Why did the U.S. become involved in the Persian Gulf War?
365858
Sadam Hussein invaded Kuwait.  The U.S. and other world militaries came to the aid of the Kuwaities.
677081
The problems in the entire Middle east stem from the fact that these countries were held as possessions of the global empires for many years only to be cut loose when occupation was no longer profitable. We, the US, and our allies have exacerbated the situation with our invasion under false pretenses. The Iraqi people need to realize that the other Iraqis are not the enemies, big oil is.
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.)
472676
Everyone, Settle down. Lets say if the us does attack Iran with in the next few months... there will be a few issues to arrise. \n\nHow can we maintain a constant shipment of oil and goods through the persian gulf?\n\nWhat will be the toll of a full scale in vasion on Iran?\n\nWill Isreal play a part?\n\nNow, considering our current locations you have to realize we are surronding Iran. East- Afghan. West- Iraq SW- Persian Gulf (Which contains US Navy Bases) We have an extremely good capability on the assault on Iran because there Ballistic Missile program doesnot hurt the US (It can really successfully target Isreal and european countries. And due to lack of accuracy there missiles can not really successfully target iraqi or afghan US bases though possible) \n\nThe actual use of US Soldiers will most likely be minimal in comparison to the Iraq effort. Most of Iran's time money and effort has gone into three things, Ballistic Missiles, Navy equip and Nuclear engineering. They are still very Third world in other aspects of military life. \n\nNow, as far as China is concerned they have recently tried to deal with russia in regards to oil (very lil US oil comes from Iran) so they can circumvent Iran. Also, China is trying to increase Sino-US relations as far as terrorism is concerned so they will most likely not take any sort of side in this conflict.\n\nRussia, they might be overall neutral but slightly more Bias towards Iran due to the fact they still have deep issues with the US. They might help Iran but the aid would be minimal incase of conflict because they do not want any open-press coverage of something like that.\n\nIsreal- The questions with Isreal's involvement are more less simple but the answers are TBD. Will Iran try to strike Isreal in last effort? Will Syria get involved(with their own goal ie: taking back the homeland) if Isreal does?\nHow will Jordan come into play, or will they not?\n\nSaudi Arbia, UAE, Quatar, Bahrain and Oman- All of these countries success lie with in US/european markets. I whole heartedly beleive they will try to stir some propaganda about this NOT being a religous war so they can gain more money and profits. Thank god for greed.\n\nPakistan- Due to the border relation with Iran will Pakistan be Neutral? They cant go against the US, They are to close of an alie. But If they did non can gurantee India would not attack them and end them for good.\n\nThats all I am gonna cover if you have any other ?'s, as always, Just Ask! : )
791709
Iraq/Iran served as a proxy war between the US and USSR, as did Afghanistan.  The weapons and trasining provided to the Iraqis and Afghanistanis were free, we didn't sell anything.\n\nThese wars were the start of the events that led to the dissolution of the USSR.\n\nDespite liberal spin to the contrary, Reagan ran his White House, his Alzheimers did not manifest until he was out of office.
1172773
Good Point, but we went to war because Iraq violated specific portions of the treaty ending the gulf war (one of the things they did was kick out inspectors) \n\nThe treaty merely paused the hostility's from the last war, they violated it so as far as I am concerned it does not matter if their were WMDs or not, they didn't let us look therefor, resume hostility's.
623053
Actually, this war in Iraq is an extension of the first Gulf war in 91' because Saddam did not abide by 17 UN resolutions.  You could also say that the hatred Arabs have for Israel stems from WWII when the Holocaust occurred in Nazi Germany.  It was realized that the Jews had no homeland of their own and that is when the Jews obtained Israel.
1061517
After the oil crisis in the Carter administration, the United States pledged that it would explore any and all means necessary to protect oil interests in the middle east.  The modern world is totally dependent on oil.  In my opinion, which I by no means quote as fact (and therefore probably don't answer your question), the 9/11 attacks and the Bush administration's retaliatory efforts opened a door to finishing the war in Iraq.  They can say that the terrorists are in Afghanistan and take it over, they can say that their are terrorist supporters in Iraq and take it over.  Then they can blame faulty intelligence and install puppet governments to ensure future trade will go smoothly with oil producing countries.  The problem is that to destroy a government, you need to almost destroy a country, which includes destruction and death.  People tend to not like the military that is dropping bombs on or around their homes or killing relatives and friends.  If you want to have a peaceful relationship with a country you just took over, you have to be willing to rebuild it, even when some people are willing to fight you while you're doing it.  I think that the Bush administration or the military underestimated just how many people would be willing to fight them.  \n\nIn short, we (meaning the United States) have put ourselves into a catch 22.  If we want to make sure that the stated objective of a free Iraq is obtained, we need to keep troops there to help maintain order,  but by leaving troops there we are putting more American lives at risk.
