Why did the U.S. invade Iraq in 2003?
613888
To take Saddam's oil.  I'm guessing the U.S. tried to make a deal with him in the 80's but it didn't go well, so the U.S. decided to make him 'an offer he wouldn't refuse'.  But he did, and look what happened.  How would you feel if the price of gas shot up to $3/L or $10/gallon?  << THAT'S WHY.  In order for our way of life to continue someone's else way of life has to be altered.
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.
1084897
WE ALL KNOW IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED THE USA. Pres. Saddam Hussein was trying to make sure the flow of oil to the Zionists and America wasn't as fluid as America would like. Hence the reason they got rid of him. The pretext of saving the Iraqi people from Saddam is nothing but a lie. Just like 9/11
133821
Hi there,\n\nI think the reason is to show off their power or the 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
1156810
There were no WMDs, there were no terrorists in Iraq.  There are NOW.  The gas was less than a dollar a gallon, there was more electricity, the oil exports were higher, they had jobs.  \nThe biggest deal to me however is that this nation, for no good reason, invaded and overthrew a legitimate government for no good reason.  We have had 2500 die.  How many Iraqi's have died?  No one knows!  Who were they bothering before we invaded?  Why are they branded terrorists?  They feel they are defending their country.  How many of us wouldn't do the same things they are?  Hell no they are no better off.
86780
I am an Iraqi, And the war was not the main mistake that the US government did. The main mistake it made was that it supported Saddam in the 70s to get into power and when he did US government used him to attack Iran(A muslim country) and then attack Kuwait. And in the Golf War 1, they didnt bring him down because they wanted him to stay longer to destroy iraq further and make iraqis on their nees begging anyone to come and help them. So in 2003 when US government felt that Saddam was becoming a threat and the Iraqi people were on the edge and were willing to accept anyone to take over.\nThe US. Government Mistakes in Golf War 2:\n1. Didnt respect the Iraqi's culture and tridtion.\n2. Didnt Close the boarders right away, letting fornigers come in and out as they like.\n3. Didnt protect important places Like Libraries, Musiems, Schools, Universities.\n4. Didnt protect the people, esp. the important ones.\n5. Abusing iraqis in the jails.\n6. WATCHING theifs steal government places and schools and WORST OF ALL MUSIEMS!!!\nThose are just some simple things of why US army is failing to make effective progress.\n(Please forgive my spelling)
555272
American attacked Afghanistan to go after the Taliban and Bin Laden for their involvement in the attack on 911.\n\nWe invaded Iraq because our President is a fool who wanted to help his rich oil buddies and used 911 as an excuse. We were better off leaving Saddam in charge.
998148
and while this war is going on, there has not been another attack on US soil.  We are making some serious headway in the global war against radical Islam. Money well spent to me.\n\nHere are the facts.\n\nWe invaded Iraq in March of 2003, can you tell me of a terror attack that has happened on US soil since then?
974553
This was a massive plunder operation under the guise of patriotism misplaced.  It is otherwise known as the big lie.  Iraq was ugly for many, but peaceful.  Now Iraq is a violent shambles,directly due to the intervention of GW Bush.  If there were no oil there, do you think we would be there?  Not a chance.
664751
On Aug. 2, 1990, Iraqi military forces, on orders from President Saddam Hussein, invaded and occupied the small country of Kuwait. The Persian Gulf War of 1991--from January 16 to February 28--was fought to expel Iraq and restore Kuwaiti independence.\n\n     The attack on Kuwait by Iraq caused the United Nations Security Council to pass several resolution to close Iraq from International trade. The Security Council wanted President Saddam Hussein removed his troops from Kuwait and to distroy nonconventional weapons. Read about two of the most importaint ones: Resolution 660, first resolution after the attack, and 678, to use all necessary means to free Kuwait.\n\n War Summary\n     The Iraqi armed forces had extensive experience of warfare. They had just brought an eight year war with Iran to a successful conclusion. The Coalition troops, on the other hand, were largely inexperienced. Britain had found the Falklands War with marines and paratroopers; this war was fought with tanks and mechanized infantry instead. The Syrians had fought within the last decade in Lebanon, but the 9th Division had not been involved. The Egyptians had last fought a war in 1973, shortly after the US had wound down its involvement in Vietnam. Of the gulf states, only Omani Army had anything approaching extensive combat experience.\n\n\n     One reason that the Iraqis' experience did them little good was that it was the wrong kind of experience. They had plenty of experience in fighting a positional war of wearing down Iran forces. Instead of helping, this was a positive disadvantage when fighting a mobile campaign; they would have been better off starting fresh without a lot of bad habits.\n\n\n     Of Iraq's 545,000 troops in the Kuwait Theater of Operations, about 100,000 are believed to have lost their lives. Of IRaq's 44 army divisions, 42 were found to be combat ineffective.
67010
Well, the only reason Iraq was invaded was for oil,I mean come on...why else Iraq? There was no proof to begin with, but there was proof for Syria, Libya, North Korea, Oh but no. We just had to ivade a country with no evidence for them having WMD's didnt we? And i mean you just have to look through the lines at this one..
