Does any one know what's the real reason behind Iraq's invasion?
355147
Do a search on "PNAC" and read the documents. Notice who established this site in 1997 well before 9/11. The plan is all there. We will also be invading Iran.
105186
Here are some of the justifications for invading Irak:\n\nThreat From Saddam Hussein \nIraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction \nTerrorism and Terrorist Links \nHuman Rights Abuses \nIraq's Oil \nSpreading Democracy In the Middle East \nIraq's United Nation Security Council Resolution \nViolations Preemption \nIntelligence \n\nAll of them have been proven worng.  All of them were excuses made by the Bush administration.\n\nWhen Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, says, "It was a serious crisis. I believe that Iraq came to the brink and came back," the swiftness of his prognosis sounds like little more than wishful thinking. Less than a week after an event that has already resulted in 1,300 deaths, it seems way too early to be declaring that Iraq has clearly pulled back from the brink of civil war. Moreover, when US military spokesman, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, says, "The violence did not escalate, because of the measures [the Iraqi government] took. We had forces standing by if needed. Fortunately, that need wasn't realized," he is exaggerating the influence of elected officials, overestimating the capabilities of Iraqi and US forces, and minimizing the role of clerics in controlling the violence. While the US military and Iraqi government clearly want to sustain the impression that they have everything under control, a much more credible view of the situation comes from Capt. Gregory Stone, who said, "It felt -- at times -- like someone else's war."\n\nThe short answer is yes, civil war is the result of the Bush administration intervention in the Middle East.  But that's exactly what they expect.
350329
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?
555876
Control of oil is the primary motivation for this war. It’s why Iraq was a target for war. It’s why the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein in the 1970s and ’80s when he was an ally and a friend--when Donald Rumsfeld met with him in Baghdad. It’s why the U.S. is going to occupy Iraq until it can impose a government that’s suitable to U.S. interests. And it’s why Iran and Syria are now in the crosshairs.
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.
593642
There is good article on the BBC website that gives two views on the future in Iraq.\n\nIt summarises both sides of the argument.
465159
No. They don't.\n\nThe US Government reasons for invasion were both misleading and untrue.\n\nThe reasons stated were the following:\n\n(1) Disable WMD's located in Iraq under the control of Saddam Hussein.\n * What WMDS? Been 3 years now, and everybody has been over Iraq with a fine comb and can't find anything, all they found was two weather balloon research stations.\n\n(2) End Saddam Hussein's 'Regime'\n * Before anybody casts judgment of Saddam Hussein, it may be worth while learning about him, through this wikipedia link is a good start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein, he modernized the Arabic state of Iraq into a beacon of industrialization and education. Teaching kids to read and eradicate illiteracy and reforms to power schemes, resources expansion projects and agricultural projects. Many Iraqi people interviewed on Arabic Media outlets such as Al Jazeera (not biased media like Fox News) say they were better off under Saddam’s rule, some are even hoping he may run for the Iraqi Elections soon. \n\n(3) Secure Iraq's oil fields and other resources\n * This is a underhanded  strategy, the plan was to get the new Iraqi puppet government to start trading oil back in the US dollar, since 2000, Iraq had used the Euro as its oil export currency, and this was seriously having an effect on the US Dollar in turn, this was a easy way to help 'kickstart' the US economy.\n\n(4) End sanctions and deliver humanitarian support\n * UN have been providing aid for years, and despite delusional ramblings by US Government puppet Madeline Albright, it has been delivered, and as far as humanitarian support, more civilians have been killed by US Air Strikes than any supposed mistreatment by the Iraqi Government, the UN described the Saddam Regime Iraqi Health System as the best in the Middle East, even rivaling many in the West.\n\nThe US has no reason for being there, find another scape goat and get out. BBC has said that even though the US reason was to stop terrorist harbored in Iraq it has spurred on even more attacks and terrorist activities.\n\nAdmit in Bush.... you failed. Get the troops out before you have to inform more American Families that their son or daughter has been lost on the battlefields to this excuse for a military action.
1008427
Nukes. Was that the real reason or the one they gave you? How old are you? The real reason for going to Iraq was for oil.
1035301
I can think of a few reasons regarding the war in Iraq:\n\n-  Violations of 17 U.N. resolutions\n-  Violations of human rights\n-  Massacre of hundreds of thousands of Kurds\n-  Demonstrated the use of chemical weapons\n-  Financed terrorist factions in other Middle Eastern countries\n-  Rewarded suicide bombers' families\n-  Shot at our planes patrolling the no-fly zones\n-  Invaded Kuwait\n\nThe case for Iraq can be argued on many fronts.  Only those that forget the attrocities of the Baath regime and the importance to fight state-sponsored terrorism allow themselves to be persuaded from one side of the issue to the other.  In the days and weeks that followed 9/11, you had a different mindset.  It's no excuse to falter from that just because months and years have gone by.  For all you know, the aggression our country has shown in response is the reason why you haven't had to go through another horrific ordeal.\n\nAs for the North Korea comparison...\n\nIt is a separate issue for many reasons.  You must deal with nations that already possess nuclear weapons on a different scale.  No matter how contradictory this may seem, there aren't any other good options.  It must be a slow but strong diplomatic process that exercises all of its power before any military option is considered.  In most cases, the preemption measure will never be considered.  This is where an attack must be the reason to go to war.\n\n\nkiko,\nDon't give into the oil conspiracy.  From your brief response, it seems like you're one of the sensible Democrats that can listen to reason.  For the record, I haven't seen the price of gasoline drop at the pump.  In fact, it has risen more than 25% since the Iraq war started.  Plus, we're not staying in Iraq.  It is nothing more than an assumption we are there for that reason.  \n\nYou should focus more of your "intelligent" intuitiveness into arguing valid points of the war.  Even as a staunch Republican, I can admit that there were some serious mistakes made in this war.  But at the same time, I can see that there's only so much you can predict and expect to be perfect.  We are all human after all.
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.
952762
You opened up a huge can of worms now..\n\nBack during the first Gulf war, Saddam invaded Kuwait.  We went in and crushed him then.  Every since he has been pissed so he screws with us, the UN and anyone else who tries to keep him from killing everyone... including his own people.\n\nWell, enough was enough and then the UN sanctions were not met and he refused to allow inspectors in.  He was given an ultimatum.  He lost. \n\nNow, all the liberals and uniformed are going to say for:\n\n1. revenge.\n2. oil. \n\nThats crap.
488712
This war in Iraq was planned by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield even before the election of George W in 2000. They were just waiting for the right "excuse" to invade Iraq and 9/11 gave it to them. Justification for the war was fabricated by faulty intelligence of WMD and we are now paying the price for rushing into a war without the careful planning of what would happen after the overthrow of Hussein.Isn't it strange how we have to approve an "emergency budget" even years after the invasion occurred? Good planning all around and we will be a military prescence in Iraq(Iran??) for years to come.
1048535
The Iraq war was a farce. Big oil is the answer!
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.
246893
Ask the Iraqui's.\n\nThey want us there.\n\nThe UN wanted us there.\n\nTherefore, everything you've said against the war or Bush is a Fairy Tale.
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.
827229
No kidding. If we were actually there to spread democracy I would try to answer this question. But we all know the real reason we invaded that country.