3.Why did we invade Afghanistan and get involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom?
479856
The answer according to those in the Bush Admin is that Afghanistan harbored and supported terrorist (Osama bin Ladin and Alcada).  Iraqi was again the support of terrorist organizations and the threat that he had nuclear and biological weapons.
1134813
We had no business being in Iraq in the first place. There are only two reasons why Goerge Bush invaded this sovereign nation: 1) he wanted to 'get even' with Saddam Hussein for humiliating his daddy during Desert Storm; 2) Dick Cheney wants all that oil swimming underneath Iraq's sands.\n\nSo, Cheney and Rumsfeld persuaded Bush to proceed with an illegal, unconstitutional war.\n\n(Check out a new blog - BUSHWACKER! -\nwww.blogger.com\nhttp://al-aback.blogspot.com)\n\nFinding no weapons of mass destruction, Bush is too much of a 'macho man' to back down, so continues his charade by telling Americans that Iraq is part of an "evil empire". Truth be told, the only "evil empire" is that of the United States as it bullies other countries around the world for its own economic benefit. Let's face it: there are all kinds of other despots running regimes around the world, but Bush pays no attention to those dictatorships. Why? Because they have no OIL. So the United States allows the genocide to continue, sometimes even providing financial aid! \n\nBush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are indeed the most evil, corrupt and incompetent people ever to occupy the Oval Office. The sitting U.S. Congress is the most evil, corrupt and incompetent body ever to occupy the Capitol Building. \n\nAll of these people deserve to be impeached, or tried for high treason. If convicted they must face a firing squad. Their crimes against humanity, against the Constitution, and against the American populace are unspeakable. George Bush has murdered tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, not to mention more than 2,500 U.S. soldiers. \n\nBush has no interest in turning Iraq into a democracy (how many other countries is he using these forceful tactics on to change their way of government?). Prediction: NO TROOPS WILL BE WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ UNTIL DICK CHENEY HAS AN IRON-CLAD, ROCK-SOLID AGREEMENT IN PLACE TO ACQUIRE ALL OF IRAQ'S OIL so that he and his friends at Hallaburton and Exxon-Mobil can become even more obscenely wealthy.\n\nShould there be a time table for withdrawal? Of course; since we're already there, it would be chaos if we left immediately. But we should have never been there in the first place. What George Bush did was illegal, evil, and repugnant to most of the civilized world. Bush has put Americans trillions of dollars into debt' he has tarnished our reputation as a global leader; and he has helped spread the terrorist movement because, now, many small countries are terrified of the U.S.A., afraid that they, too will be bullied into accepting democracy or Christianity as their way of life. Nuclear weapons might be their only way of defending themselves against the tyrannical United States.\n\nHistory will certainly record Bush as the stupidest man ever to occupy the White House, to date. If he and his cronies ever get convicted of high crimes, certainly Satan will have a special oil-saturated corner of Hell reserved for them, where then can spend their eternal damnation blaming each other for the mess they made of this Earth.\n\nBush's failed economic policies promises to make us a third-world country within a generation (China will then become the global power). Bush's 'cowboy capitalism' has made us the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. Bush's "tough" actions only shows his true colors: he is nothing more than an impotent, paranoid, insecure psychopath suffering from "little king" syndrome. \n\nWhat Bush has wrought will force Americans to live a lesser quality of life for generations to come. Within 50 years, the USA will be a two-tier social class: a handful of the very, very rich - and (the rest of us) the very, very poor, just like we see in Haiti and the Dominican Republic today.\n\nThe real tragedy is that there is no bright alternative on the horizon. Even if all the Republic maggots get thrown out, they'll only be replace
471846
There are three reasons for being in Iraq:\n\n1. Oil\n2. Oil\n3. OIL!\n\nOther than that, there is oil.\n\nIn a speech on campus last night Dinesh D'sousa, a prior advisor to the Regan administration explained the distance between political rhetoric of the Republican party and action.  The REAL reasons for war in Iraq, according to D'sousa is\n\n1. Oil.  Oil prices are low because we have bullied them low through military action.\n\n2. End the sanctions against Iraq which had killed hundreds of thousands of children, yet not budged SH.\n\n3. Send a message to terrorists and their sponsors that the US will respond with force and has the will to fight (we can safely assume that anyone promoting people flying aircraft to kill innocent people in the name of war are psychopaths, no matter what the human tools were programmed to believe)\n\n4. Containment of the anti-US Iran, which is viewed as the real top terrorist investor, but usually manages to avoid creating the public situation in which there is a political premise for war.  