the terroist were saudies how come we jumped on iraq?
965270
Iraq was about supposed weapons of mass destruction not 911.
841166
Saudi Arabia wouldn't invade because they don't want the Middle-East "crisis" to end.  They don't care about Palestinians anyway and every time there is some minor dust-up oil goes up by $10 a barrel, allowing them to buy another gold-plated Rolls Royce with enough left over to buy a bomb-belt for some dumbass suicide bomber.
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."
686459
Eh? What did invading Iraq have to do with terrorism?\nIn fact, we've made it a breeding and practicing ground for terrorists.  They can now go there, practice making weapons and terror, and then use it against the west.  Saddam did not tolerate terrorists, and you never heard of a single suicide bomber or terrorist attack in Iraq while Saddam was in control.
994644
your question isn't very well put so i don't know exactly what you mean. but we went to iraq to help those people living under sadam who was horrible to them.
593004
We can't, the oil wouldn't be secure anymore.  Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia would have a free for all.  We created a mess that we won't stabilize for a VERY long time.  For all his evil, Saddam did manage to keep a lid on one of the biggest pressure cookers in the world.  Of course, mission accomplished for us, we showed him we could do a better job.\n\nAlienorgy, my heart is with you man.  I know they pump you up on a philosophy that your life depends on you believing.  Looking forward to seeing your story when you're done.  I was lucky I was there in the beginning when it was easy.
737725
Should have happened a long time ago.  Of course we can't win a military victory in Iraq.  It is JUST LIKE VIET NAM.  How soon we forget the lessons of history.\n\nSaudi Arabia should take the lead on policing Iraq, if it needs policing.  They have all kinds of oil money to spend.  Why in the world are we spending billions in Iraq, when we have already sent billions to the region buying their oil?\n\nLet's allow the region to govern and police itself.  If Saudi Arabia really felt threatened, don't you think they could buy enough weapons to defend themselves?  I haven't heard them say they were afraid of any of their neighbors, including Iran.  And Russia says absolutely nothing about these countries on their western border.  Why?\n\nWe should have been long gone.
574053
The original premise for invading Iraq was the alleged presence of WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and possible ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda.  Both allegations have been proven false since the invasion.  Whether Saddam's overthrow has made the region more stable will not be answered for years, possibly decades.\n\nThere are parallels between Iraq and Vietnam.  In both conflicts, our troops were not fighting an enemy which clearly identifies itself.  Another similarity shared by Iraq and Vietnam is the lack of well-defined goals for victory.\n\nWhile it has been speculated oil was the primary reason for invading Iraq, that remains largely unproven.  Statistically speaking, Canada and Mexico provide the largest chunk of imported crude oil to the United States, followed by Saudi Arabia.  It appears the decision to invade Iraq was based more on socio-political reasons (i.e. establishing a Western-friendly regime) than it was for acquiring natural resources.
513545
less safe. Radical muslims who didn't hate us before hate us now. Terrorists were virtually non-existant in Iraq before we invaded, now Iraq is a training ground.\n\nedit: More of the neo-con talking point "they hate us for our freedom". How about "they hate us for our indiscriminate use of overwhelming power, political, and economic dominance and our support of repressive regimes, like Israel and Saudi Arabia"? It has nothing to do with our freedom or our way of life.\n\nMaybe I didn't make my point clear - More Muslims hate us now than before we invaded a soverign nation.  Yes, some Muslims have hated us for over 30 years because of our unconditional support of Israel over the Palestinians. Now there are more hating us because of the Iraq invasion. More hatred = more terrorists.\n\nThere are other countries that are in flagrant violation of UN resolutions, like Turkey, Israel, and the Soviet Union. Would you condone US action against them, too?\n\nLook at Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.  Saudi Arabia contributed $5 billion to Iraq's nuclear weapons program between 1985 and 1990. While the U.S. government vocally opposes the development or procurement of ballistic missiles by non-allies, it has been very quiet about the fact that Saudi Arabia possesses the longest-range ballistic missiles of any developing country. Saudi Arabia is working closely with Pakistan to advance their nuclear program. This scares me a hell of a lot more than Iraq did.
