God told our President to do so. By god, I mean the oil executives.

Though it is very unpopular, this war is NOT about oil, it is about genocide. Maybe we should have waited until Saddam started marching people into gas chambers before we helped. There have been recent TV commercials about helping the people in Darfur concerning the genocide happening there. What makes their problem so different from the genocide committed by Saddam? Should we ignore the pleas by the people of Darfur? Maybe we should have ignored the situation in Iraq. Maybe we should have ignored the situation in Germany in WWII as well. Edit: And for the lowlife coward who downrated me for this answer, you are more than entitled to disagree with me, but at least have the courage to back up your ratings.

I think Bush didnt have enough to eat that day, and so he had low blood sugar and was loopy. He wanted to order a end his hunger so he picked up the red phone and ordered a "WeMustAttackIraq" sandwhich. Little did he know he was talking to the Armies top General, and the General heard the word Now instead of Sandwhich. But really I think that Bush wanted to attack an Evil dictator in reaction to 911. I think that he felt that Iraq was funding Terroist organizations, as well encouraging them to mount attacks on "Infidels". As well Saddam was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and needed to be removed from power. Unfortunatley he should have been removed in the first war.

Why don't we ask George Bush? Oh, that's right, he'll probably just say "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." Hah. He said that in Saganaw, Michigan, September 29, 2000.

Ask 10 people and you'll get 10 different answers! This makes sense to me: "Several answers have been given by the Bush Administration. (1) Saddam is an evil man who used poison gas on his own people, has killed political rivals, and violates the human rights of his people, especially the Kurds. The Iraqi people deserve to be liberated from him. (2) Saddam has ignored and violated resolutions of the United Nations Security Council relative to inspections and disarmament and must be removed to protect the credibility and integrity of the United Nations. (3) Saddam has weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological weapons) in violation of UN demands. These weapons pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors and to U.S. interests in the region. (4) Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda and therefore bears some responsibility for 9/11 and must be removed as part of the War on Terrorism. (5) Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda and his possession of chemical and biological agents which he could transfer to them pose a threat to the U.S. homeland and to our people. (6) Saddam has been trying to buy aluminum tubes useful in a uranium separation plant. Such a plant could produce the highly-enriched U-235 required for making an atomic bomb. If Saddam succeeded in building such a bomb, he could transfer it to Al Qaeda who could use it in the U.S. If we wait for a smoking gun, it could be a mushroom cloud. (7) UN weapons inspectors won't do any good. They failed to disarm Saddam before, and would fail again. Iraq only agrees to inspections as a stalling tactic"

The purpose of the war was to take control of the worlds second largest, and mostly untapped gas and oil reserves. At the same time, western business interests were not being catered for by Saddam. my apologies for turning this into an essay, (don't you just hate those answers?), but i've shortened it as much as possible. There are many who will disagree with this, citing the same lies that our leaders have been touting for the last few years, such as the Al Qaeda links that were non existant, i'm still not sure how they came about or where the evidence was for it. In the UK, our government dropped that line very quickly, presumably because the evidence for it was NIL. Or the WMDs that were supposed to be there but conveniently vanished 10 minutes before the invasion, presumably along with the invisilbe Al Qaeda training camps. There is also the feeling that well, 'Saddam was bad', therefore that makes it OK to invade and kill more people than Saddam ever did (around 600,000 since the invasion according to the UK media), whilst at the same time leaving alone the Despots in poor countries, such as during the Balkans conflict, Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, the Chinese occupation of Nepal, Rwanda and Zimbabwe. Or leaving alone the people we don't like very much but are sympathetic to our business interests, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (most of the 9/11 guys were Saudis). Whatever way you slice it, about who you invade and who you don't, it all comes down to money. Cold hard cash. Our government knew they could justify it politically, and make a killing (no pun intended), while we are there. The objectives are: Take control of the oil and gas. (accomplished) Move our companies in to rebuild the infrastructure and get the juice pumping (accomplished) Get the contracts signed. A few days before the interim Iraqi administration took over, the contracts were signed for our companies to do the work on the oil fields, with no get out clauses inserted, and the length of the contracts being 20 to 30 years, ensuring that our companies will still have control of the oil fields long after the troops have left. NOTE- Incidentally, every country in the world has it inserted into thc contract that it is the company working the oil field that supplies and builds and maintains the infrastructure, while the government of the country retains ownership of it. With the contracts that were signed in Iraq, they have become the first country ever to pay the companies to build and maintain the infrastructure. (accomplished) Put a government in place that will honour the contracts after the troops have left. This is the bit that is proving difficult, but at the same time is the least important of all the objectives. It is irrelevant to our governments if the troops have to stay until doomsday, it IS relevant that the oil and gas keeps pumping.

