Why President George W. bush went to war in Iraq in 2003?
481657
This topic has been covered at least several hundred times in this forum.  Try researching the previously asked and answered questions so that we all don't have to keep repeating ourselves.
1071597
Mr Clinton stated that the reason he was sending troops was because Milosevic was committing genocide.  He was right and it was stopped.  Mr. Bush claimed he was sending troops because Saddam had WMD's, was starting a nuclear weapon program, had ties to AL Quada and was involved in 9-11.  All those things were wrong and now thousands of people are dead and the killing continues.  If Mr. Bush would have stated he was sending troops because Saddam was committing genocide, then he would have been right, also.  That's the difference: being right vrs. being wrong.
109185
He is the WAR president, silly.  Now that just would not make good sense would it?  FLASH! to pn... where is the evidence that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11.  Were there any terrorists attacking the US from Iraq ? NO.\nAfter the US led invasion and occupation, Iraq is a training ground for terrorists from around the world - thanks to Bush.\nBut we caused that mess and created a political vacuum that is leading to a civil war.  Don't be a sheep and follow the sheeple that bleat 9/11 9/11 , terra terra terra. \nThey are largely uninformed and misled.
844468
George W. Bush is a war criminal, a mass murderer and a barefaced liar. He can't be charged since he is still in power. "Diplomatic Immunity".  Because he lied, our troops died. Because of his arrogance and his favoritism between Shiites and Sunnis, a civil war occurred in Iraq and death among innocent people multiplied. So who is responsible for all this fiasco and death in Iraq? Bush and his Evil Team are responsible.
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.
256977
Bush wanted Iraq's oil.
863298
Two separate issue.\n\nWas there any valid reason for going to Iraq in the first place? Arguably. Even though Bush changed justifications like some people change socks, it's arguable that deposing Saddam wasn't a bad thing. So, even though it was a uninlateral act of agression, and in violation of international law, it could be argued as a good idea.\n\nHowever, staying in Iraq 3 years after "Mission Accomplished" is a different question, and has a very different answer. It's not the job of the US military to play local police indefinitely, or the role of the US to force a country to change it's legal or political system. \n\nIt's bad enough we toppled their own govt. Whatever reasons we might have had to do that, don't justify remaining there, especially given how unwanted we are, and given the ongoing loss of life.\n\nSeparate issues. Going in the first place, arguable. Staying, no.
364171
If the President truly believed that "Saddam was a tyrant and used violence to exacerbate sectarian divisions to keep himself in power, and that as a result, deep tensions persist to this day", then why did he fail to send enough troops to keep the warring factions under control? Since our invation in 2003, almost 2400 of our brave sons and daughters have died in this misadventure. I think it is appropriate to ask President Bush to explain why he was unprepared to deal with the sectarian strife since he knew that Saddam's dictatorial polices sowed the seeds of civil war. Or, is this something he just got briefed on.
256586
I think the decision to go to war had already been made, and then the intelligence commumity was sent out to get a reason.\nThey collected all the good and bad intelligence and used it as a way to convince congress to approve.\n   Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Pearle planned the invasion of Iraq when they were in Bush Sr.administration.  They were pulled up short by Bush Sr. who knew what it would take to occupy a stable Iraq and not descend into chaos.  Bush Jr. is just a lap-dog to Cheney and the other neocons.
38045
Yes. His father refused to go to war with Iraq because of fears that it would de-stabilize the region and create a civil war.. That is exactly what is happening, and what is going to happen, and President Bush is totally to blame. If anyone out there is even considering joining the National Guard or Military, be sure to see the new film: Syriana , first. We are in the mid-east for oil, not to help the people of Iraq.
400999
BUSH wanted to finish off the guy who threatened his Daddy and to cover for the fact that he let Osama bin Laden get away at Tora Bora. He also wanted a perpetual war so that he could trade on being a "War President" for the remainder of his term of office (Afghanistan collapsed too quickly).\n\nBut to be fair, Bush was not the only one who wanted to go to war.\n\nRUMSFELD and WOLFOWITZ wanted a testing ground for their spectacularly unsuccessful and misguided "army of the future" strategy.\n\nCHENEY wanted to give no-bid, cost-plus contracts to Halliburton to improve the value of his stock options.
373722
PROOF - WAR ON IRAQ IS FOR OIL\n\nBush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.\n\n      "President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains\n      a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets\n      from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to\n      the US 'military intervention' is necessary."[1] \n\nThe decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war.\n\nThe only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war, and the invasion hasn't even started yet!\n\n      "Profits in the fourth quarter soared 50% to $4.09bn (£2.5bn),\n      beating analyst expectations."[2] \n\nWar-time propaganda tells you what you want to hear; that your politicians have noble motives for the war on Iraq.
