Motives for Iraq war

what are the motives for invading Iraq ? Iraq wasn't a threat , there missiles could barely hit Kuwait , and plus they had no accurate way in guiding the missiles. Saddam Hussein harboured no terrorists , there were no weapons of mass destruction. And Cheneys oil company is benefiting heavily from Iraqs oil , and members in his cabinet are getting very , very rich off this . It seems he invading Iraq for it's plentiful oil resoures . And what do you tell the famalies of the fallen soldiers? Your loved one died to fill Bush and his friends wallets? that's why i believe a leader shouldn't attack first unless they have a son/daughter in the armed forces. I am in no way dis respecting the armed forces , im accusing George Bush , his cabinet, and his party.

 

Sounds like a loaded question. Looks like you have already made up your mind so answering your question would be pointless.

 

I would agree, you do seem to be loading the question.

However, Saddam had WMD but never gave the information required to absolutley confirm he no longer did.

Why not,

well possibly because he knew his powerbase was based totally on people thinking he had WMD - without them, Iran, Syria and Turkey would make him pay for past actions.

The phrase 'rock and hard place' springs irresistably to mind and he seems to have thought that international opinion and his friends at the UN could stop the US.

He put his own head in the noose, why should we blame GWB for pulling the horse away even if it hasn't exactly turned out as he wanted?

My gripe on the Iarq war 2 is politicians sending troops into battle ill-equipped.

Oil was undoudtably a major factor but try living in the 21st century for two or three days without it???

 

Know this for a fact do you?

How can you know these things also? He certainly had WMD's at one time. There was evidence of terrorist training camps within Irag.

What oil company is Cheney's? What members of Bush's cabinet are getting rich off of Iraq?
Cheney use to be the CEO of Halliburton which is not an oil company but does business with the oil industry. He has divested his Halliburton holdings thus does not stand to gain anything from Halliburton wheter Iraq was invaded or not.

Oil is of course part of the reason. Not so that the US can take it as you seem to suggest. Far from it. The US will pay for oil on the open market like everyone else. Oil is important to the entire developed world. Try and do without it awhile then get back to me on that one.
It's okay to accuse them..just provide some facts to go with your accusations rather than mere assertions and incorrect assumptions.

 

Saddam is/was a viscious, evil tyrant who brought untold death and misery to his people and threatened his neighbours. He has had, and used WMD's in the past and does anyone believe he would not have tried to get hold of them again if the allies had taken their eyes off him for a minute? There is (as pointed out) evidence for terrorist training camps in Iraq, and some terrorists have, in the past find sanctuary there.

 

As far as I know, 4 reasons were invoked by the US to start the war:

1.WMD, and the fact that Saddam was a threat to the US, Europe and his neighbours.
These WMD turned out to be a pure and simple product of imagination.
Let's be honest.Iraq was a ruined country, had no airforce, no navy, it's army was ill equipped and demoralized.
There was a military embargo upon Iraq.His best missiles had a range of 160 km.
Iraq not only was of course not a threat to the US or Britain, he wasn't even a threat to his direct neighbours.
Had he attacked his neighbours, the turks would have been in Bagdad in 3 days, as would the Saudis have.Even Kuwaits army was better than Iraqs in 2003.
Saddam didn't even control his own country, as for example the kurds in the north were practically independent, and had their own figthing force.
Saddam was not attacked because he was strong but because he was weak.
Want a really dangerous man, look for North Koreas Kim.

As for the WMD,the UN inspectors just asked for more time to continue their work.Why not ledding them finish their job and have evidence.
It's also worth noting that other secret services that those of US+UK had not found evidence of WMD.For example the french secret service informed President Chirac in january 2003 that Iraq did certainly not posess WMD.Now, is the french secret service that much better informed than his US and UK colleagues or were there other reasons for the unbelievable misinformation before the war.

2.Iraq harbours terrorism
Iraq did indeed support palestinian terrorists, but did never collaborate with AL Kaida(as was told by the US).
Nearly every arab country supports palestinian terrorism(which of course in their view is legitimate).
Absolutely no terrorists threatening the US were supported by Saddam, or were to be found in Iraq.
Due to his laicist regime, baathist Iraq was a natural ennemy of islamic fundamentalism.

