do you think that first gulf war was just? why?
367622
No, the Gulf War was just away for the Bush Regime to take over the areas that they deem as the necessary regions to further their takeover for oil domination. Sorry for them they cannot get what they want....
788037
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 .
23786
hello frnds.i fully agree that the iraqi war was all due 2 the oil rights.it had nothin 2 do with any nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction said 2 be possesed by iraq.it was just a rumour created by the greedy US politicians 2 justify their cause of attackin iraq and in the process gainin control over the iraqi oil wells.as such it has been 2 yrs since iraq has been under the control of the US.no weapons of mass destruction has been found uptil date.so it goes on 2 show the farce the US played.
723092
No.  Can't think that self-actualization came into play in that war.  Perhaps safety needs were the main focus for those that were fighting.
54857
It's Iraq, and the oil is important, but only to control militaries and sustain ours to enforce the economy. This is one of the "benefits" and or motives of invading Iraq however, we invaded Iraq because Hussein sported the idea of Arab nationalism which would have created a middle eastern european union and challenge our economy and therefore our idea of security. Is this right no, but I can see how some politicians could see this as noble. Also our economy is one of scales. Meaning that the more that is produced the cheaper it is too make a product. In the era of soft money it is feasible and happening that contrators need perpetual war to sustain themselves and hence our economy.
321730
The war was for regime change, it was always for regime change, not to catch Saddam, and not to find WMD. There is not a stable new government in place yet, so it's not time to leave yet: that has been the plan all along.\n\nWe are no longer fighting a war there, we are in a peacekeeping role, yes, against an insurgency. And we are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government, and under a UN mandate, and both the invitation and the mandate get renewed every year. So the whole world pretty much agrees that we should be there, except you :)\n\nThe "we are there for the oil" argument is total BS and always has been. Iraq under Saddam wanted to sell their oil. We were the ones that said "no". If we wanted their oil so much, all we had to do was lift the embargo, which is what France wanted to do. So why don't you accuse France of wanting Iraq's oil? We were the ones who would not let Iraq sell it. \n\n(Please, if you want to make an argument, at least make it consistent with the history)
596294
I don't believe this war was about oil--- we get most of our oil from other sources--- I believe it was about strategic positioning of our allies (in other words, we want access to the land and won't get it unless a friendly government is in power). We basically want to set up military bases somewhere in the Middle East, and what better way to do it than to "liberate" Iraq!  And the African nations do not have any similar resource--- oil, land, political allegiances, natural resources--- that we can use to our advantage, so we don't get involved. Pretty sad, considering the horrible genocides going on in some countries.\n\nAnd to the poster who said that all Africans have AIDS and why attack them when they'll die off on their own... that's just one of the ugliest things I have ever heard. And there was no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and there's no WMD either... not sure how you are getting your facts...
1112740
I don't think the war should have happened to begin with. Yeah getting Saddam was a plus but so far it's been the only positive of going there. Now here we are a couple years later and we're still fighting. Saddam was a bad guy I'm not going to deny that but we didn't go over there to remove him from power. We were supposed to find WMD's and regardless of what you hear, no WMD's were found. Yes there was some mustard gas found but it was over 15 years old and it wouldn't have done anything. Now we're stuck in a terrible situation. We totally destroyed a country and now we're going to be there for a long time trying to rebuild what we tore down. We need to get out of there.
974553
This was a massive plunder operation under the guise of patriotism misplaced.  It is otherwise known as the big lie.  Iraq was ugly for many, but peaceful.  Now Iraq is a violent shambles,directly due to the intervention of GW Bush.  If there were no oil there, do you think we would be there?  Not a chance.
532928
There were definately WMDs there, we sold them some!  However I think he made some assumptions, and perhaps lied as well as to the seriousness of the situation.\n\n- I don't believe we invaded to protect USA against an Iraqi attack\n- I don't believe we spent billions on a war to save a nickel at the pumps\n- I DO believe they assumed that the Iraqi citizens would be helpful and not resist\n- I SUSPECT that the real reason behind our invasion had to do not directly with oil, but indirectly the power behind it.  Iraq began to accept Euros for oil, which devalued the dollar.  Also, whoever controls the most oil controls the most power.  Not to mention Saddam WAS a mean ole bastard and it was a nice diversion from the "We can't find Bin Laden" stories that had been all over the place.  I just don't think it went as smoothly as we had hoped.