Basically, while we are engaged in hot conflicts in neighboring states, we have technically been in a state of cold war with Iran for over a decade...  (consider long-term trends with other countries the US refused to recognize).\n\n5. We are likewise in an undeclared cultural war with a significant segment of the Islamic world that does not appreciate religious diversity or liberalism and would happily have your head chopped off if you suggested gay marriage be ok, or that all groups be treated fairly, or that women be treated with respect and "equality."  It is, as with the Cold War, the result of two incompatible worldviews struggling on this level for world domination.\n\nA MAJOR weakness of his arguements was this:\n\nA problem of promoting real democracy in the middle east is that middle east democracies have tended to support the kind of regimes that are hostile to the US!  As a result, the US has often supported liberal dictators over Islamic fundamentalist elected officials.  In a way, this is not so different of an attitude within the US of Democratic party supporters being angry at the "bad decision" of many other US citizens.  Democracy isn't necessarily what we hope it would be over there either.  So - here is the part he did not state - how does it make sense to try to build democracy in Iraq if the majority of Iraq is muslim and muslims have been hostile to the US?\n\nAs I had argued LONG before troops were deployed, there were better, or at least more plausable, reasons to attack Iraq and occupy it for the time.  These reasons also indicate that we can expect to have a base in Iraq for a long time.\n\nAnother reason why the US are over there:\n\nCurrently 80% of the country is allied to the US.  The remaining 20% (Bathists) are bitter about being removed from power and is the remaining opposition force, with far smaller numbers actually fighting.  So if we leave, we let down 80% of Iraq to accomodate an abusive minority group (how else did SH maintain power?).\n\nNow do I LIKE it?  No.  Is it practical?  Maybe not, but those are the reasons why the US is in Iraq today.  I certainly hate the idea of vulturous investors getting rich on weapons and oil stocks.  Then there are people like Michael Moore joining in on the investing... Well, can I blame them if nobody is going to stop it?  I don't know how to stop them myself, so I just tell them they are wrong to profit from someone else's misery...\n\nLike the detractors to the idea of there being WMDs in Iraq, D'sousa had the advantage of speaking from hindsight.  My own opinions that reflected *some* of these arguments - that the UN sanctions were unethical and untenable in particular - were presented in a public forum even on the very day that Bush publicly announced the invasion.  I guess that's what I get for not copywriting and demanding I am properly cited.  (shrugs)\n\nPS.  It is because o
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.
256815
Unfinished business. We should never have just pulled out after the Soviet defeat in the 80s. By allowing a political vacuum to occur and recognizing the Taliban as we did, we faced the consequences on 9/11 when OBL was able to operate from there with the Afghanistani government's permission.\n\nAs soon as the US leaves it will go back to poppies, drug smuggling and war lords.\n\nIn short it is in our strategic best interest to be there - unlike that quagmire in Iraq.
1066725
How can I say this so the some of the people answering this question will understand. IRAQ WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOT THE 9/11 ATTACKS AND NEITHER WAS AFGHANISTAN.\n\nIs that clear enough? Now given that they weren't responsible, whay are they being invaded? What could they possibly have that the US wnats? Oh my gosh! shock! horror! it's oil. Of course the US is stealing Iraqi resources.
766528
The US did not abandon Afghanistan, we are dropping millions of dollars into their infrastructure, NATO has taken over the daily operation of all the military personnel from all the nations who are participating, the same as they will in Iraq when it becomes a little more stable. America still has 1,3000 troops in Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban every day and the Afghan military is taking a much larger role in providing security for their Nation. There is no linkage because abandonment has not happened!
864282
Here are a few things \n\n1. Not accepting the Taliban's offer on Sept 18 & 19, 2001 to hand over B.Laden\n\n2. Invading and occupying Iraq.\n\n3. Violating the constituion repeatedly that he took an oath to protect. IE, Faith-Based Initiatives, etc...\n\n4. Violating our laws. IE, illegal wiretaps, illegal examination of bank records, etc...\n\n5. Repeatedly lieing to the American ppl. The American ppl can understand about anything when they feel there is a good reason and as long as they do not feel lied to. IE, WMDs, reasons for being in Iraq, Iraq would pay for itself with their oil, the economy would recover by now, etc...