No, an utterly pointless exercise in sabre rattling by a desperate President. Billions spent on a conflict that could have been spent on free health for all.

No war is "necessary" IMO

I don't think it was "necessary", but now that we are in it, I think we should stay until it is over. If we pull out too soon, Iraq will be left in a similar situation to what happened in Africa and the Former Soviet Union when they were suddenly left without a functioning government.

No, but good grammar and spelling are necessary.

I think it was necessary-no more Sadam-can't ask for a more important reason. I also agree with vexillum-that grammar and spelling are also very necessary. Tis one of my pet peeves. Great question. God Bless, <:))))<><

Here ya go:

One word: OIL.

anymore reasos???

Economic, military and cultural imperialism.

Three reasons: 1. Oil 2. Warmongering 3. "Weapons of Mass Destruction"

Iraq was ripe for the picking. The door was open for the US to come in as liberators to overthrow a despotic state. Naturally there was a lot of oil at stake and the US stands to profit emensely because of this. The US also stands to make huge profits from Military suppliers such as Halliburton and through rebuilding the infrastructure of this country.

In a few words, no. There are multiple reasons. Personally I think going into Iraq was a huge mistake, however here is one explanation as to why Iraq was a choice when it comes to the American led war on terror: Iraq is in the center of the Middle East, its holy ground, and with the down-fall of Saddam it has become the front line for Islamic terrorist groups. With the US in Iraq it keeps the terrorist networks focused on Iraq rather than on the US. Note: There are many ways to look at this choice and the brief paragraph above is only one explanation of many.

Crack-smoking stupidity. I stole that phrase from the Thomas Ricks book "Fiasco", where one general used it to describe former Asst. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. To expand a bit, various factions in the Bush administration were so blinded by ideology and/or their narrow bureaucratic interests that they didn't take a realistic view of the situation. So they all ended up thinking invading Iraq, deposing Saddam and setting up a neo-conservative free-market paradise would be a cakewalk.

to pave the way for a larger middle east war . . . .

I believe it is the illusion of western power ever fully overpower the middle east.It has never been accomplished in history and will never be because the west will never full understand the middle east.The war in Iraq is for power and control of oil. Europe has already has a large hold on Arab oil and that pisses America off.There is no solution for America in Iraq and will be forced to pull out just like in Vietnam.

A shipping route to India?? Iraq was just in the way for a super highway.

money, power, greed, and daddy Bush didn't finish the job the first time.

Greed, pride, and the mistaken thought that those in the Middle East think like us in the Western world.

Because Daddy failed in Iraq. If W wanted to go after the country that sent the 9/11 hijackers, we would have little/no oil imports right now. If it were truly about oil, the same thing would've happened; we would've gone into Saudi Arabia instead. If it were about ousting a dictator, there are PLENTY to choose from in the world, some worse and more inhumane than Saddam. If it were about pacifying the Middle East then Iran is also volatile, and the Palestinians have been been fighting with Israel since day 1 so Iraq is not the first place I would go if I were seeking to calm the region. So either it is to avenge 41's failure or to boost our economy; war is always good for business. Besides, our country averages a major war about every 20 years. We were due.

Oh what the hell...i might as well have everyone yell at me today. . The Iraq war was caused by a terrible event that created some very difficult decisions. . The spark was 9-11..it got the wheels rolling . that caused the difficult decision of weather we should try talking to the countries over there to see if they will do anything...or we could go over there in military force... .....The nations that are over there have a lousy history of listening to diplomacy...This basically means that diplomacy is worthless and wasted on those nations. . This lead to the troops put on the ground in Afgahnistan...now the Afgani's allowed us in and let us hunt down and kill the terrorists. . Basically the US kicked the crap out of the terrorists in Afghanistan and the remaining terrorists there fled to neighboring countries. Many went to Pakistan, some went to Iran, and..yes, some went to iraq. . Now, with the terrorists hidden again with a new base of operations and their new attacks on Europe, a new hard decisions was created....none of the countries they fled to would let us hunt them down... If anything was to be done, some kind of military action had to be taken somewhere else....Well, Pakistan is the closest thing to an ally (besides Israel) we have in the Middle east. . We probably don't want to hit Iran because they do have the backing of china, that would lead to a full scale war. . That leaves iraq...it had an evil dictator that gassed and murdered his people, and financed terrrorism. ...This created the decision to go to war with Iraq. (side note: in Afghanistan and in the invasion of Iraq we caught and killed nearly 20 of the most wanted terrorists in the world.) . Then, after we were in there...it is was our job to stay there until the Iraqi government could support itself and rebuild the country. . The terrorists in the Middle east couldn't risk to loose a second country that used to be a safe haven, so they began bringing in fighters from neighboring countries. And this brought us to where we are today. . The terrorists are still desperately trying not to loose iraq as a safe haven.

