Why are we at war with the iraq when its the alkida were after?
927117
Because of all the WMDs that Saddam had.\nNo, wait a minute, because we wanted to spread democracy.\nOn second thought, it was to pursue the War of Terrorism.\nWait, it was because we went in and we have to stay the course.\nHang on, gimme a sec... \n\nI don't really know.
636979
The war was over Iraq invading Kuwait in August of 1990.  Saudi Arabia thought they would be next and invited countries to defend them against attack.  American had been protecting Kuwaiti oil tankers with our Navy for 10 years, so we had a basis for standing up for them.  The WORLD knew what Saddam did was wrong, and even Syria was on our side.  Only the Palestinians and the Jordanians supported Saddam.  We send hundreds of thousands of troops from all of the world, to Saudi Arabia to set up a massive invasion force.  Then we started bombing in late 1990 and then invaded with the ground force in January 1991.  Iraq sued for peace in less than 100 hours, because we kicked the living snot out of them.\n\nThe United Nations resolution that authorized the war was only for the liberation of Kuwait and not for the removal of the government of Iraq, this is why we did not go to Baghdad and take out Saddam then.  There was also concern that the country would go into civil war, Kind like now!!!
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?!
1044461
US is not at war with Iraq and had never been\n\nBe it desert storm or the recent compaign, both are aimed at Saddam and his followers, and to free the Iraqi people from the dictator.
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.
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.
733247
Tough question considering that they war on terror is not technically supposed to be a war against any certain nation yet we focus on the middle east and its extremist religions. The Iraqi forces are having trouble organizing because of the sectarian nature of the population. This seems to me like it would provide a great and easy avenue for the organized entrance into our nation of small coordinated covert extremist terrorist groups. I hate to say it.
770520
the dumb ass american government saw that iraq had a lot of oil and got jealous. so they made up a long story and said they had to protect the iraqi civilians. now they're just killing them (if you wanna call that protect them)\nUS wanted oil, that's the reason. and as for weapons of mass destruction. aparently sadam had some. let him have them, the US has them too. and it´s none of the US' business if they have them in iraq, it´s their land, let them do what they please
645577
Its an Oil war. They want to control the Oil there and are doing all they can to make trouble in that country so that it does not become strong.
982173
Because we are fools to have let these dirty bastards screw us for\nso long. They have set up a military police state againist us. We are\nin deep trouble.
965489
that is exacly what we are doing.  every terrorist we kill by being in iraq is one less terrorist that could be waging war in Lebanon or any other country they wish to fight.\n\nIts kind of like the line from "good morning vietnam"  What are you doing to kill the enemy.   Well we go around and ask them are you the enemy and if they say yes we shoot them."\n\nthey are not just out in the open Its an urban war where we cant go to where they are, they are all over.  We fight were we are untill they stop fighting back then we will go somewhere else until they stop fighting their too.
29242
We are at war because The Bush family owns oil and until they get all the oil they want we wont be out of war.  Or at leaset until we get a new president that's not republican...
709084
There is oil in Iraq and the US wanted it.
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
607951
the oil is just a cover up , as well as the deomocracy for Iraq, its a lie, if you read the Bible there will be a battle called the "battel of armagedon", and it will take place in the cradle of life (thats where iraq is) so its gonna be awhile and it will be a battle between great nations, who knows! maybe they might be fighting for the oil!
693059
WE ARE NOT OCCUPYING IRAQ TO LIVE IN IRAQ, WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE THINGS BETTER. THE SPANISH COME OVER HERE FOR BETTER OPPURTUNITIES. THATS TOTALLY TWO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.
716945
I do understand that you are not the ones responsible for America's actions in Iraq, Americans. I am from Egypt and I of course don't agree on the war from the begining, it was like a breach to the Iraqi Sovreingity rights...ridding the Country from Saddam's governemnt is something that people Iraq had to do, and does not require the help of anyother country; in other words, it is an internal affair; and what America did is an interference in the internal affairs of Iraq. It Also caused much damage to both sides, Americans lost lots of soldiers there in vien and it consumed alot of money that could have been used in a better way. Also Iraq now is in a state of disturbance, and I don't see that the American forces are able to control the situation there. Gureilla warfare is not easy to handle...so, since they already did what they wanted, they got rid of Saddam, and established a new government too, they should leave and leave it to the new governement to take care of it, because they already fail to sustain a stable climate there. If they insist to stay, then that can be nothing but occupation, which is of course something that is unacceptable...right?