What was reason for going to Iraq war?
830148
Q:  Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq? \nA:  Because they had weapons of mass destruction. \nQ:  But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. \nA:  That's because the Iraqis were hiding them. \nQ:  And that's why we invaded Iraq? \nA:  Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections. \nQ:  But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we? \nA:  That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election. \nQ:  Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction? \nA:  To use them in a war, silly. \nQ:  I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them? \nA:  Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves. \nQ:  That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back? \nA:  It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense. \nQ:  I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did. \nA:  Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway. \nQ:  And what was that? \nA:  Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country. \nQ:  Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country? \nA:  Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people. \nQ:  Kind of like what they do in China? \nA:  Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer. \nQ:  So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people? \nA:  Right. \nQ:  Why were people in Iraq being tortured? \nA:  For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured. \nQ:  Isn't that exactly what happens in China? \nA:  I told you, China is different. \nQ:  What's the difference between China and Iraq? \nA:  Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist. \nQ:  Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
112870
You asked a very good question. Going to war with Iraq would have made some sense if Iraq had sponsored those who attacked us, or if there was clear evidence that Iraq was planning to attack us in the near future. Unfortunately, neither of these scenarios were true, and there is much testimony from insiders that the administration knew these justifications were untrue. \nConveniently forgotten is the fact that nuclear inspectors were doing their job, and in fact they did get it right. The administration had fun belittling the inspectors, but we were the ones who had it very wrong. Iraq simply was no threat to attack us, and it can even be argued that Iraq served as a buffer against more extreme regimes, such as Iran.\nIraq did not have the equipment nor the WMDs to attack us, even if they wanted to, nor did they have any real connections with Al Queda. \nA genuine war on terrorism would have continued an aggressive search for Osama bin Laden (what happened to Bush's promise to capture him?). Such a war might better have been called a campaign, and would include limited military and maximum political activity to reduce terrorism. Unfortunately, our war on Iraq has by any standards increased the amount of terrorism, and increased the number of people who really do want to see our downfall.\nEven though Sadam was a thorn in our side, he was effectively contained. His removal was supposed to bring peace and democracy, but of course we see that it has not. \nHopefully our next war will be justifiable and with clear plans for long-term success, rather than manipulated and largely unplanned for the long run.
785407
This is a very good question, and should have been asked by President Bush before he went charging into a country he had no business going into in the first place.\n\nOriginally I would have answered this question under the assumption that it would be someone the United States decided would be able to play both sides of the political fence.  Someone who would appear to be acting in the best interests of Iraqis, while remembering and acting in the best interests of the country that put them in power; United States.\n\nLately, however, I think the answer is very diferent.  First of all because I think the United States has lost any control of the situation it might have had at one points and I think it has come to the point now where Iraq has clearly demonstrated that it does not want the kind of democracy that the United States would like to impose on it.  The power will ultimately end up in the hands of the clerics that are still fighting over power.  I no longer believe a democracy is possible in Iraq. That is the fault of the United States. The very thing that the United States saught to bring to the Iraqi people is being taken away from them by the very presence of the United States. Democracy is now being associated with the bloodshed and horrible living conditions that have been brought about by the United States invasion of Iraq, and although the United States is far from what is an ideal Democracy, it remains the symbol of democracy by it's own pompous proclimations. People don't want any part of that.  Although there are many advantages of Democracy, the Iraqi people are not seeing it.  They see only the downside of what the West has to offer.
566313
The reasons are numerous and all based on greed and a callous disregard for human life and international law. Eisenhower warned us about the growing threat posed by the dread military-industrial complex 50 years ago. It has come to its fruition (on a spectacular scale) under the criminal administration of our idiot king. Disregard everything you've heard about justification on the grounds of Saddam being evil, the threat of WMDs, the "war on terror" and the imposition of democracy from the outside (an oxymoron if ever I've heard one). This is and ever was all about money.\n\nThe wealthy (and frighteningly powerful) oil giants like ExxonMobil have recorded record profits since this criminal invasion of a sovereign nation. Halliburton and other such evil corporate giants have amassed truly staggering sums from their prearranged government contracts. Wealthy, sinister and extremely powerful people are lining their pockets on this war. And innocent civilians, American and British soldiers are sacrificing life and limb entirely for that purpose. How f**ked up is that?!
886627
I truly believed that we went into Iraq because the intelligence information said that wmd's were present and we wanted to stop it.  Also, I think the threat to our oil supply was an issue (unstated).  Additionally, we just had to hit someone, after 9/11.\n\nBy going into Iraq, we have bought some peace time on our soil.  We have disrupted the Islamic terrorists by our presence in the area and by capturing/killing some leaders of the movement.  We also have a base camp in the middle of this messy part of the world and will probably keep it, even if most troops withdraw.\n\nIf we had not gone into Iraq, I think that we would have had more terrorist acts in the US by now.  History will have to determine if it was worthwhile or not.  \n\nGood question.
447450
Depending on who you listen to, there are several reasons. I shall attempt to run them down & provide a brief explanation of each, and state my own opinion at the end.\n\n1. Oil. The US needs a source of oil, so we invaded Iraq to get it.\n2. Big Business - The US needed a way to boost the profit lines of big business, and war is the best way to do it.\n3. Freedom - We needed to free the Iraqi's from Saddam's thumb.\n4. WMD's - Saddam had WMD's, he refused to let the UN make inspections, and it's too risky to let Saddam have WMD's.\n5. New Base Location - Iraq makes a great place to project power from in terms of the US military, it is adjacent to the Gulf, and provides ways to reinforce Turkey, as well as keep Iran in check.\n6. Violation of Gulf War cease-fire agreement - Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement of the 1st gulf war, so this war is simply a conclusion of the last war.\n7. Bush's daddy - Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr., so Bush Jr is seeking revenge.\n8. Terrorism - Saddam was conspiring with Osama, so the US had to intervene.\n\nAnd my opinion:\nBush Jr. was obsessed with Iraq, and decided long ago that he was going to end Saddam's rule. He found a reason, Saddam didn't back down, and now we're in Iraq.\n\nHope this helps as a general overview.
