Airforce, No Navy, a couple of missles that couldn't reach us that they had begun to destroy when we invaded, a lousy army that we beat in about a week.\n\nThere were 2,500 people looking for WMD after the invasion. No evidence was found that there  were WMD or that they had been destroyed or moved. Do you really believe US wouldn't have been able to find evidence if it existed?\n\nThe "Bush" people wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11.  They wanted to overthrow Sadam and put in a "democratic government" freindly to US and US oil companies. They believe that if you have "democracy" in Iraq it will spread to other countries in the Middle East.  While they talk about "freedom" they really only are interested in countries with oil.\n\nIf Iraq was a threat to its neighbors, why did NONE of them join our coalition? Turkey wouldn't even allow just to use them as a base for invasion.\n\nSomeone says above that Saddam had programs in 1992. 1992?\nThat's eleven years before we invaded! Ten years later, Saddam was totally contained and had no WMD programs to speak off, and no capicity to develop nuclear weapons.
750170
Iran has been a threat since 1979.  Ayatollah Khomeini himself called the USA the great Satan.  That in itself does not constitute a military threat but it deos indicate that they really do not like the USA nor any of the Western world.
703916
The Iraqis didn't destroy the American military; there have only been just 2837 US military killed since 9-11.  Compare that with 400,000 US dead in WW II and you can see that Iraq is basically nothing more than a 'training exercise' to keep military tactics, strategies and reflexes honed.\n\nAnd yes....duh...America is still the one and only superpower.
951658
Alex, excellent question!! All of you who insist this is Bush's war, please explain the following:\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 (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. \n\n"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." \n    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. \n\n"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."\n    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. \n\n"There is unmistakable evidenc