Iraq did not do 9-11 and yet we attacked that country. why?
485340
History judges us all and this particular war may be judged either way. Most opinion points towards it being pointless and a massivley needless loss of life. The pre-texts on going to war had alot of fabrications and in reality the US wanted control of the oil flow and also the middle east is a strategic part of the world. Those are two reasons for the invasion. \n\nIraq didn't have WMD and was halfway around the world with no way of threatning the US. If people would like to say that it was harbouring terrorists then most nations on earth are guilty as most terrorists live in obscurity and the domestic security services haven't tracked them down. Any nation is guilty of harbouring terrorists has the security services haven't stopped them from entering. \n\nSaddam was however guilty of inhuman acts and Iraq was a country denied some basic human rights. Those are two good reasons for the invasion. That can't however be used alone as many other countrys have the same problems and these are dealt with by the UN the same should have been for Iraq. Unfourtunatley the UN is often seen as doing very little a for example Sudan, Sierra Leone and Somalia. All we can do for these countries is send aid which sometimes gets confiscated.\n\nHistory will be the judge and we have to be content with that for now.
751824
I never thought that in the first place and I do not remember Mr. Bush ever stating that Iraq did have anything to do with 911. He did cite collusion with terrorists as a cause for invading, but never 911. I know there are people who cannot separate the 2 events, but they drew this inference on their own. Generally I do not hear a lot of normal people citing 911 in relation to Iraq. Rather those who support the war do it because of these reasons.\n\n1) They believe Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power.\n2) They believe Saddam Hussein was dealing with terrorists\n3) They believe the people of Iraq deserve the chance at freedom\n4) They believe that we should have finished what we started in 91.\n5) They believe it is all about oil, revenge, or both.\n\nbri2003: Then your knowledge is limited because there was an ever escalating pattern of terrorist attacks against American interests beginning in 1979.  \nHostages in Iran\nMarine barracks bombing in Beirut\nFirst World Trade Center bombing\nKoby Towers bombing\nThe USS Cole Bombing\n911\nThis is just a small list of the incidents of terrorist attacks against American targets.
223363
No matter which side you are on - there is a problem with militant muslims.  It started in 1983, and just grew.  The 1993 WTC bombings should've a wake up call for all americans.  We went to Afghanistan & Iraq to defend ourselves because terrorist don't have homeland.  I don't like seeing our troops, ally troops, or iraqis dying, but I'd rather have the battle fought on their land not ours.  911 was the worst attack on our soil ever.
7434
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.  Saddam definitely did, at one point, have WMD's but the Allied forces removed/destroyed them all in the first gulf war.\n\nBush, on the other hand, used 9/11 as an excuse to attack Saddam.  This is something many of us believe he intended to do long before 9/11.
708556
the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with demorcay, which was a front, or making the world a safer place, it had to do with a personal vendetta against Hussien by Bush, who tried and tried to tie Iraq to 9/11 but couldnt , who insitsted there were wmds, but couldnt find any, and anyone who said they did, please cite the source, it was also for oil! Meanwhile Bin Laddens boys continue to operate, why vbecause instead of pouring the amount of troops needed to kcik their butts in Afghanastan, we decided to invade Iraq! That alone should raise eyebrows, but it gets worse if you investigate just how the twin towers colsaapsed, when steel does not melt at the tmp that  the building got to, nor should it of free fell! SO someone hide something, and used Hussien as a shield so that they could accomplish their goal, which was $$ oil all powerful presidency, curtailing civil rights!
686959
Look at the 9/11 attacks. Was that necessary? Was it necessary to attack London and Spain? Was it necessary to attack us back in 91? That is why we are at war.
817225
The root cause? 9-11. It angered the most powerful nation in the world.
122731
A better question would be why we're in Iraq in the first place.\n\nI still don't know.
1099649
For everyone who says that Iraq had nothing to do with 9&#92;11. \nWe are fighting a war on terrorism and there is no single country that we are fighting. The terrorists are based and&#92; or supported  in many ways and operate independently of each other but they all have the same goal. Afghanistan was a host country, Iran supports them with money and equipment, Saddam paid $$ for suicide bombers and had training camps. Syria is also a sponsor. \nThe point is that while Saddam may not have been directly involved with 9&#92;11, he was a part of the bigger problem and had to be dealt with sooner or later. The terrorists are a network and need to be taken down wherever we find them.
426752
We were never AT war.  We invaded a destitute country. Relative to Saddam's crimes, why was so little attention paid to the desperate state of the Iraqi infrastructure? What was/is the connection between the country's advanced dilapidation and its capacity to fight a war? Before we stepped foot in Iraq, there was sporadic electricity, water and sewer systems on the fritz, poor nutrition...If America had realized Iraq's level of life, it might have been understood that they could not have let fly with missiles minutes after given the order.  I don't think we won the war because I don't think there was a war.  I live in the USA.
576862
I don't think Iraq was about Bin Laden. Bush used terrorism and WMD's as an excuse to go. I think he knew he wanted Iraq before 9/11 ever happened. For the rest of your question, I agree that we should not have went into Iraq without authority from the U.N. But if there ever came a time when a genocide was going on and we needed to step in quick, screw waiting for the U.N.'s approval. Get in there and get it done. That will never ever happen as we have witnessed in the past....\n\nBlaird- As far as I know, Zarqawi was not a terrorist until after the invasion of Iraq, Someone fill me in..
937910
I have screamed since 9/11 that we needed to look at those who gained from the attacks, just prior to the attack, the middle east was in chaos, Israel was in trouble with the UN and US public opinion was calling for sanctions in their attacking unarmed Palastinains, Bush was pushing for increased sanctions against Iraq, meanwhile bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the trade centers and security was cut back drastically. Much of the buildings colaspe does not make scientific sense if it was caused by the fire and inpact from the jets, steel does not melt at the temp that the fire heated to, buildings do not free fall when colasping only imploding caasues this. No engine or balck box was found in the pentegon! Too many unanswered questions and no real governement attempt to answer them
765181
In order to combat terrorism, the USA needed to eliminate possible bases and supply lines for terrorist activity which were located within Iraq.  The war is a result of the 9/11 attacks, and an attempt to prevent any more such attacks.
1152393
Sept. 11, 2001 caused the USA to re-evaluate the concept that a few rogue elements were causing trouble that only required a bomb or two to be dropped, and some level of intelliegence.\n\nNow, we recognize that bin Laden and his group are waging a war without borders, and we will take the war to them. The USA also re-evaluted it soft stance or rogue nations that are hostile to the USA and its interests. Iraq fell into this category. And esp. with an outstanding issue of being in violation of UN resolutions, it was kind of easy to re-start a war that really never had a successful conclusion with Hussein kicking out weapons inspectors.\n\nThe war will end when terrorist activities have (all but) stopped, that we've infiltrated their groups and have successful raids, etc. and then the war will return to an FBI / CIA police action kind of thing.
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
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.
607930
They did attack us.  Of course, by us I really mean our soldiers, who were in the process of bombing them at the time, but clearly they started it since it didn't count that we were bombing them until they tried to fight back.\n\nActually, I haven't heard anyone claim that Iraq attacked us.  I do hear a lot of people claim that they did have weapons of mass destruction, though, even though the White House official said they were wrong about the WMDs and the CIA said their information was fake.