I dunno. Ask all the Democrats that voted for it, and then said they're against it. And now they're for it again. Confusing. It might have been something about 17 UN resolutions.

If for no other reason than this: Saddam had over 500 dissedent's children in a prison. Amazing how some people don't pay attention.

BUSH is the reason!

America miscalculated the Iraquis. Remember "Mission accomplished"??? We spoke too soon...

Oil.

Yes. Some wanted to go because they honestly considered it the right thing, and thought that the WMD's in Iraq were a direct threat to the US. Some saw the oil and were greedy. Some saw the chance for war and the chance to get rich on military strikes, etc. Some wanted to free the Iraqi citizens from a dictator. Especially with Iraq, to say it's only one reason for us being there is to way oversimplify. To either villainize Bush or any of his associates or to saint them both take way too strong a stance, in my opinion.

if we didnt have a dick and bush running this country we wouldnt be asking ourselves this question...

Just a reminder: the US/allies are not at WAR with the Iraqis-- The US/allies are fighting, along-side the Iraqis against radical insurgents from Iran, Syria, etc. IN Iraq. These nuts are trying to take over the World and kill off anyone with different religious beliefs. Muslim, Shi'a, Sunni. Saddam and his sons were torturing, murdering, raping innocent Iraqis for fun-- he also invaded Kuwait! He was not a good guy. While he was in-power for 24 years, his daily average of Iraqi civilian deaths was between 70 and 125. (source: http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html) did they deserve to die? Hell yes! Did America have to do it, NO but while they were retaliating in Afghanistan after 9/11/01, it was convenient. For the record, the 1991 Gulf War was over very quickly, 2001 Afghanistan was very quick. Saddam was removed from power within a month. America was counting on the Iraqis to stand up and get things going sooner. Iraqis are apparently to scarred to.

Oil and arrogance!

America needs to have at least one war every ten years. Bonus points if the people we're shooting at are brown.

Oil.

Oil and the PNAC. I'll get too mad if I write about it now, so I suggest you just do a google search for PNAC.

This question seems like it is framed to get people to answer negatively. Whatever the reason it has/is happening and we should back our troops to the hilt and if we dont like what the politicians have done then at election time, get rid of them. Do remember though GWB was returned to power for a second term AFTER the war began.

Oil and Bush is a dummy.

The reason the Iraq war started, was because Saddam Hussein was building up his chemical and biological weapon stock. He was giving aid and comfort to designated terrorist organizations. He was also increasing his capabilities to develop nuclear weapons, and their delivery systems. If that would have happened, the middle east would be in jeopardy of an attack by a madman. Millions of innocent people could have been murdered so Saddam could have control of all the natural resources. On October 11, 2002, a joint resolution in the Senate, (H.J.114) was passed to go to war against Saddam Hussein. Nays=23 Yea=77

The war was planned some years ago by an organisation called Project For The New American Century. The lies about Sadaam and WMD, and the non existent connection between Al Qaeda and Sadaam (who was someone they wanted to kill btw) were used to justify what was already planned. See video answer #4.

&quot;Oil" and "WMD's" aren't strong arguments. The basic instigators were the occupation by Iraq of an american ally (Kuwait), missile attacks against neighboring allied countries (Isreal and Saudi Arabia), defying UN mandates against his actions, offers of support to enemies of the US and it's allies (terrorist groups) and a clear willingness to use force against anyone who challenged Saddam's actions and authority. Forgetting oil and WMD's, are those not sufficient reasons to want to get rid of him? Keep in mind he was a brutal dictator who killed anyone who he feared would take control from him. He ruled his country through fear and killed at will. "Oil" and "WMD's" are reasons unto themselves but they are weak compared to the facts leading of to the invasion.