484110
Basically because under the terms of the treaty ending the first gulf war, Saddam had to reveal & give up his weapons of mass destruction (among other things)...... in the Clinton years we were maybe too soft when it came to taking action when Saddam tried messing us about..... then Saddam pushed his luck too far trying to pull the same sh*t on Bush, and as we all know as the Bush administration isn't full of bleeding heart liberals and doesn't take too kindly to being screwed about, and aren't as afraid to take action as a result.\n\nI was about 11years old around the time of the first Gulf War, and hit my 24th Birthday the day the current one started.... so it was probably about bloody time something was done to sort Saddam & his regime out once and for all, rather than waste military resources trying to keep them in check blowing up the occasional stray Iraqi aircraft flying somewhere it shouldn't.
182012
When President George HW Bush was in office, it was a defensive war fought to liberate Kuwait from Iraq. The goal of the war was only the freedom of Kuwait, not to move into Iraq, although a number of US generals were pushing for it. Bush, Powell and other leaders decided it was not in the best interest to go in at that time - this wasn't an "unfinished war" despite what people want to say to demean the current President. The Kurds, thinking we were going to help them free themselves from Hussein, started an uprising. When we didn't come into Iraq, Hussein's army easily suppressed the rebellion and then proceeded to torture and kill entire villiages and towns, including through the use of WMDs (sarin gas), and then openly attempted to assassinate Bush after he was out of office.\n\nAs part of Hussein's surrender, they had to comply by UN laws and treaties. They did not for 12 years. Why would you fault Bush for taking a murderous dictator for task? And name one war that we "got out right away?" We still have troops stationed overseas from WWII, Korea and Vietnam. For some reason, Americans decided that wars can be fought during commercial breaks during sitcoms. Wars are drawn out processes that result in many lives lost, but for the hopefully greater good of society.\n\nGod bless your son, but don't trivalize what he is fighting for.
514619
Iraq isn't the only thing to BASH BUSH about.  Same-sex marriage, immigration, the economy, the list is long and involved.\n\nWeapons of mass destruction?  There was flawed intelligence, but if you think Bush went into Iraq for any reason other than oil, you are mistaken.
742038
There are multiple reasons why the US went to war in Iraq, let me try to detail as many as I can:\n\n1.  Saddam Hussein's regime was genocidal, killing up to a million of it's own people.  Who can forget the photos of dead Kurds (mothers with their babies for instance) seemingly sleeping, but actually dead for resisting Saddam.\n\n2.  The very real possibility of active production of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs);  WMDs have been found, although they seem to have been produced pre war.  This does not reduce the threat of these weapons, because in the case of mustard gas, it can remain deadly for decades.  The very presence of these substances were a violation of muliple UN resolutions, as they were said that all of these must be turned over.\n\n3.  Constant ongoing disregard (breaking) of multiple UN resolutions, any of which was supposed to result in the resumption of military force against Iraq.  For example, the Jets patrolling the "no-fly" zone were guaranteed safe passage under the UN resolutions, however they were fired upon daily by the Iraqi military.\n\n4.  The Oil for food scandal:  Saddam was actually bribing his way out of any further UN action by bribing multiple members of it's Security council.  This is why there was so much resistance to ANY action to enforce the UN resolutions.   Khoffi Annon's own son, Kojo, was entangled in this and the billions in oil dollars funneled from Saddam.   The UN was and is completely corrupt.  Only by going around the UN could this chain be broken.\n\n5.  Saddam using his country for terrorist training.  Iraq was being used for terrorist training under the direct supervision of Saddam Hussein.  In one situation he sheltered Abu Nidal on the condition he train terrorists for Saddam.   Nidal, who was pretty sick physically, and on the run, refused.  The official report of Abu Nidal's death was that he "committed suicide" by several bullet shots to the head.  hmmm\nSaddam's govt was also directly paying suicide bombers in Israel.\n\nI hope this helps you understand what your parent's are fighting for, and what great people they are.  If not for people like them, our country would not be protected.  They perform one of the hardest, but most heroic duties to ours, the greatest country in the world.
59675
During the Persian Gulf war in 1991, the first President Bush decided not to invade Iraq.  He later explained that overthrowing the Iraqi government would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq."  He also said if we did invade Iraq, "We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."\n\nPresident George H.W. Bush was right.  That's why the Iraq policy has been a disaster.