1147002
There are a lot of BS answers here.  Iraq was in no way a threat to the United States. No Airforce, No Navy, a couple of missles that couldn't reach us that they had begun to destroy when we invaded, a lousy army that we beat in about a week.\n\nThere were 2,500 people looking for WMD after the invasion. No evidence was found that there  were WMD or that they had been destroyed or moved. Do you really believe US wouldn't have been able to find evidence if it existed?\n\nThe "Bush" people wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11.  They wanted to overthrow Sadam and put in a "democratic government" freindly to US and US oil companies. They believe that if you have "democracy" in Iraq it will spread to other countries in the Middle East.  While they talk about "freedom" they really only are interested in countries with oil.\n\nIf Iraq was a threat to its neighbors, why did NONE of them join our coalition? Turkey wouldn't even allow just to use them as a base for invasion.\n\nSomeone says above that Saddam had programs in 1992. 1992?\nThat's eleven years before we invaded! Ten years later, Saddam was totally contained and had no WMD programs to speak off, and no capicity to develop nuclear weapons.
1055735
Whe the Iraqi government takes over Iraq.  We pulled out of Somalia prematurely, and conditions got worse than they were before we went in.  We pulled out of Vietnam prematurely, and conditions got worse than they were when we went in.  There is no time limit for war.
508524
The 1st Gulf War between the U.S. and Iraq, after Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 90s.  The conflict took place in the Middle East, specifically Iraq and Kuwait.  The reasons for the war have been the subject of debate.  Some say the U.S. fought the war along with British allies to liberate Iraq.  Other people say the U.S. fought the war because Kuwait had a lot of oil and they didn't want American oil interests falling into the hands of Saddam Hussein.  The United States and its allies won. \n\nAnother example is the war fought between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan in the 1980s.  The communist Soviet Union, before collapsing and breaking up into many countries, fought a war in Afghanistan in the 1980s.  The Soviets were trying to take over Afghanistan much as they had done with other regions of the world in their brief 20th century existence.  The Soviets lost the war.  Many Russian Soviet soldiers died.  They were not able to take over Afghanistan and make it part of the Soviet Union.
408020
The real reasons America is invading Iraq\nMarch 20 2003\n\n\n\n\nAmerica is seeking to ward off any threat to its economic domination of the world, writes Kenneth Davidson.\n\n\nGeorge Bush planned "regime change" in Iraq before becoming United States President in January 2001. The events of September 11, 2001, were the pretext for invasion of Iraq, not the reason.\n\nThe blueprint for the creation of a "global Pax America", to which Bush subscribes and which is driving the invasion of Iraq, was drawn up in September 2000 for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush (George's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).\n\nThe document, called Rebuilding America's Defences: strategies, forces and resources for a new century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century.\n\nAccording to the document, written three months before Bush became president, "the US for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."\n\nThe document outlines the global ambitions of the Bush Administration. It sets out a "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests".\n\n\n\n   advertisement \n    \n   advertisement \n\nThe question for John Howard must be: to what extent does his Government subscribe to the Bush strategy outlined in the think tank's document?\n\nHoward says Australia's participation in this war is in Australia's national interests. How?\n\nTo answer that question we must know why the war is being fought in the first place. For all I know, Bush, Howard and Tony Blair may be absolutely sincere when they claim that getting rid of Saddam is a humanitarian act that will make the Iraqis better off, or that Saddam has the will, the motive and the weapons of mass destruction capable of threatening other countries. But these are not the real reasons for the invasion.\n\nThe real reasons can be summed up as deciding who controls Middle East oil and gets access to the water from the Tigris and Euphrates, and what currency will be used to pay for the development of the oil and water resources.\n\nAccording to the think tank document, the US would have to increase its defence spending to 3.8 per cent of GDP (which it has just achieved) to finance an American military capability "to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" and to "perform constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions".\n\nThis is a massive task that can only be achieved if the US can continue to draw on the resources of the whole world, which in turn is only possible if the US can continue to run massive trading deficits with Western Europe, China and Japan. In other words, these regions must remain willing to exchange the product of their industries for American dollars.\n\nIt would be fatal to America's global strategic ambitions if countries in Europe began to ask for euros instead of US dollars for their exports, or if China demanded settlement of their accounts with the US in yuan instead of US dollars. The US would have to redirect domestic demand for imported goods paid for in dollar-denominated IOUs into exports to earn yuan and euros to pay for US imports.\n\nIt is difficult to see how the US could develop new, internationally competitive industries and run a military machine on the scale envisaged by the think tank without a massive increase in taxation and redistribution of wealth to the productive elements in the economy without precipitating a global recession.\n\nIn 2000, Saddam&#
281817
US doesnt' want to steal iraq's oil.  it needs to control the world trade in oil.  basially require all oil-producing countries to market their oil in dollars, effectively making american paper money redeemable in oil.\n\ncompliant arab regimes also re-invest hundreds of billions of dollars of oil profits in the united states.  if they're allowed to start selling oil in Euros they will invest their profits somewhere else and the US economy will suffer tremendously\n\nthat's why bush went to war with all these countries.  to maintain america's control over the oil trade.
1168693
it's not wise at all....to martin s on top, i really appreciate what u guys did in iraq to help the pple. however, why did the US invade iraq in the first place? on ground that they are havin WMD, isn't it? However, in my own understanding (correct me if im worng), the UN didn't agree to use military force, the US went in themselves..and for the saddam issues...whatever or however tyrant he maybe, it's still his country's problems...why did the US wanted to interfere??? u said Iraq has lotsa terrorist training camps all around in iraq, there're so many training camps around in the world, indonesia, afganistan adn so much more in the middle east, can the US really eradicate all?? I think the reasons behind it is still the availabilty of iraq's oil..why, weapons of mass destruction, well, North korea and iran had admitted to owning them, but the US didn't attack them...and iraq, US claims there're WMD, where the hell are the evidence??