11087
It's all about the oil rights... Saudia Arabia was created by Standard oil of California in 1928. So now we need more oil and Iraq has the next largest reserves.
54857
It's Iraq, and the oil is important, but only to control militaries and sustain ours to enforce the economy. This is one of the "benefits" and or motives of invading Iraq however, we invaded Iraq because Hussein sported the idea of Arab nationalism which would have created a middle eastern european union and challenge our economy and therefore our idea of security. Is this right no, but I can see how some politicians could see this as noble. Also our economy is one of scales. Meaning that the more that is produced the cheaper it is too make a product. In the era of soft money it is feasible and happening that contrators need perpetual war to sustain themselves and hence our economy.
686149
There was "Desert Shield" from August 1990 to Jan. 1991 when "Desert Storm" kicked in.  Shield gave us time to build up the defense of Saudi Arabia and perfect the liberation of Kuwait.  The Storm let us use the technology that we had developed in the late 70's and 80's.  The Storm lasted just like the previous person mentioned.  Some mistakes were made though, like not finishing off the Republican Guard when we had the chance which would have led to Saddams downfall a lot sooner.
358146
After the US pullout of Somolia in 1998, Osama and Al Qaeda decided they could destroy the US with one giant attack, so they planned it over the next 3 years, finally executing it on September 11th.  \n\nThis triggered the US response to terrorism.  Iraq was central in this effort that because Hussein and his regime was funding terrorism around the globe, was collaborating with Al Qaeda, and was sheltering known terrorists and terrorist groups in Iraq (one group we attacked on the first days of the current war).  Also, Hussein had been warned by the UN 17 times to comply with disarming his weapons and showing the disarmament, and he failed to do so.
460548
The only reason we went to Afghanistan was to build an oil pipeline that ran through the country.\n\nRESPONSE TO DIE-HARD REPUBLICAN - So if a US. terrorist bombed a building in Saudi Arabia and he lived in our country, and we refused to let the Saudi Government handle it, should they bomb our entire country and turn it into liquid sh*t?
1085530
It may be viewed as a Crusade, although the battle is not in the Holy Land (aka Jerusalem). \n\nLest I mistake your question for purely rhetorical value, our involvement in Iraq is based upon:\n\n1. The assumption that Iraq had WMDs\n2. The assumption that Saddam Hussein was funding anti-American and anti-Israeli terrorism\n3. The assumption that Saddam posed a threat to stability in the region\n4. The belief that Saddam had committed crimes against humanity\n\nThere has been no evidence found of the first assumption, although credible evidence indicates that the U.S. provided chemical weapons to Iraq during its war against Iran, the latter of which was considered an enemy to the U.S.\n\nThere has been little evidence found of the second assumption, which makes sense given that Saddam was a secular person of Sunni descent, and the radical theology underpinning Al-Qaeda has far more support among Shi'ites than Sunnis (although terrorists represent only a small, radical fringe of Islam, and there are terrorist groups with chiefly Sunni members). The terrorist attacks on American troops are mostly opportunistic by pre-existing groups or precipitated by new groups that have sprung up in response to the invasion.\n\nThe third assumption is debatably true. Saddam's armies invaded Kuwait in 1991 and fired missiles into Israel in 1992. \n\nThe fourth assumption (I labeled it a belief) has strong evidence behind it, and currently forms the basis of the ongoing trial.\n\nThe motivation for the United States has nothing to do with religion, although it is an unfortunate coincidence that a mostly-Christian nation has invaded two mostly-Islamic nations, as this adds fuel to the fire of radical beliefs that hold that the United States is the enemy of Islam.\n\nThe next president elected will be a Democrat (since the GOP is out of political capital at this point), and will probably close out the current operations (since there's little public support behind them). Hopefully, whoever is in office next will be able to gain more credibility and provide a more effective diplomacy so the military solution is not resorted to.
709084
There is oil in Iraq and the US wanted it.
556952
Kuwait - and they had their eye on Saudi Arabia which would have been next.  We stormed over there practically overnight to oppose it.