Why the real reason of US invading Iraq?
408020
The real reasons America is invading Iraq\nMarch 20 2003\n\n\n\n\nAmerica is seeking to ward off any threat to its economic domination of the world, writes Kenneth Davidson.\n\n\nGeorge Bush planned "regime change" in Iraq before becoming United States President in January 2001. The events of September 11, 2001, were the pretext for invasion of Iraq, not the reason.\n\nThe blueprint for the creation of a "global Pax America", to which Bush subscribes and which is driving the invasion of Iraq, was drawn up in September 2000 for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush (George's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).\n\nThe document, called Rebuilding America's Defences: strategies, forces and resources for a new century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century.\n\nAccording to the document, written three months before Bush became president, "the US for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."\n\nThe document outlines the global ambitions of the Bush Administration. It sets out a "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests".\n\n\n\n   advertisement \n    \n   advertisement \n\nThe question for John Howard must be: to what extent does his Government subscribe to the Bush strategy outlined in the think tank's document?\n\nHoward says Australia's participation in this war is in Australia's national interests. How?\n\nTo answer that question we must know why the war is being fought in the first place. For all I know, Bush, Howard and Tony Blair may be absolutely sincere when they claim that getting rid of Saddam is a humanitarian act that will make the Iraqis better off, or that Saddam has the will, the motive and the weapons of mass destruction capable of threatening other countries. But these are not the real reasons for the invasion.\n\nThe real reasons can be summed up as deciding who controls Middle East oil and gets access to the water from the Tigris and Euphrates, and what currency will be used to pay for the development of the oil and water resources.\n\nAccording to the think tank document, the US would have to increase its defence spending to 3.8 per cent of GDP (which it has just achieved) to finance an American military capability "to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" and to "perform constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions".\n\nThis is a massive task that can only be achieved if the US can continue to draw on the resources of the whole world, which in turn is only possible if the US can continue to run massive trading deficits with Western Europe, China and Japan. In other words, these regions must remain willing to exchange the product of their industries for American dollars.\n\nIt would be fatal to America's global strategic ambitions if countries in Europe began to ask for euros instead of US dollars for their exports, or if China demanded settlement of their accounts with the US in yuan instead of US dollars. The US would have to redirect domestic demand for imported goods paid for in dollar-denominated IOUs into exports to earn yuan and euros to pay for US imports.\n\nIt is difficult to see how the US could develop new, internationally competitive industries and run a military machine on the scale envisaged by the think tank without a massive increase in taxation and redistribution of wealth to the productive elements in the economy without precipitating a global recession.\n\nIn 2000, Saddam&#
927117
Because of all the WMDs that Saddam had.\nNo, wait a minute, because we wanted to spread democracy.\nOn second thought, it was to pursue the War of Terrorism.\nWait, it was because we went in and we have to stay the course.\nHang on, gimme a sec... \n\nI don't really know.
19516
Primarily because the government that is in place in the USA realizes that they cannot extract our troops without a serious international backlash. The USA is notorious for pulling out at the worse possible moment, before the job is done. The war in Iraq is nowhere near being finished, and to leave now would be ruinous. Bush didn't realize (like the rest of us did) that he was stepping into something with a very difficult and potentially bloody endgame.
431972
may be it is simple,,,,the whole business of the Iraq invasion was wrong...or may be they feel they are indeed intelligent and learned as to make themselves heard and express thier true thoughts....and as it begins to appeat now taht this Iraq invasion was not a worthy thing to do for the US, given the implications in the long run...so yeah they were intelligent and smart people as their thoughts tell.
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.
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.
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.
782979
Gotta be Iraq.........hence The United States and Great Britain invading it!
467933
Because US wasn't looking for chemical weapons in Iraq. Bush just needed an excuse to invade Iraq to get control of the loads of oil located there.
133821
Hi there,\n\nI think the reason is to show off their power or the greed for power.\n\nHere's why I think so-\n\nThe USA first attacked Iraq and captured Saddam Hussein near Tikrit. The reason Mr.Bush gave for that is that the USA suspects some biological weapons in Iraq.\n\nAfter the war was over but nothing revealed, Mr.Bush apologized for this bliss by saying that he received false intelligence reports. Now that's easy, it's the same thing as I kick you hard and then apologize. Whatever the damage should be done, it was done. \n\nSo I think the reason for these attacks is not any terrorist threat to USA or the greed for oil, but it is just to show off it's power to the world after the attack of Sep 11th. I just think it is a ploy to scare away the people. It means something like Mr.Bush wants to say "We are rich, we are powerful, we can do anything, so don't mess with us."\n\nI don't mean to offend all the Americans out there. I just told you my opinion about the attacks. If I offended anyone, my sincere apologies. And let me make it clear, I'm not being partial to Mr.Hussein. I think he ruled Iraq for quite some time with an iron fist.\n\nI just told you my opinion frankly, but anyone of you here are free to disagree with this. After all, everyone has their own thought process. \n\n\nrule wid style n luv@vinny
598263
I agree with you 100% We have no real reason for being in Iraq except that G.W. Bush wanted to finish what his daddy started No disrespect to our troops they are only going where they were sent Just like in 'Nam
122731
A better question would be why we're in Iraq in the first place.\n\nI still don't know.
1162445
The answer is not clear cut as there are many theories being bandied about on who is responsible for the attacks on the 11th of september 2001.\n\nThe clear answer is that The USA invaded Afghanistan because they believed the culprit for the attacks on Sptember 11th 2001, on the United Sates of America, to be the Taliban. As we now know, the Taliban denied the attacks and the origin of the film showed by 'Fox' news purporting to be Bin Laden, the leader of the Taliban, claiming responsibility for the attacks is unknown.\n\n'Conspiracy theory' suggests that the long answer is that the invsion was a calculated step to bring the USA closer to controlling the countries known to own major oil reserves. The USA governmnet held the Taliban responsible for the attacks in the USA on the 11th of Spetember. It was then purported that the Taliban (read up about the origins and history to the current time of the Taliban) had links to the Iraqi government, S Hussein, and that the Iraqi government had access to Nuclear weapons/ Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was based on this 'intelligence' that the USA invaded Iraq. This 'intelligence' has been found to be misinformation by both the USA and UK governments. Saddam Hussein is being charged for 140 murders of Curds. These men were found guilty of crimes against the state by the sovreign Iraqi courts and were sentenced to the maximun penalty of death. In Iraq, you can be sentenced out of your presence.\n\nThe USA invaded Afghanistan because they needed a route to Iraq. Controlling Iraq means that the USA is able to add momentum to it's economy by using it's two main money makers, the military and energy.\n\nYes, there is oil in Iraq.
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.
732308
Uh, duude, we're not "attacking" Iraq - we conquered their armies 3½ years ago. What's been going on for the past 2½ years is that we've been helping the democratically elected Iraqi government protect their people and train their troops and establish their new government. \n\nThanks for noticing!\n\nOh, and the reasons we went there:\nhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
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.
739027
We initially invaded Iraq because they had WMDs \nWe couldn't find any WMDs so now we are there to " liberate them"\nIt is possible to love America and disagree with the president. After all he is just a man.\nDemocracy gives us the right to disagree with our politicians.\nThe vote gives us the right to vote them out of office.