1076403
The USSR invaded Afghanistan, but never captured it as you claimed. That is because the United States assisted the Afghanis against Russia. After all, Russia was our enemy at that time in the cold war and the Afghanis had done nothing to warrant an attack. In return for our assistance, Bin Laden decided to bite the hand that fed him and turn on America in his quest to commit terrorist acts. Is it wrong to try to help someone and be a friend? Is it Americas fault that Bin Laden wanted to commit terrorist acts against us? Just goes to show that you can nothing to help these people. They are the enemy of the world. And you are a stupid jackass!
906313
In my opinion, war contracts and oil.\n\nSaddam was invaded because of Location, Location, Location.
625209
He invaded Kuwait, an ally of ours. He began to kill the people and burn the oil fields. Desert Storm drove him out of Kuwait and back to Iraq where he continued to butcher his own people and threaten to amass weapons of mass destruction.
720684
I have served in the Marine Corps through both afghanistan and iraq. I will tell you honestly, We had to go there. We had to fight. There are two points that the military is instructed to carry out 1)Defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. 2) Defend those who cannot defend themselves. Now if your asking if we should still be there, I believe we should be there as an advisor role only. We should no longer be patroling those roads and streets that I had to when the wars originally started. Its been over 3 years since the start of Iraq and almost 5 since the start of Afghanistan. We should be pulling out faster and letting them decide how they wish to live just as we did after the revolutionary war.
1089535
Well Sadam did have WMDs and we all (Clinton even) knew it. But our real reason for being in Iraq is to strategically get the jump on Iran. Afghanistan is on one side of Iran and Iraq is on the other. Iran is backed by China. You can see the cards stacking up here on the way to WWIII.
393027
I do think that Iraq was to take the attention away from Afghanistan, seems both have taken some hits. the most important thing is not the wars per say but to support our sailors, and ground troops who do the mucking.\nonly time will tell, as even the civil war was to last for 100 years. Take care and bless a troop.
741890
You should not participate in this at all. These are the reasons:\n\n1. It is the responsibility of the US Defence Department to feed US troops.\n2. The US troops illegally invaded Iraq - there were no WMDs, and we all knew this.\n3. The continued illegal occupation of the country has exacerbated the situation within the country, and is the cause of the continuous round of killings there.\n4. The US Government needs to withdraw its troops, and that is the message of the mid-term elections.\n5. You should expend your efforts on the campaign to bring the troops home.
264718
When the liberation of Afghanistan was complete, the US Government announced that all satellite imagery from the area had been purchased by the USA for an indefinite period of time. It is not possible for anyone outside of the US Government to have access to satellite photography in Afghanistan.\n\nAlso, physically it is very difficult for independent news sources to actually get anywhere outside of Kabul. The country is extremely mountainous and the road infrastructure is in ruins. The country has literally millions of landmines that were placed with little rhyme or reason. Even if the people who placed them wanted to pay to remove them, there are no maps of where they are because they were simply dropped from helicopters or planted by roving patrols.\n\nIraq, no matter what anyone wants to say, is a relatively modern country with an adequate transportation net except in the Kurdish areas (again, mountainous plus it was heavily persecuted under the Hussein regime). Iraq has extensive open borders with several countries that would not mind the Coalition being embarrassed by reporters who can sneak in just as easily as terrorists can (maybe they carpool together?).\n\nAlso, there just isn't as much interest in the viewing public for information coming from Afghanistan. The US presence is about 1/5 the size in Iraq, and the forces there are largely Special Forces who are not supposed to be photographed anyways. The bulk of the Coalition forces are actually not American, so that would shoot down the whole "Anti-American Conspiracy Theory" that we hear so much about (a French soldier was just killed there the other day, in case anyone cares).
307924
I think he would have gone into Afghanistan and focused on getting Bin Laden. He probably would also have strengthened security measures within the states (something that Bush still hasn't done, or at least not to an extent where it shows a difference). One thing that he would not have done was go into Iraq for supposed WMDs.