None of the reasons for the Iraq war make sense. Any ideas why the US is there?

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons

    of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President

    Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.We want to

    seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -

    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the

    risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons

    against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb

    18, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -

    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998

    "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution

    and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on

    suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its

    weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens.

    Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction

    technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the

    weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and

    palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs.

    Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may

    be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery

    systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop

    longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to

    President Bus h, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the

    peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations.

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing

    weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that

    Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he

    has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare

    capabilities. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter

    and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore,

    Sept. 23, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing

    weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that

    Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he

    has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare

    capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen.

    Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop

    nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We

    also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in

    development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10,

    2002

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant

    UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological

    weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D,

    CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein

    has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery

    capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to

    terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,

    Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical

    warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D,

    NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein

    has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and

    storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if

    necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons

    of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F.

    Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous

    dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat

    because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating

    America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass

    destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real"

    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

    Source(s): Maybe you just are not able to understand them.
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The U.S. should have been in Iraq in the early 80s if it honestly cared about atrocities commited against humanity--weapons of mass destruction what not. Sometimes I think--with Saddam Hussein and the U.S. helping to get rid of him, it has come to a "better late than never." He was a ruthless murderer of many people--women, men and children, babies even just because of their ethnicity--being Kurds.

    As far as why we are in Iraq, part of it is revenge--George W. needing to get rid of Saddam for threatening to kill his father and familiy members. I think that was on Dubya's mind when he gave the go ahead on this war.

    I think that the U.S. should never have gone into Iraq under Bush's lies, but again, once a murderer always a murderer--Saddam Hussein-- and a lot of people are better off and alive because the U.S. is there. Thinking of all the people that died under Hussein's rule is the only way I can see that the U.S. needed and needs to be there--I see it justifiable and necessary. If I think of "weapons of mass destruction,"--the way it all played out it is something a bit harder to swallow. It is the lying. Sell me war on Hussein's atrocities not on things that didn't exist. Of course, back in the 80s Iraq was an ally--so I guess the loss of certain lives weren't something that bothered the U.S. that much---sad, really really sad. What does that say about us? As a country are we "righting" that wrong---our government not acting when it knew about Hussein's extermination of people?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The US is in Iraq to establish military bases throughout the country. This will ensure US Corporate access to the oil and ensure that the US dollar remains the currency used for oil transactions.

    Iraq is in the center of the Middle East. By establishing a permanent military presence there, we maintain control over the entire region.

    It has nothing to do with WMD that the administration KNEW had been destroyed.

    It had nothing to do with democracy - the US has shown throughout history since WWII, that it would rather deal with dictators that were willing to compromise their own national interests, than democracies that put the concern of their citizens over US corporate interest.

    It had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. He gassed those people along time ago, with the supplies and technical expertise given to him by the US.

    It had nothing to do with a few thousand innocent Iraqis that had been killed. Over a half a million have been killed since our invasion.

    BRING ALL OF OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I think the main US objective was to change the political situation in the Mid East region to check Iran's influence and their brand of fundamentalist Islam. Other Islamic states Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Gulf States are generally oppose to Iran's fiery religious fervor - one that has made significant inroad into Lebanon via Hezbollah. Lebanon's influential Maronite Christians who have been dominant in the country have been replaced by a powerful Hezbollah.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Jack C said it all... amen to that!!!

    power and control of US national vital corporate interests.

    the common man does the dirty work and the world elitists grow richer and more powerfull everyday.

    GW Bush is not stupid or ignorant and his advisers advise him well... don't kid yourselves. His real objectives are not for the general public to know... only gullible people swallow his version of things. It's all about covert operations that go on behind our backs and the MASS MEDIA does not report the truth.

    Source(s): video... terrorstorm on Google video
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    What they thought and reality was different. There most of been some convincing evidence for Gen. Powell to support it at first. Needless to say, we are there and you can just leave after you started. If you did, the country would be in far more anarchy then it is now. Which would lead to country wide starvation and killing, a lot more then what is happening now

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    At the moment i think the intention is to 'keep the peace' until such a stage at which the iraqi's are in a position to do the job for themselves.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    god i love liberals...the reason is jihad..created by the extremists who were attacking the wtc under the direction of osama bin laden. thats the same terrorist ignored by bill clinton in 92 when he was in sudan. what part of they want you dead is lost on you. its either there or here...we didnt make the rules ...al qaeda did.where do you liberals come up with this stuff?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    REVENGE!

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.