Question:
why are we at war with Iraq?
kristy
2009-05-26 18:54:46 UTC
My mom says it's because they bombed us. i think it's just for attention. I want to know the actual reason for the war and why we are rebuilding their country for them.
21 answers:
ಠ__ಠ
2009-05-26 20:10:32 UTC
Frankly, I'm already appalled at some of the answers you've been getting, although I'm sorry to say I'm not surprised. Even now, more than 6 years after this whole thing started, people STILL don't know what the hell is going on in Iraq and many refuse to learn.



Number 1: We are not, repeat NOT, "at war with Iraq". We ceased to be "at war with Iraq" in 2003, shortly after the actual war started. After the war itself ended, our operations in Iraq ceased to be conventional warfare (since we easily defeated Saddam's military), and became counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations... what the military calls "Stability and Support Operations" or "Military Operations Other Than Warfare". (These are literally what the military calls it, by the way). Iraq is an ally, and has been since 2003, when we removed Saddam Hussein from power and helped set up a provisional government council, which eventually became the parliamentary democracy it is today, elected by Iraqis.



Point #2: Contrary to popular belief, this war was NEVER about oil. Next time you hear someone say that it was, stop them and ask them EXACTLY how much oil we are getting from Iraq. Seriously--ask them how much. Guess what? Iraq isn't really producing that much oil because their infrastructure isn't equipped to produce or refine more than a trickle of oil compared to their neighbors (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria...) What little they do produce generally goes elsewhere to be refined, and the people who use it are much more local... Iraqis themselves, and the neighboring Middle Eastern countries. Hell, the same people who think we're getting "all of Iraq's oil" also think we get most of our oil from Saudi Arabia, too. Well, we don't. Most of the oil we use in the United States comes from THIS hemisphere; oil from the US itself, then Canada and Mexico, then South America. Most of the oil the Middle East produces as a whole goes to more "local" customers... Europe, Russia, India, China, and the rest of Asia as a whole. As far as the money made from the oil Iraq DOES produce... that goes to Iraq and its government, because it's THEIR oil.



Point #3: We originally justified going to war with Iraq in the beginning (early 2003) because it was commonly believed that Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, even nuclear weapons. It wasn't just President Bush who believed that, either, even if people insist he made that decision unilaterally. Most of Congress believed it, too, as did dozens (yes, dozens) of other countries. Why? Because Saddam had a well-known history of pursuing nuclear weapons and developing them himself, and a history of not complying with international law and not allowing UN weapons inspectors to inspect where he was storing and developing his weapons. He also had a well-known history of starting wars with his neighbors and invading them (Iran in the 80's, Kuwait in the 90's). He was well-known for killing thousands of his own people, for silencing any whom he thought might be a threat to him by killing them and their families. As it turned out, he had also been laundering millions of dollars from the UN's Oil-for-Food program, money meant for his people... and a more than a few other countries knew about it, mostly countries who refused to help overthrow him because they profited off him. While we DID find some weapons of mass destruction (mostly to the tune of artillery shells laced with nerve agents or noxious gas), we did not find WMD to the extent we thought we would... but after we removed Saddam from power and he was in Iraqi custody, the conflict there ceased to be about "WMD" or overthrowing Saddam. We had removed Iraq's government, and it fell on us to help rebuild it and prevent Iraq from falling to the same fate as the South Vietnamese in the 1970's, or worse. Surprising as it may seem, it actually takes more than a few months to completely rebuild an entire country and its economy and military and infrastructure--all while also having to fight off gangs of insurgents and terrorists trying to kill you and Iraqis indiscriminately. The fact that we've come THIS far after only a mere six years is really, really remarkable.



Point #4: We're still here because the job's not yet finished. It's getting there, yes, and things are much better than they were even a year or two ago; but there are still many attacks taking place throughout Iraq and its people are still in danger from thugs and killers who want to subjugate them with fear and death in order to create a lawless haven for themselves. The military knows what it's doing. We've been at this for years now, and frankly the American people would do well to bother listening to what people who've actually BEEN to Iraq have been trying to tell them all these years. With any luck, we'll have the Iraqi government and its military able to fend for itself from internal, and external, threats by the time we do finally leave.



