If not Iraq, would the American government have just lashed out on any country after 911?
485307
They would only lash out at countries with oil and a non-US friendly oil policy
1000835
Yes do you think there was a better way of getting public support without an incident in this country? He was feeding of the country's rage and sadness to manipulate the situation to get back over there. There are roomers that there was a notice on his desk about that 2 days prior to the 9/11 incident yet nothing was done. Things that make you go hum-mm.
108486
No. Iraq posed no military threat to the US.  They had nothing  to do with 9/11, but did happen to be sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the world.  This was a military adventure, a colonial war of choice - and one we are not going to win.
1019721
the us could have prevented the first 9-11 from happening, they knew before hand and chose to do nothing. So what makes anyone think they will do anything the next time something like this happens
676255
No. Iraqis are falling into abyss and the Americans are nowhere in getting order to that country. So what if the new government was form. It's just America's system of assuring to the world that they've got things under control in Iraq. There's still suicide bombers in Iraq more frequent than it is in Palestine territories.\n\nIraqis are also not better off under Saddam. Saddam did lots of nasty things but not featured on the news so you don't know what had happened in Iraq under Saddam regime.\n\nSolution. It would be better if the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) step in Iraq and dispel the US.
1115240
Absolutely not.  Going to war should be a last resort, not an offensive attack on a country who may possibly attack us someday.  In my opinion, all the spin about Iraq having WMDs was a smoke screen and an excuse to invade them to retaliate for the bad blood between Sadam and Bush Sr.  And if I read or hear one more person stating that we're at war over September 11, I'm going to vomit.  Why is it so hard to comprehend that Bin Laden, the Taliban and al Quaida were responsible for the 9/11 attacks - not Sadam or the Iraqis?  They are not one in the same.  They are not even from the same countries.  They have a religion in common.  But many ignorant people who lump them together do so because they eat up what they are told by the government and the media.  God bless the day people will make an effort to inform themselves and form their own thoughts...
595577
Hindsight is 20-20, but I'm not sure. We still would have lost American lives so it seems like we would still have gone. However because of how brutal and devastating the attacks were that they hit a target and how they have permanently scared DC and NYC, those things might have had a larger effect on the decision than the acts themselves... OK, I think we would have no matter what. I believe Bush wanted to go to war and unfortunately 9-11 gave him an opportunity to do so without a fight from government or the American people.
599
No, in time of war and when national security is threatened, it is lawful to take such action. 9/11 changed alot of things.\n\nBTW-Should John F. Kennedy have been impeached for spying on Martin Luther King?
518162
It would've occurred no matter who was in office..they're pissed at US military presence in saudi arabia and supporting israel.
511314
Iraq was full of waring tribes before we got there.  It's like Spainish troops invading America during our civil war, picking a side and fighting for that side.  What business would it be of Spain??  Especially if they sided with the "wrong" side.  Not saying we are, just that we don't have the right to be the world police, especially under unfounded circumstances.  It's too late now, and now we [the troops directly] gotta deal with it.  Poor decision making skills.\n\nThe answer to your question.... Iraq would be basically in the same situation they've been in for years.  Maybe with a different outlook though.  However, the US would be blamed for all of it, cause "no one" really seemed to care about what was going on in Iraq (for Iraq) before we invaded.  Part of it is our fault..... but hey... I didn't vote for Bush... twice.
350818
No.\n\nIn my opinion, the US Government felt the Iraq regime was too unstable, too dangerous, and too potentially volatile to be left in place as a detriment to the War on Terrorism. While it seems true that Iraq did not participate in 9/11, it also seems true that Iraq had approached Al Quaeda before and had offered to cooperate; it was Al Quaeda that turned down Iraq, not the other way around. One of the reasons why Hussein was more defiant in the 1990's was because the huge armies assembled for the Gulf War '91 had long since been disbanded.\n\nHistory will judge whether this was a correct or incorrect decision. I understand that a lot of people don't like President Bush. He came into office in 2001 demanding acceptance and obedience from the American people far in excess of whatever mandate he may have received from the election, and certainly has not stopped appearing arrogant. However, I do feel he made this decision with relatively good intentions. Perhaps the problem was that when he pulled his carrier stunt he really DID believe the mission was accomplished.
850254
Gees, I could have sworn it was Bush who stood on the Kuwaitt Border telling the Iraqi's to overthrow their government! And we gave Saddam the gas!\n\nWonder what would happen in the US if we tried to overthrow the government and how many would be killed! But that's ok! Right?\n\nWe didn't say a damn thing when he used it on Iran, in fact we effectively kept the UN from sanctioning him by using our veto powers!\n\nIt's ok for us! Just no one else!
31474
NO! NO! NO! And to these people saying that oh we are fighting the people that brought down the towers. Iraq had nothing to do with that so destroying the people and their country is stupid. The reason the terrorists are there are because we are. They want to kill US! So we should have stayed in afganastan and then to saudi arabia where the killers of 911 came from. That is if you even believe all that our goverment has told you.
571940
If you read history, our own and almost every government since Roman times has done what are called "false flag terror attacks".  It wouldn't be any kind of stretch to see 9/11 in the same light as Pearl Harbor (which we intentionally "let happen"), the sinking of the USS Maine in Cuba, the now very debunked "Gulf of Tonkin" incident.  Internationally, these operations have been par for the course in our dirty foreign policies for the last 100 years.\n\nPretty much every major war for the last 100+ years in the US has been started over a proven lie or "manipulation" to garner public support, why should 9/11 be any different?
378877
No, this time the enemy will be able to hit American targets, the government will react by ending indivdual's freedoms and then you won't know what you're fighting for again (so in that respect yes).
560379
Yes....    not sure how else to answer it....   but let's compare... if a whole much of muslims landed in the US, set up bases, and declared their form of martial law... would we be upset with them?  I think Americans find it hard to understand their own foreign policies since such events has never happened to America...   maybe someday it will and then "some" people might see what it is like to be invaded.
1139307
First of all we did not take over Iraq.  Iraq has its own government (Thanks to the USA) and they make their own rules and laws. We are their to keep the county from falling apart.  You are right about it not being about 9/11, it is for other reasons.  Iraq is the country the took over another country when it invaded Kuwit in the early 90's.  After we kicked them out they have broken over 20 UN resolutions which were put on them by the whole wrold not just the USA.  They consistaly shot missiles at our planes which were patroling their airspace (if thats not an act of war then I dont know what is).  They have used WMD's and would refuse to let weapons inspector into there country. Us going into Iraq was voted on by our congress and by the UN secerity counsle, both of which agreed that Saddam needed to go.  And for your "Bush is a oil hungry Mad-man" comment.  We have not taken one drop of oil from the Iraqi people that oil belongs to them. If you want proof of that just look at the gas prices.