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.
598263
I agree with you 100% We have no real reason for being in Iraq except that G.W. Bush wanted to finish what his daddy started No disrespect to our troops they are only going where they were sent Just like in 'Nam
321730
The war was for regime change, it was always for regime change, not to catch Saddam, and not to find WMD. There is not a stable new government in place yet, so it's not time to leave yet: that has been the plan all along.\n\nWe are no longer fighting a war there, we are in a peacekeeping role, yes, against an insurgency. And we are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government, and under a UN mandate, and both the invitation and the mandate get renewed every year. So the whole world pretty much agrees that we should be there, except you :)\n\nThe "we are there for the oil" argument is total BS and always has been. Iraq under Saddam wanted to sell their oil. We were the ones that said "no". If we wanted their oil so much, all we had to do was lift the embargo, which is what France wanted to do. So why don't you accuse France of wanting Iraq's oil? We were the ones who would not let Iraq sell it. \n\n(Please, if you want to make an argument, at least make it consistent with the history)
978135
3 reasons :\na) it was prepared long before how to take over the government\nb) leave the administration on its place and verify afterwards their loyalty.\nc) in the armed forces of WW2 were a lot of drafted officers with a lot of knowledge about civil affairs.   This was not so in Iraq.\n\nIraq : \nno preparation was made to protect even the administration buildings or musea. (except the ministry of oil (strange ?)).\neveryone service was closed down and rebuild after (problem a lot of policemen, military, ... were now in the resistance).
776372
The reason is Bush went to Iraq. Shoot if the radical liberals ever agreed with anything Bush did I'd know it was the second coming. If Bush committed suicide right now Hollywood radicals would be complaining he didn't finish out his term.
70119
Because we did not go to war with Iraq for oil.  We did not go to war with Iraq at all! We have a "war on terror."
108936
Oh gosh, don't even get me started. I'll try and make this as brief as possible\n\nBush's reasons for invading Iraq:\n1. To find weapons of mass destruction\n2. Because of Irag's alleged link with the 9/11 terrorists\n\nDid we find WMDs: Nope\nDid we find any proof or even evidence of a link between the 9/11 hijackers and Iraq: Nope\n\nWhile, i agree that saddam hussein (excuse my spelling) is a bad man, he kept stability in his country and posed no direct threat to us. It is not our responsibility, nor should it be, to decide who is good and who is "bad" and then take steps to remove them when we see fit. \nHad Iraq actually posed a threat to our national security I may feel differently, but Iraq did not pose such a threat.\n\nUnfortunately, our intelligence organizations are partially to blame, however, there are also individuals in the political realm whom are responsible.\n\nWhy did we not listen to the U.N. or Hans Blix? Are we too arrogant as a country to listen to what the international community has to say, especially the U.N., and organization we helped to create?\n\nOh my, i could go on and on and on and on, but i don't feel like typing that much.
1035301
I can think of a few reasons regarding the war in Iraq:\n\n-  Violations of 17 U.N. resolutions\n-  Violations of human rights\n-  Massacre of hundreds of thousands of Kurds\n-  Demonstrated the use of chemical weapons\n-  Financed terrorist factions in other Middle Eastern countries\n-  Rewarded suicide bombers' families\n-  Shot at our planes patrolling the no-fly zones\n-  Invaded Kuwait\n\nThe case for Iraq can be argued on many fronts.  Only those that forget the attrocities of the Baath regime and the importance to fight state-sponsored terrorism allow themselves to be persuaded from one side of the issue to the other.  In the days and weeks that followed 9/11, you had a different mindset.  It's no excuse to falter from that just because months and years have gone by.  For all you know, the aggression our country has shown in response is the reason why you haven't had to go through another horrific ordeal.\n\nAs for the North Korea comparison...\n\nIt is a separate issue for many reasons.  You must deal with nations that already possess nuclear weapons on a different scale.  No matter how contradictory this may seem, there aren't any other good options.  It must be a slow but strong diplomatic process that exercises all of its power before any military option is considered.  In most cases, the preemption measure will never be considered.  This is where an attack must be the reason to go to war.\n\n\nkiko,\nDon't give into the oil conspiracy.  From your brief response, it seems like you're one of the sensible Democrats that can listen to reason.  For the record, I haven't seen the price of gasoline drop at the pump.  In fact, it has risen more than 25% since the Iraq war started.  Plus, we're not staying in Iraq.  It is nothing more than an assumption we are there for that reason.  \n\nYou should focus more of your "intelligent" intuitiveness into arguing valid points of the war.  Even as a staunch Republican, I can admit that there were some serious mistakes made in this war.  But at the same time, I can see that there's only so much you can predict and expect to be perfect.  We are all human after all.
973023
well apart from that excuse that saddam had weapons which could blast us brits, what other reason are we going there for? i doubt we're helping the iraqs. we're in it for the money and oil. \n\nnobody likes armed missonarys
246893
Ask the Iraqui's.\n\nThey want us there.\n\nThe UN wanted us there.\n\nTherefore, everything you've said against the war or Bush is a Fairy Tale.
361855
Poor Job.\n\nNo, we shouldn't have went into Iraq in the first place.