Point #5: This one seems to be a really tough one for people to grasp, and I really don't know why. The whole "War on Terror" was never JUST about 9/11, or JUST about "getting Bin Laden". The U.S. had been under attack by international terrorists before; 9/11 was just their "crown jewel". Al Qaeda is only one of many international terrorist organizations, and Bin Laden only one of many people in that organization. The War on Terror was meant to finally address a problem that the world had largely ignored, in the hopes that it would somehow "go away" magically by itself, for decades. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" wasn't even the only justification for invading Iraq in the first place, even though it was a main reason. Saddam Hussein and his government were state sponsors of terror, as the Taliban in Afghanistan had been. No, not sponsors of Al Qaeda... sponsors of Hezbollah in Israel and Lebanon. He helped financially and politically support a terrorist organization that has been around a lot longer than Al Qaeda, not to mention the fact that he'd been terrorizing, killing, maiming, gassing, and intimidating his own people directly ever since he took over Iraq in 1979. Our beef with Saddam had NEVER been because of the 9/11 attacks.
?
2016-05-28 13:00:27 UTC
Against the Iraq War but since we started it we need to finish it. Of course there is the possibility that with Saddam in power we would have eventually had to go to war at some point. Who knows? I just think the money could have been better spent in the USA on domestic energy development. Mind you, I'm not some idiot who is blindly anti-War or anti-military. Until everyone in the world ceases to be aggressive there will always be a need for a military. As long as countries compete for land and resources there will be war. People who campaign to end all wars or get rid of the military are living in a dreamworld.
David M
2009-05-26 19:05:59 UTC
There is no evidence that Iraq was a party or supporter in any bombing against the United States. However, Iraq had a program for weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear and biological weapons, and used chemical weapons against its own people at one point. In 2003, using the argument that Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease fire made in 1991, the United States was able to convince other countries that further military force was required to remove Saddam Hussein. No weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor any active program for developing them. (Old artillery shells with nerve gas were discovered.)

Since then, the United States is not "at war" with Iraq. The country has become selfgoverning, although with a substantial garrison of American soldiers for security purposes. (Similar garrisons were required in Europe following World War II after, for example, the German government was re-established.) Iraq has become a magnet for terrorism, largely the result of muslim extremist recruiting, and the soldiers are "at war" with the terrorists.
mnbvcxz52773
2009-05-26 19:05:42 UTC
First of all, we are not at war with Iraq. We are at war in Iraq. Iraq is our ally.



We went to war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but today, Iraq has a new government and is on our side against the terrorists and insurgents. Today it is more like we took a side in a civil war.



We are at war with the terrorists in general because of 9-11. That includes Iraq and Afghanistan, not just Iraq. Iraq was not directly involved in 9-11. Iraq had many problems because of Hussein and was in violation of UN Resolutions for 11 years.



Some people say we invaded Iraq for oil, but we have not take one drop of oil in 6 years.



Some say it was for revenge since Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr.



The legal reasons were because Saddam was in violation of UN Resolutions from Desert Storm and the world thought he had nuclear biological and chemical weapons. Saddam consistently kicked out inspectors and made appearance that he had them.



So people have a lot of opinions on why we took Saddam out.



Overall, we are rebuilding Iraq and fighting the terrorists/insurgents today because we cannot just leave Iraq in a state of turmoil or we have end up with another Somalia.
anonymous
2009-05-26 19:27:29 UTC
Gulf war #1. Bush sr's company unical bought blocks of land in Kuwait that border iraq for real cheap. They has no oil under them. 2.6Km away under iraqi soil lay a huge iraqi oil field. Slant drilling is legal only in Texas. Nowhere else. But unical did it anyway and began stealing Saddams oil. Saddam went to the UN to demand the kuwitis stop stealing the oil. They claimed the rigs belonged to an american company (unical) and they had no military to force the closure of the illegal derricks. Nothing was resolved. Saddam took it upon himself and took his own army into kuwait and blew up the illegal oil wells.George Bush seniors oil wells. he also stole back some gold bullion to make up for the loss. Kuwait called up GB and told him of the attacks and destruction. He then used the usa army to get revenge on Saddam. He blasted him back to the stone age. Saddam was furious and vowed further revenge. He had no military might left to do anything violent in retaliation. But.... he had another plan.

In 1975 France asked that the 260 billion they had in usa currency be converted to gold by the usa. They didnt have that much. This was an act of international bankruptsy. To avoid this, the usa abolished the gold standard and made a pact with OPEC. OPEC could control production levels of all oil but all oil had to be traded in usa currency. This gives your dollar its value.

