Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentMilitary · 7 years ago

Why did the U.S. go to war with Iraq?

9 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago
    Best Answer

    Edit Exxon Mobil are not American ??? But a internet search shows this Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE: XOM) or ExxonMobil, is an American multinational oil and gas corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas, United States. so the USA does have oil rights in Iraq

    Oil and to Influence another Country to the advantage of the USA the USA is Patient but they have only 1 Objective to ensure a regular supply of Oil

    Edit found this Interesting

    Baghdad, Iraq - While the US military has formally ended its occupation of Iraq, some of the largest western oil companies, Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell, remain.

    On November 27, 38 months after Royal Dutch Shell announced its pursuit of a massive gas deal in southern Iraq, the oil giant had its contract signed for a $17bn flared gas deal.

    US-based energy firm Emerson submitted a bid for a contract to operate at Iraq's giant Zubair oil field,

    Now tell me I am wrong about the Oil

    Australian Inspectors never found any WMD and neither did anyone else

    Iraq became a member state of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2009, declaring "two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities" according to OPCW Director General Rogelio Pfirter.

    The declaration contained no surprises, OPCW spokesman Michael Luhan indicated.the production facilities were "put out of commission" by airstrikes during the 1991 conflict, while U.N. personnel afterward secured the chemical munitions in the bunkers. Luhan stated at the time:

    "These are legacy weapons, remnants." He declined to discuss how many weapons were stored in the bunkers or what materials they contained. The weapons were not believed to be in a usable state.

    a study published in 2005, a group of researchers assessed the effects reports and retractions in the media had on people’s memory regarding the search for WMD in Iraq during the 2003 Iraq War. The study focused on populations in two coalition countries (Australia and USA) and one opposed to the war (Germany). Results showed that US citizens generally did not correct initial misconceptions regarding WMD, even following disconfirmation; Australian and German citizens were more responsive to retractions

    Dependence on the initial source of information led to a substantial minority of Americans exhibiting false memory that WMD were indeed discovered, while they were not.

    During its investigation, the ISG reported that "[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components." These isolated discoveries received significant media attention, and it’s likely that these overhyped reports contributed to your friends’ beliefs that Iraq really did possess WMDs. But the finds were rare, and the ISG concluded that they were not part of a significant stockpile of weapons. Indeed, after nearly two years of investigation, the ISG concluded that:

    "Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

    "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."

    "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."

    Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were all wrong" on Iraq.

    The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005. If that doesn’t convince your friends, we’re not sure what else might do the trick. Anyone who believes something without any positive evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary is no longer acting on the basis of reason. -Joe Miller

    CNN. "Official: U.S. Calls off Search for Iraqi WMDs." CNN.com, 12 Jan. 2005.

    Iraq Survey Group. "Iraq Survey Group Final Report." 30 Sept. 2004. GlobalSecurity.org, 14 Feb. 2008.

    Priest, Dana and Walter Pincus. "U.S. ‘Almost All Wrong’ on Weapons." The Washington Post, 7 Oct. 2004.

  • Arlene
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    Yes, and here's why. 1. Saddam attacked Kuwait to star the Gulf war in 1991 2. We kicked Iraqi butt and Saddam surrendered 3. That war ended on certain condition set forth by the UN 4. Saddam broke 17 UN resolutions regarding the cease fire 5. UN did nothing about it 6. US saw Saddam as a threat 7. USA did what the cowardly UN wouldnt do, removed Saddam So yes, the Iraq war was justified. The UN should have done something a long time before, and maybe the war could have been avoided, but it only talked. Saddam did NOT respect talk, he respected only action. Hey, talk is cheap. Sometimes you gotta do more than negotiate.

  • 7 years ago

    First Iraq War

    In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait and President Bush (Senior) made the decision along with UK PM Margaret Thatcher. Congress approved. Successful with General Norman Schwarzkopf presiding. Limited to getting Iraq out of Kuwait. No Fly Zone ensued inside Iraq...

    Second Iraq War

    In 2002 President Bush (Junior) made the decision along with UK PM Blair to actually invade Iraq and the Congress approved in early 2003. The Brits were more reluctant this time. But it was the President's decision, verifiable by copious videos* of him saying so exactly. Then he declared "Mission Fulfilled" from an aircraft carrier deck about 8 or 9 years prematurely, much to the embarrassment of both nations.

    The second war with Iraq was a weaker case based more on specious WMD premises, than on Bush Junior's stated desire* to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The USA government was said to be in thrall to Neoconservative (neocon) agendas, and some strange things happened in both USA and UK, to say the least, in the interim from start to finish...

    Second Iraq War -- Afghanistan Sidelined Sidelight

    As there was war against Al-Qaeda and Taliban already in progress at the time, it is not clear what the quality of the intentions were here relative to the futures of all nations involved.

    Everyone paid a very high price, USA taxpayers in particular, and recovery appears to lie far down the road, considering 2008 to present.

    This is only a capsule summary of the main points. A comprehensive big picture would involve a huge amount of information, available only to dedicated ferrets.

    A question not answered clearly: Are we now weaker in USA from intention(s) or stupidity?, is one that comes to mind.

    However, there are 'tar baby' analogies, and most all of the Middle East is a difficult place from any perspective, mutually exclusive and conflicting agendas writ large...