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.
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.)
625223
USA is keeping Iran under pressure and giving signal to other Middle Eastern and Arab countries not to indulge terrorism. This way, interest of USA is protected by trying to suppress terrorism and controll of the oil price. At the same time, USA will not expect to see the rise of another nuclear power state in the Middle Eastern region especially Iran who has long dispute history with the USA and Israil. In my mind, unless unavoidable circumstances, USA will not go to War as they have found recent experinces from Iraq War.
944711
No, it has never been proven that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attack.  On the other hand we know that  Saudi Arabians made up the majority of those actually involved in the attacks that awlful day.  Our invasion of Iraq has cost the USA many of our sons and daugthers lives and wounded thousands, changing their lives forever, on top of that thousands of Iraq's citizens have been killed and thousands have fled their homeland since we went in to make their lives BETTER....  Now we have created a terrorist haven and brought Iraq to the point of civil war and the present administration does not have a clue as to how this all can be resolved.  They had done so little research about Iraq that they thought we would be welcomed as liberating heroes and the battle would be over when we stopped bombing.  Now three years later the situation in Iraq is worse not better.  What a mess!!
306466
Why would the Bush Administration risk widening Gulf War II to include Iran when it still has the chance to limit its losses to Iraq? The most popular explanation is that the US wants to pre-empt the Iranian decision to set up a Tehran oil bourse to facilitate the selling and buying of oil in euros instead of US dollars.\n\nThe idea is that this would cause a chain reaction in which more and more oil producers and their customers would trade in euros and eventually force the US to pay for its oil in euros too. This would mean the US would have to do what every other country in the world has to do, namely earn foreign exchange through exports in order to pay for its oil imports.\n\nLast year the US trade deficit for petroleum products was about $300 billion. While the $US remains the international reserve currency and oil continues to be traded in dollars, the US can pay for its oil simply by printing more IOUs in the form of US treasury bills.\n\nIf the US had to find euros (or yuan) to pay for its oil, it would have to increase taxes, cut consumption and increase exports. In short, according to this scenario, the US could no longer afford to be a military superpower and would have to cut back its global adventures.\n\nIn the process, the $US would collapse, wiping out the accumulated financial assets of America's major creditors and probably causing a depression of 1930s dimensions. More generally, such a development opens up the question of whether the reserve status of the $US is supporting US superpower status, or whether US military power is propping up the reserve currency status of the $US.
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.
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.
30086
Iraq and Kuwait had a number of disputes over money, territory and oil.\n\nIraq proceeded with the invasion because the US ambassador at the time, April Glaspie, advised Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz on July 25, 1990, that:\n\n"... we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait".\n\nSaddam took this to be a direct green light to proceed as he pleased.\n\n(Remember that up to this point the US supported Iraq).\n\nThe rest is history.\n\nFootnote\nThis answer does not suggest the US was complicit or responsible for the invasion.\n\nIn some ways we are fortunate that the ambassador's ill-chosen words precipitated the series of events that led to the destruction of Saddam's offensive war machine in 1991.\n\nHad the Kuwaiti invasion not have ocurred, we may well have had to confront a genuinely nuclear armed Iraq at a later date.
290601
If there is a war between USA and Iran it will be because Iran is threatening Western Europe and Israel. If that happens, then Iran will be bombed to destroy its infrastructure the way Vietnam was bombed.  Any war with Iran will be a defensive war in response to what Iran has done just as the war in Iraq was due to Iraq's attack on Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel and other middle eastern countries.  The USA contrary to public opinion is not a war monger and does not get involved in war unless it is attacked itself, or its allies are attacked.  The US was asked by many oil producing countries to get involved in Iraq, but sadly was not allowed to admit that this is what happened.