What are the real reasons behind invading 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.
44880
America had Security deposits of Iraq around 40000000000 U.S. dollars. And Saddam decided to take that amount back. If the money was taken back American economy would tumble. So it made U.S. to invade Iraq.
988532
Hilers reason were murder, genocide and to get more realestate to expand the German empire, plain and simple, he had no valid reason to march into Poland to rid it of the Jewish people there as he saw it, to save the Polish people from themselves by purification of the race. He did the same to Vienna. Even is our motive to go into IRAq was to secure oil, in getting Sadam out iof power was a good thing, and if innocents are killed by airstrikes or just renegade Marines, then's that non combatant fatalities for you, there are no innocents in war.
74793
to turn a US enemy into a democratic US ally. to turn Iraq into a US freindly country.
990359
well, I certainly don,t.   I do believe that oil was one of the primary  reasons,  but perhaps not the most important one.  as early as 1999, when  dumbya was being touted for candidacy,  he told his biographer  that Reagan had advised him that if he ever became president,  to pick a country,   that would be a sure win.  he chose iraq because it was one of his daddy's biggest mistakes.  when hb1 first installed saddam , then gave him billions  of dollars and weapons.  (Where do you think iraq got all those weapons they used in the Iraq-Iran war?)  so,  major reasons were  to get his ratings up,  get the country behind him, get control of the oil,  and fatten lots of pockets  with war contracts.\nof course, most of the biggest and fattest contracts went to  a company called halliburton, formerly chaired by tricky dicky cheney.\none could go on and on, and many books have been written on the subject, and many more wll, in years to come.
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.
211206
The only logical explanation I can find is as follows:\n\nThe first assumption is that we had to go into Iraq initially to remove Saddam Hussein. The real reason may never be known (daddy, oil, the Baghdad battery, who knows).\n\nThis was about Americans being free from the threat of Saddam somehow managing to cobble together a missile that could reach the West Coast. Unlikely, I know, but you could imagine it at a stretch. Hell, he had a lot of aluminum tubes, maybe it would have been a very long blow tube dart.\n\nHe could also have withheld OIL from us, which would have removed the freedom to drive enormous vehicles to the store to buy groceries, unless you wanted to take out a mortgage for 10 miles of gas.\n\nOnce we were in there things changed. Having removed Saddam, it soon became clear that we'd messed things up. All the excuses for the war came tumbling down, so we needed some new ones. Luckily, the insurgency provided that. There were now terrorists in Iraq.\n\nThis was something the Iraqis hadn't known for years. Theirs was a very well controlled environment. There was no crime, and everyone was happy. Very much in the same way, as there is no crime in an area controlled by the mob, unless it is authorized. It also made for the next excuse - Iraq was now a (and still is) a breeding ground for terrorists.\n\nThese new terrorists do directly affect our freedom, so its important the soldiers are there to show that even the most powerful military force on the planet can do nothing about them. We should always be scared of terrorists - and that directly impacts our freedom.\n\nEven more insidious (and I thought of this before 24) is the through that terrorism may remove our freedoms altogether.\n\nThe plot is as follows. Terrorists created in Iraq infiltrate the US and manage a semi-devastating attack. The government has to impose martial law to deal with it. This is close to Nov 2008 and the election cannot take place with martial law imposed, so it is postponed. Bush remains in power as a (now) military dictator. Saddam is very jealous. In order to function better, executive power to make any decision to defend against terrorism means that the administration disbands congress since its getting in the way.\n\nIn this way, the soldiers fighting in Iraq are fighting for us. If they can defeat the terrorists, Bush may not be given the opportunity to remove all our freedoms.
1100273
First of all, George Bush invaded Iraq for two reasons: 1) he wanted to 'get even' with Saddam Hussein for humiliating his daddy during Desert Storm; 2) Big Dick Cheney wants all that oil that's swimming underneath Iraq's sand.\n\nSo, Bush initiated an illegal, unconstitutional war that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis and more than 2,500 U.S. soldiers to date.\n\nTHE U.S. WILL NEVER LEAVE IRAQ UNTIL DICK CHENEY HAS AN IRON-CLAD, ROCK-SOLID AGREEMENT IN PLACE TO GET ALL OF IRAQ'S OIL. His sole objective is to make his Halliburton honchos richer and richer and richer. \n\nSo, the Republicons will never let our troops withdraw. George Bush's administration (especially Cheney and Rumsfeld) is filled with the most evil, corrupt, incompetent people ever to occupy the White House. Combine that with the most evil, corrupt and incompetent U.S. Congress in America's history, and you have the perfect set up for a government that is out of control. \n\nCheck out the new blog - BUSHWACKER!\nwww.blogger.com\nhttp://al-aback.blogspot.com\n\nThe Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress should be impeached - or tried for high treason. If convicted, they should all face a firing squad.
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.
841269
I suggest reading 'armed madhouse' by greg palast. In this book he makes the arguement (with footnotes) that the reason we went into Iraq is for the oil. But not to take the oil. No ... we want to keep the oil in Iraq. You see economic supply and demand would dictate that if the second largest oil producing nation was bogged down by an occupation then prices would soar. Hmmmm and how have the oil companies been fairing since the invasion???? Who's side do you think this honest patriot is on?? http://blogs.it/0100206/stories/2004/03/15/houseOfBushHouseOfSaud.html
488712
This war in Iraq was planned by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield even before the election of George W in 2000. They were just waiting for the right "excuse" to invade Iraq and 9/11 gave it to them. Justification for the war was fabricated by faulty intelligence of WMD and we are now paying the price for rushing into a war without the careful planning of what would happen after the overthrow of Hussein.Isn't it strange how we have to approve an "emergency budget" even years after the invasion occurred? Good planning all around and we will be a military prescence in Iraq(Iran??) for years to come.
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.
1008427
Nukes. Was that the real reason or the one they gave you? How old are you? The real reason for going to Iraq was for oil.
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.
144900
Hi there,\n\nI think the reason is to show off America's power or their 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
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.
68852
Maybe it has to do something with the fact that Iraq is located in one of the most strategically valuable areas in the world, and the fact that it also happens to be one of the most unstable areas of the world. Just like after WWII we build bases in Germany, to be close to Russia and central to Europe.  \n\nNow we are central to all of Africa, Asia, Middle East and Europe.  Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and so on are all a short flight.  Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.