Saddam in defiance began selling oil on the open market for any currency but usa dollars. This would collapse the dollar and the usa economy. The army had to rally the usa people behind an illegal invasion to stop Saddam from crippiling the usa economy. 911 was a usa army led false flag operation. It worked. The usa was tricked into backing the war. Thats why your there now. Afghanastan was necessary for two reasons.

1) in 1986 Osama bin laudens Taliban were at war with the soviet union. Osamas guys captured two soviet mobile launched ICBM's and hid them in the caves of Tora Bora. He had to be dealt with.

2) Osama's Taliban had almost completely erraticated the illegal opiuim trade in Afghanastan. The poppies were detroyed. Dick Cheneys haliburton Corp owns several pharacutical companies who were getting cheap opium from Afghanastan. He was now loosing money by synthetically reproducing the opium. Now the opium production is back to 80% of pre Osama. The Canadian army is gaurding those fields. Dying so cheney can make more profit.
anonymous
2009-05-26 19:03:37 UTC
We still don't know, they originally called it a "liberation", but why we are there is still uncertain. It looks like it was started to make a lot of money for Cheney's friends at Halliburton and to fight over oil. We weren't told that, it's just the only reasonable excuse anyone can find.



Iraq didn't bomb us. Most of the terrorists from 9/11 were actually Saudi Arabian. And bin Laden was in Afghanistan. So a lot of us are still wondering about it, too.
DP
2009-05-26 18:59:02 UTC
a few themes.



a war against the spread of terrorism. a war for oil, a war for democracy in iraq and other countries in the middle east
anonymous
2009-05-26 19:00:00 UTC
Iraq was pursuing a weapons program in which the UN and the U.S. had instructed them to cease all endeavors to acquire/or build WMD's.



We went there b/c they were a threat.



Dems will tell you otherwise but I encourage you to google:

Iraq War Quotes Democrats



It was widely believed Saddam was pursuing WMD's and while we were in the area, the Bush Administration found it advantageous to kill two birds with one stone.



Economic stability is also an issue. With Iraq supplying much of our demand for oil, having a rogue dictator in charge of that supply at odds w/ the U.S. doesn't do much for securing that supply-line and meeting daily demand.
anonymous
2009-05-26 19:03:07 UTC
They didn't bomb us. Prez W. Bush used the World Trade Center as an excuse to get revenge on Saddam Hussein. W. Bush's father, who was also president at one point, also went to war with Iraq.
Sebastian
2014-07-10 02:43:29 UTC
The hell with Iraq its like cops busting pusher lets go kick some Korean ***.
Keisha O
2009-05-26 19:40:55 UTC
we aren't... Iraq is just the location coincidently

but the actual reason we are at war IN Iraq is because thy are our allies,they owe us money and with this war we make billions (something like 900 billion) a year and war in the long run helps our economy.
mangerpatrick
2009-05-26 19:00:49 UTC
we r at war because 9/11 they didnt bomb us lol

were rebuilding so they dnt do it agian and we can train there army to fight agianst terroist attention???try believing in something they are there protecting your freedom so show some support or stand in front of them
Little Red Hen 2.0
2009-05-26 18:59:27 UTC
I'd like to know why we're paying all that money to rebuild for them, too. They did not bomb us.
anonymous
2009-05-26 19:01:23 UTC
no one is at war with iraq, the war is against radicals who want to seize all the power and implement sharia law. this is taking place in Iraq, not against IRaq.
Philip McCrevice
2009-05-26 19:00:21 UTC
google "text of iraq war resolution"



Congress will explain why they gave Bush War Powers.
anonymous
2009-05-26 18:59:04 UTC
Saddam
Ian P
2009-05-26 20:14:05 UTC
For Oil, to keep the weapons manufacturers profits ticking over and because the previous American administration thought they were the world police.
anonymous
2009-05-26 19:02:25 UTC
Because the Saudis took out the world trade center. We couldn't attack Saudi Arabia because they sent Bush Jr. billions to finance his failed oil companies before he was president. Saddam once tried to kill Bush the First so it was kinda like revenge.
Yishka Bedishka
2009-05-26 18:59:30 UTC
We are at war with Iraq because they are holding our oil ........ They just don't know it yet
Dave87gn
2009-05-26 18:59:31 UTC
they never bombed us



this is why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYRSnEi9h8
Bu Tran
2009-05-26 19:10:23 UTC
money and power


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...