636979
The war was over Iraq invading Kuwait in August of 1990.  Saudi Arabia thought they would be next and invited countries to defend them against attack.  American had been protecting Kuwaiti oil tankers with our Navy for 10 years, so we had a basis for standing up for them.  The WORLD knew what Saddam did was wrong, and even Syria was on our side.  Only the Palestinians and the Jordanians supported Saddam.  We send hundreds of thousands of troops from all of the world, to Saudi Arabia to set up a massive invasion force.  Then we started bombing in late 1990 and then invaded with the ground force in January 1991.  Iraq sued for peace in less than 100 hours, because we kicked the living snot out of them.\n\nThe United Nations resolution that authorized the war was only for the liberation of Kuwait and not for the removal of the government of Iraq, this is why we did not go to Baghdad and take out Saddam then.  There was also concern that the country would go into civil war, Kind like now!!!
485340
History judges us all and this particular war may be judged either way. Most opinion points towards it being pointless and a massivley needless loss of life. The pre-texts on going to war had alot of fabrications and in reality the US wanted control of the oil flow and also the middle east is a strategic part of the world. Those are two reasons for the invasion. \n\nIraq didn't have WMD and was halfway around the world with no way of threatning the US. If people would like to say that it was harbouring terrorists then most nations on earth are guilty as most terrorists live in obscurity and the domestic security services haven't tracked them down. Any nation is guilty of harbouring terrorists has the security services haven't stopped them from entering. \n\nSaddam was however guilty of inhuman acts and Iraq was a country denied some basic human rights. Those are two good reasons for the invasion. That can't however be used alone as many other countrys have the same problems and these are dealt with by the UN the same should have been for Iraq. Unfourtunatley the UN is often seen as doing very little a for example Sudan, Sierra Leone and Somalia. All we can do for these countries is send aid which sometimes gets confiscated.\n\nHistory will be the judge and we have to be content with that for now.
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.
1127212
No, not at all. \n\nAs early as summer of 2000, I was taking bets on when --- not if, when --- GWB would get us involved in a mid-east war (provided he secured the presidency, of course). Giving the military to George W Bush was like giving a hammer to a three year old. Suddenly everything looks like a nail.\n\nThere were so many other options available this evil man chose to ignore those other options in his rush to war. He has deliberately and dishonorably sacrificed the lives of our sons and daughters to his pride and ambition.
871458
Its very political and it would take hours to explain if I typed it out.  Believe me it is all in our (being US citizens) best interest.  People are oppossed to the war because it is not a quick and decisive victory.  You didnt see any demonstrators in Desert Storm...why?  Because the casualities were low and the victory was quick.  I dont like seeing our young men die over there more than anyone else but, we can not give in.  The war against terrorism did not just start we have been at it since the Iranians took over the US embassy in the late 70's.
1006095
You know, 500 years ago there were wars going on in the Middle East...not about oil.\n300 years prior to that there were wars in the Middle East... not about oil.\n700 years prior to that there were wars in the Middle East... not about oil.\n900 years prior to that there were wars in the Middle East... not about oil.\n400 years prior to that there were wars in the Middle East... not about oil.\nAnd on and on and on...\n\nThis war is not about oil.  This war is about getting a foothold in the most strategic location on the planet.
876408
Obviously, this is a very subjective question.\n\nIf I were an Iraqi who mysteriously lost a loved one who was subsequently dug up in a mass grave years later by American troops - the answer is a resounding, yes.\n\nIf I am a critic of the war and feel, despite the overall conditions of the country under Saddam, that it was more "stable" before we ousted him, I would answer, no.\n\nBoth answers would be honest and the truth - depending on ones perspective.