3.Democracy in Iraq will eventually be a factor for the democratisation of the whole middle east.

Maybe, maybe not.It's too early to give a judgement upon this, but from my point of view it's nonsense.(see point 4)

4.Saddam is an evil tyran and his people must be liberated.
True, Saddam was an evil bastard.But as we more and more see in Iraq, the coalition armies in Iraq are not really being seen as liberators.The enormous cultural gap between them and the popualtions is one reason for this.
Saddam had indeed slaugthered his own popualation, but that was in the late 80's/early 90's, and no one in the west did anyting at that stage.
It's rather odd, that 13 years later Bush uses this a reason for his war.
Why not invading Sudan were there is a genocide going on, or Kongo or.....

The real motives for the war were geopolitics and oil.
Personally I believe that the Iraq war was the biggest mistake of the past decade.
It definately favoured islamic terrorism, the WMD did not exist, Iraqis still do not really want democracy, the post WW2 international order that outlawed agression wars is ending....

 

There are many countries that have viscious tyrant who brought untold death and isery to there people...

There was also evidence that they HAVE WMD, but in the end, the evidence was falls...

The main and only reason to attack Iraq was that they had weapons of mass destruction, it is clear by now that the don't have WMD, if Bush just wanted to remove Saddam Hussein from power to complete where his father started he should have said so, but than there was about 0% of support fr invading Iraq, so imo W Bush used this falls ''WMD'' evidence to start a war with Iraq...

Also, IMO, te US don't have any right to tell countries to withdraw there troops from other countries. I think the US should watch there steps when saying anything about war/peace/invading to other countries and must follow the NATO/UN rules, because if they don't, in the future they won't have any allies left.

 

Im not asking for anwsers, im asking for opinions. It was intended to be loaded article. He was dangerous, to his neighbors , but would he really attack anyone , seeing how the U.S Armed Forces destroyed 98% of his army in the first Gulf War.He was a tyrant , But half the country supported him none the less. I dought Bush attacked Iraq to gid it of Hussein , I think he had personal reasons behind it.Even if oil is important I wouldn't send people to die for it. But Saddam had to go , your right, his army was still large enough to inflict terror on the iraqi people , and plus his spoiled rotten sons. 1. Saddam had to go , that's true , but that's not why Bush invaded Iraq , and plus only like 10% of the iraqi's support the americans , like you shouldn't invade a country if the people your invading aren't on your side , and are trying to kill you half the time.Operation Iraqi Freedom , He should have called it operation "Kick Ass , Get Gas" The most dangerous weapon he had were those piece of crap skuds and mustard gas , but unfortunely they were enought o attack iraqi minorities(iraqi shiites, and the kurds. I support the invasion of Iraq , but not the motives that Bush's cabinet had for invading it. How do I know this , well there starting to uncover things about this ,

 

kidding man , I don't have a view on this < I just wanted to stir something up, the forums have gotten dull lately, I just want to see peoples views in this forum regarding Iraq and president Bush. It seems people are supporting the Iraq situation.

 

I don't like Bush at all, he's too prepotent and convinced of himself (don't know if this expresion is well translated), but Saddam is better out of power.
I dislike politicians that send troops into harm's way because some ideals they only understand, only to disguise some other reasons.

Short answer:
Taking out Saddam was a good idea, but bad procedure.

 

Who said: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"?

 

This war shows that US politicians can't be trusted. In 1980's Saadam was US golden boy in middle east, becouse of war against Iran ( first gulf war -cocntrary to their belives history didn't start with US involment) and his opssition to fundamentalist Islamists. They supported him even in times when he gassed Kurds. When Iraqi F-1 hit USS Stark with Exocet missile ( killing 50+ US sailors ) during war of tankers campain, US Navy shot down Iranian Airbus full of civilians ( around 280 pilgrims on the way to Mecca).
After second gulf war they alloved him to massacer Sheiites in the south when they revolted against him. This was the only time Iraqi AF was alloved to operate without any restrictions. Sheiites revolted with large US & UK support and were abandoned ( that is real reason for mistrust and revolt against US & UK forces last year).
Terrorist training camps were in Kurdish controled are in the north of Iraq.
Saddam did have WMD's that much is obvious. But were destroyed and he simply bluffed.