&quot;Breaking the Silence" - Award Winning journalist John Pilger, on the lies that led to war in Iraq, including the US decision to create and support both the Mujahedin and Al Qaeda. There are plans btw for this whole documentary to be required viewing for all British High School children, as part of the British history syllabus.  

17 UN resolutions and an evil dictator who needed to be removed.

The U.S. government has been looking for any chance to gain influence in the Middle East for the better half of the last century, because that whole part of the world has been cursed with great religious, economic, and strategic importance to a lot of very powerful, and all too often very greedy and very cruel powers in the world. In the wake of an attack on the U.S. by people of Middle Eastern affiliation, the widespread fear among the American people, coupled with the ignorant, xenophobic tendency of so many Americans to mentally lump the Middle East into one big, vaguely threatening ball of 'Dark-skinned Muslims', gave the powers that be in the U.S. government a blank check to do any number of things in the Middle East. After that, all they really needed was some lies to appeal to people's feelings of fear and outrage, and enough half-truths and out-of-cotext facts to prop up their sham of credibility when and if their lies got found out. Considering how powerful most of the people who wanted us in the Middle East to begin with are, and how many powerful cronies are backing eachother up, chances are the closest thing to a "Reason" the people of America and of the world will ever get straight from the horse's mouth is something roughly along the lines of "Because I could" (If we even get that much).

To add to some of the great answers posted here, sometimes I think the US government does these things just to piss off the UN, like an annoying little brother.

war = profits

For this answer, we look to our fearless, mindless leader.

For this answer, we look to our fearless, mindless leader.

Well according to your profile you have only been a member for 5 days, so im not sure I know you unless you are a sock puppet, if you are give me some clues..

It's a self generating war. We attacked, people defending their land were labeled as "insurgents" and we had to supress them while we proved that there were no WMD. Once we proved that the US invaded under a false pretense, the "insurgents" were renamed "terrorists" so the Bush administration could say that we are fighting a war on "terrorists". The more we occupy and kill/torture "terrorists", the more the people that live there will want to defend themselves, therefore more "terrorists" that need to be killed.

No. It seems we all have very short memories of the world 7, 8, or 9 years ago and those events which were so devestating to the US and the US military. But that's the political spin that is put on things.

Oil for the big oil & energy cartels to quench their greed. My 2 cents.

Yes, I do. Oil & greed = big oil & energy cartels. My 2 cents.

Sure, no problem: 1. In the beginning (well, not really the beginning, but close enough for jazz), Saddam Hussein, the de-facto dictator of Iraq, invades Kuwait in the late 80's, and then-president George Bush Sr. organizes a coalition to push him back into Iraq. 2. In the years following, Hussein repeatedly resists inspection by the UN, inspections agreed to after the first war. Inspectors are convinced he's hiding Bad Stuff, also known as WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) 3. George Bush Jr. is elected (well really, a wild sequence of electoral mishaps causes him to be appointed pseudo-President by the Supreme Court, indirectly). Lacking clear goals post 9/11, or a significant enemy to make him feel special, he appoints Saddam Hussein the Arch Enemy of America, and manages to dig up evidence that Saddam has WMDs that he will eventually use in Bad Ways. 4. With the preceding justification, Bush organizes a much less enthusiastic coalition, invades Iraq, throwing the civil and legal infrastructure into chaos, and unleashing a major shit-storm of previously suppressed hatreds between factions within Iraq. In the resulting power vacuum, each faction attempts to blow the other to Kingdom Come by destroying all open air markets with suicide bombs, etc. 5. WMD's are never found, and the Bush Justification is exposed as a fraud, possibly intentionally foisted upon the American People. Bush's approval ratings sink into the mud, but the administration cooks up an elaborate justification for continuing the war anyway: i.e. "If we don't continue, we will have lied in vain!" 6. The war consists mainly of putting enough coalition forces in harms way to suppress the bombing, but it's sort of like making cats not hop onto the kitchen counter: the cats only cooperate while you're watching. Essentially, you have to watch the kitchen counters 24/7, you can't ever go to the restroom or take a nap. The technical term for this is "no exit strategy", which, ironically enough, is what George Bush SENIOR told an interviewer once when he was asked why he hadn't overthrown Hussein to close the first Iraq war! The nice thing about irony is that it runs in families.