    And some people say 'look at the oil issue motivations' so it has been parsed from differing perspectives. Take your best guess, true agendas are not always stated, and stated agendas can be wrong or misleading, many agendas are kept secret.

    The leadership everywhere is far too insulated from efficiency considerations. But these have gained significant added weight lately, hopefully not too late for the people in general who will bear the costs...

    Source(s): http://www.biography.com/people/saddam-hussein-934... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait I lived through it too and wrote my best short answer.
  • J
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    Didn't the CIA gave the Government the information that they had WMD's? I would think governments tend to trust their own intelligence services?

    Source(s): Former member Canadian Army Reserve Infantry
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 years ago

    oil. the weapons of mass destruction excuse was simply that, an excuse to get into the country. There were no WMD's

    Source(s): Iraqi
  • 7 years ago

    Simple. The reason GW Bush was so sure Saddam had WMD's is because we gave them to him. It back fired since Saddam hid those weapons so well we could not find them.

    Source(s): Life.
  • 7 years ago

    They said it was because of 9/11 terrorist attack but in reality its for oil. Oil is highly needed specially in America in order to mobilize the troops. of course we haven't won because gas prices are still high.

  • Wraeth
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Everything Alexander said is 100% true. Everyone else is just spinning their wheels. Anyone that claims it was to steal Iraqi oil clearly is a moron as anyone with more than two braincells can do five minutes of research and find why that argument is ridiculous.

    1) The US gets nearly 75% of our oil from domestic and Canadian sources.

    2) Prior to the invasion of Iraq the US got less than 4% of our oil from Iraq. Currently we get less than 2%.

    3) The US does not own any Iraqi oil fields, we do not get a discount on oil from Iraqi oil fields and we do not get any profits from Iraqi oil fields. NOR did we EVER steal a single drop of Iraqi oil.

    We went in due to sanctions violations. No matter what rhetoric you may hear, that is the final reason for it. Saddam violated the cease fire agreement from 1991 and he paid for it.

    Source(s): US Army Scout OIF/OND Veteran
  • 7 years ago

    armourer- that's just stupid. If we invaded for oil then we would either have government control of the Iraqi oil fields or at the least US companies would be the ones drilling there. Neither is the case.

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948...

    If we wanted oil we would have gone after Saudi Arabia. If we wanted to go after an anti american country we would have invaded N Korea or Iran.

    As for why we actually went to war with iraq-

    It stems to Desert Storm. Desert Storm ended with a cease fire, not a treaty. Meaning that hostilities were stopped, but either side could resume them at any time. As a condition of the cease fire Saddam had to abide by several sanctions, including the complete disarment of his WMD program, surrender of all WMDs, allowing in UN inspectors, immediately ceasing the acquisition of materials for nuclear weapons and surrendering all already acquired materials, and ceasing all hostile actions.

    http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

    Over the next decade Saddam broke every one of those sanctions.

    He kept WMDs

    http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15...

    He continued to acquire and failed to surrender nuclear material

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/#.UUl1QRysh8E

    He refused UN inspectors

    http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-16/us/9812_16_clin...

    And he continued hostilities

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/aug/28/iraq.m...

    In response the US decided to continue combat operations in 2003, this time with the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam.

    So in short: we went to war with iraq in 2003 because saddam failed to abide by the sanctions he agreed to.

    @armourer- actually we did find WMDs. we removed over 500 chemical warheads (I already provided a link for it).

    @armourer- first off, that statement is from 2009z the WMDs were removed well before that. Secondly, are you that desperate that you have to try to play on semantics? With or without a means of delivery, a chemical warhead is a WMD. If a convicted felon on parole has a firearm, but no ammunition, is his possession of it still not illegal? Same deal here. There is not a single definition of a WMD that states that it must be a CBRNE warhead along with a delivery system. The warhead itself is a WMD, and therefore a violation of the UN sanctions. You were wrong. Either get over it or provide proof that saddam didnt violate a single sanction or that we were indeed after oil.

    @armourer- a CNN story from 2005 doesn't hold more weight than a government report from 2006

    http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Decla...

    the site you posted at the bottom doesn't prove that the US was after oil. It PREDICTS that oil contracts will go to the US. this PROVED that they didn't.

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948...

    . Now I know how PATHETICALLY DESPERATE you are to be right in this, but you're not.

    if we invaded for oil, then why do we import less every year since the start of the war through today than we did pre war?

    http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?...

    We invaded because Saddam broke the sanctions against him, plain and simple. Hoping on the anti america band wagon and chanting "oil oil oil!" just makes you look stupid when faced with evidence to the contrary. I think you need to increase your Alzheimer's medication.

    @armouror- you are right, believing something without evidence is stupid. However I supplied an official government report giving evidence that there were WMDs. I also provided a news report that pointed out the same thing, and another showing the removal of yellow cake uranium. On the other hand you haven't provided any evidence. The only "evidence" you provided was a speculation that was proved wrong. Take a look in the mirror if you want to talk about people who can't be convinced despite evidence being provided.

    But here, let me quote the sources I have already provided links to-

    "The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans."

    "since 2003 coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent"

    "Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts." Luckily, your half baked opinion doesn't change factual history.

    Source(s): In response to your NBC story from 2005, here is an official government document from 2006 http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Decla... Now tell me there were no WMDs So one US oil company bidding on an Iraqi oil field in 2012 means the whole war was for oil? That is flat out stupid and desperate.
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.