He was a bloody bucher and I agree that he had to be removed. But killing so much civilians in the process is a crime. This could be achived in second gulf war. Scwartzkopf could push to Bagdad but was stoped by papa Bush. He voiced his dissagreement and was pensioned off.

 

How many bloody butchers remain around after Saddam is out? And who is going to decide, which leader is a butcher and which isn´t? And how can the "butcher-busters" make sure that they do more good than bad?

Before we have a clear answer to these questions, I would propose a short moratorium on removal of butchers.

 

You are correct, American politicians can't be trusted. That's why Americans hate government and politicians. That is also why we have a Constititution that limits government. However, we trust the rest of the world's governments even less.

As for why Bush 1 stopped the advance to Baghdad was because the whole idea behind the coalition was to remove Saddam from Kuwait. If we had continued, it would have destroyed the coalition as the Arab countries involved would have left or possibly joined the resisitance.

 

So far several posters have indicated that the war was fought for oil..not ensuring stability of the Persian Gulf so that a stable oil supply is assured to the industrialized nations, mind you, but as though the US were invading Iraq to take their oil.
Please explain how this is supposed to be achieved. Are US forces shipping Iraqi oil to the US? Stealing their oil and selling it on the world market?
It's easy to repeat baseless charges (like the one about" Cheney's oil company") because it requires no critical thinking skills. If one applies reason and logic to the endeavor, though it requires some effort, the "grab for oil" argument becomes hard to sustain. I'm willing to entertain it though for sake of debate; so someone kindly explain how this grab is supposed to take place.


Izzak Stern wrote:

Absolute power..the American President? Hardly credible since he is restrained by two other branches of government, an opposition party and hordes of hostile newspersons.
What really bothers most Europeans it seems is not that Bush is acting against the wishes of the American people but that the majority of American people agree with his actions as was demonstrated by the cries of anguish from Europe when he was reelected by the people.
Get over it. Worry about your own governments and leaders and their inability to accomplish anything significant in the world arena. Where was all this European angst when mass graves were being dug in Bosnia..or when the Somalian people were starving or Saddam was killing his own people? Most of the US's troubles with Arab countries have come not from Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom but from the US's continued support for Israel.
We don't need to ask where the Euro's were or what they were doing(some of them) to the Jews of Europe that was the cause for the existence of a modern day Israel. do we?

 

Right again.

 

Whatever ones opinion of George Bush, and for that matter Tony Blair, the fact remains that they have removed from power two of the most evil regimes on the face of the globe. I think they should be given at least a little recognition for that.

 

I do live in Europe but I haven't noticed such an anguish.Most people here don't even care about their own leaders, led alone the US.

This topic is about Iraq, not Europe, but since you're talking about it, what significant has the US achieved in the world lately?

Yes, and where was the US?

What were according to you the reasons for the Iraq war?

 

Well, in Afghanistan it was not only them.
France's contribution to the figthing in Afghanistan was reportedly more significiant then Britain's.
Not trying to diminish Britain's role, but I noticed that the participation of other countries in Afghanistan and Iraq is much too often being forgotten.

 

Well, actually, UN resolution (ah, damn, I'll find out the number for you), drafted after Gulf War 1 (or 2, depending on how you view it ) stated that UN weapon inspectors should have instant access anywhere they wanted. They were not getting this. The resolution called for measures to be taken to respond to this situation, (something like 'reasonable force', but not quite so blatant), which the US & UK interpreted as 'send in the army', & France & Germany interpreted as 'ask for more time for the inspectors'.

Sadly, our leaders felt the need to dress it up as a dire threat to our countries, which has exploded right in their faces. Oh well.

As to subsequent handling of Iraq...

America has proved that it can handle a newly-conquered & hostile ex-dictatorship very well - look at post-WW2 Japan. Sadly, it seems to have forgotten what it did there.
Most important, to my mind, was initial promises made that were not kept (we'll have your power / water back again in a week, etc etc).

Now, it has become something of a downwards spiral.

Is it just me, or did I imagine UN troops in Bosnia?
The public did protest much, and the politicians (eventually) got round to doing something about it.