Why do you think USA enter Iraq?
They lost soldiers...They lost money...
They say for peace what do you think?
there can be some other reasons but the first one is oil
I think it is because some people in Washington think that US hegemony is good for the world. They do not understand the horrors of war and view it as just another tool of foreign policy.
To quote from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Jeb Bush and several other prominent members of the US administration,
They want the US to rule the world for their own (US) interests, and to do this they plan to increase military might
Unless they use this military power around the world, they say that American interests and leadership of the world will be challenged.
And so I'd say it's pretty clear what's going on. They think that the US should rule the world, and have no problem using war to to promote US interests, which includes the "leadership" of the world, and that's something that the world should embrace. So, as silly as it sounds, these people really do think that the US should rule the world.
These quotes are from http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
On a personal note, it's a little bit scary that people who think like that can become the leaders in a democracy.
Because (regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong) we want people to live under a democratic, non-tyrannical government. We want people to live in a place where they are free to worship who or what they want (or choose not to worship). We want people to live in a place where they can speak out against the government (much like here) and don't have to worry about being beheaded for it.
Here is the association people are making with the war in Iraq:
War is bad. Bush got us into a war. Bush is bad.
They aren't even looking beyond that. They associate war with bad things, and assume that because we are at war, Bush is bad. Think of "good wars" - American Revolution, for example.
And at the end of the day it doesn't matter why we are in Iraq because the fact is, we're there - and that doesn't look like it will change very soon. Although if you've been keeping up with non-liberal biased media, Iraq has taken control over it's armed forces now. That is clearly a step up. But you wouldn't know that from watching news here in America, you only hear the negative things - car bombings, journalist kidnappings, etc.
The terrorists recognize that the American public doesn't support the war and they are acting upon that weakness and apathy.
If more people supported the efforts in Iraq, terrorists could see that they aren't only up against the Bush administration, but against an entire nation.
Look at WWII - nobody supported war, then Pearl Harbor happened, and everyone supported it. Nobody supported war here, then September 11th happened. I admit, they are different circumstances, but the principle is basic.
THE WORLD WILL NOT CHANGE FOR US, sometimes we must seek the change. Clearly if we continue on our merry way, blindly ignoring the middle east, things will not change - more of our buildings will fall, more of our people will die.
Someone had to have the courage to grab the problems in the middle east by the throat.
And really - why do we sit here and complain about it. The only way the war has affected anyone here is if they have a friend, relative, acquaintance, etc. go to Iraq. Other than that, this war has no affect on us. Stop trying to draw attention to yourselves, and drop the hippie crap. Sometimes apathy, inaction, and many attempts of diplomacy don't make the cut.
I believe that the attacks on Iraq are for the terrorist attacks on the USA.
I have recently followed an documentary about the 9/11 attacks and the conclution i have maded was that the Bush government was determined to attack Iraq.
The advisors of the government told them that it was wrong to attack Iraq and that Afghanistan was the main target.
After a long time there was a deal that Afghanistan was the first target and Iraq was the next.
There are also rumours that the entire 9/11 attacks are actually putted in scene by the american government.
There are a lot of facts that may proof the that, but everyone have denieded it.
If this rumours become true, then are Bush and the entire government with all the related departments sitting ducks.
Should I point out that the US was among Saddam Hussein's supporters? Maybe I should point out that it was Rumsfeld who was the US envoy to Iraq, and the US who sold Iraq the precursors to its biological weapons. Or I could give you a list of similar tyranical countries which the US supports or has supported. For the use of an airbase in Uzbekistan you were willing to overlook that opposition members to the government were literally boiled alive.
Yes. It does matter. In a democracy leaders should be held accountable for what they say. If a leader misleads you then he or she should be held responsible for what they say particularly when what they lead many tens (or even) hundreds of thousands to their deaths.
Well, can I humbly suggest you read some Iraqi blogs. They are much more scathing than the US media, who take a simplistic and hopelessly optimistic point of view.
Here are some recent posts:
There's lots of really interesting blogs coming out of Iraq at the moment. It's much more personal (and sadly it's more distressing) than cold news coverage. You can find a lot of them listed here:
It's back after being hacked shortly after the Qana massacre.
In another thread you said that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
We care not because of selfish reasons, but because we don't like to see other people suffer. I can't believe you know so few people in the army. I know many, but that's beside the point. Caring is what Christ called us to do - to love our brother's as ourselves. Here's part of a poem written last Friday:
Is that really what you wanted? War has not solved any problem. It's made things worse, and now we have to deal with that for the coming few years and decades.
Notice that "was" is a keyword in your post. We supported Saddam when we thought he was doing right, then changed when we realized what was going on.
I think you're jumping to conclusions a bit here with the "precursors to its biological weapons" and "were literally boiled alive." But that's only my opinion.
How were we mislead?
A noble claim, but alas, wrong. If you don't like to see people suffer, then why was the world (including the US at the time) content with Saddam killing and torturing his people?
I don't support us going in, but the fact of the matter is that we are there now. If we pull out, Iraq will collapse on itself and all of our previous accomplishments will be undone - we are working, albeit slow, but we're working. (Note that it would go faster if we had some support for our efforts, but whatever, we'll keep doing the dirty work that nobody else wants to do).
THEY WANT THE OIL !!
You thought that massacring Kurds was "doing right"? The US was supporting him then and turned a blind eye.
Look at your "allies". They aren't democracies, they are countries who cooperate with you on military and trade. It doesn't matter to you what sort of government they have. Saudi Arabia is the most repressive country in the region, Pakistan is a military dictatorship, Egypt isn't democratic, Kuwait is an emirate, as is the UAE, Jordan (who I respect) is a kingdom. In Central Asia you're supporting undemocratic ex-Soviet regimes for the use of their airstrips. You just supported the bombing of the Lebanon.
That precursors were sold to Iraq is detailed in the US's own Senate Banking Committee report of 1994. Also important are their investigations in 1992. Feel free to read it for yourself.
That Uzbekistan oppostition members were boiled alive is known because the British embassy obtained an autopsy of their corpses. See for example:
Or for some disturbingly graphic pictures (please do not click here unless you are over 18 and are prepared):
You were told that there Iraq had a nuclear program, and WMD. Also, AlQaeda and 9/11 were constantly associated with Iraq by your politicians even though there was no such connection.
If you are concerned about these things then perhaps you would consider joining Amnesty International? I can tell you why the US was content with it was a cynical attitude that supporting Iraq was a better way to spread US power:
So the US was prepared to overlook Saddam's abuses for power. Like always they were acting in their own interest - that of spreading US power - and not the interests of the Kurds.
Well that is a little funny isn't it? I am from a country, Australia, who sent troops, and I'm living in a country, Britain, who controls the south of Iraq. Funny how we get ignored.
You insulted your allies when they warned you exactly what would happen when you invaded. They were absolutely right to say that they weren't convinced about your claims about WMD and connection to terrorism. Your leaders said they didn't need the support of "Old Europe", and you blew off my country, Australia, when we as your friends asked you to get security council approval. You ignored the democratic wishes of the vast majority of the world... Bush said very loudly in his SOTU address that you didn't need their approval to start his war, and now you're complaining you're in a mess and there's no-one there to help you.
you supported saddam when you thought he was useful for your benefits.
like you did in Chile.
you didn't care when he killed hundred of kurdish people.
and if you believe what you are talking either you are so naive or you think we are stupid.
No new topics on the Middle East, please.
All of this can be said in the the Middle East