Why did the Iraq war take place?

Answer 1

The US attacked Iraq in 2003 based on either misformation or disinformation, and the stated reasons have changed over time.

The Initial Justification : Weapons of Mass Destruction

The primary reason given by the administration of George W. Bush was that Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, was engaged in the production or acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). These are nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons (examples are the anthrax letter attacks in the US and the Sarin gas attacks in Tokyo--neither of which had any connection to Iraq). It was suggested that Hussein might provide these weapons to terrorists to attack the US. He had already used chemical weapons sold to him by the US against Iran, and also against Iraqi Kurds. Before the war UN inspectors announced they had found no evidence of WMDs, despite unfettered access. After the war was under way, additional investigation concluded Saddam did not have WMDs.

The war continued, however, because the occupation forces of the US were attacked by Iraqi guerrillas, many ironically supported by Iran, Iraq's enemy in the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). The US supported a new democratic government within Iraq, which was opposed by various Islamic groups that traditionally held power in the country. Other factions sought to aggrandize their share of the power to be had in the new political system.

It was suggested early on the conflict was predominantly an attempt by the US to control the flow of oil from Iraq, one of the largest petroleum producers in the Middle East.

Secondary Justification: Fostering a Democracy in Iraq

Initially when the US commenced Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, it was a war against the regime in Iraq; to remove Saddam from power, as the US had failed to do in 1991. The goal of the 1991 operation was to drive Saddam from Kuwait, at which the US and its allies succeeded. When no WMDs were found, the US asserted that its mission in Iraq was two-fold: to create a modern democracy and to stop the persistent genocides that took place in that country. The US enfranchised the Shiite Majority, provided for Kurdish autonomy in the North, and assembled a Constitution for the entire Iraqi population. This is in stark contrast to Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons on his own population and was responsible for committing genocide against the Shiite Arabs, Marsh Arabs, Kurds, Jews, Azeri, Assyrians, Yazidi, Bahai'i, and Chaldeans among others.

Alleged Causes

The Iraq War has numerous alleged causes. Determining the whether or not they are true causes of the Iraq War is left to the discretion of the reader. See the black headings for general categories of answers:

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Answer 1: Saddam attacked Kuwait in an attempt to take over control of the entire Middle East. He "flexed his muscles" to see if the world would allow him to "expand". The world refused to allow that and Saddam was pushed back and sanctions were placed on him and his military. Saddam was instructed that he could not sell more oil to fund his military and that any oil that he sold was to be used to feed and medically treat the residents of Iraq. His air force was restricted to specific areas and other specific sanctions were imposed, including but not limited to sanctions regarding the production, storage and use of missiles, chemical weapons and nuclear devices. Almost immediately, Saddam started selling oil at a discount to Russia, France and others, making the U.N. sanctions ineffective. Intelligence reports indicated that Saddam was trying to build nuclear devices and that he had chemical weapons. In fact, Saddam claimed that he would use chemical weapons against an invading force if we tried to enforce the U.N. sanctions. Under the circumstance, there was no option but to remove him from power. France, Russia and a few others were, of course, unwilling to go along with the U.N. mandate to remove him from power, because they did not want to lose their supply of cheap oil. There is still strong evidence that Saddam and/or his military leaders moved his weapons out of the country, into Syria before the war began.

Answer 2: Though the common belief for the cause of the Iraq war is the want of oil, it is because of false information delivered to the President and Congress. The CIA had information from an "Undisclosed Source" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Answer 3: We invaded Iraq because the leader at the time was telling the world that he had WMDs (Weapons of mass destruction). He wanted to risk the US bombing the country again but did not expect a full on invasion. If he had had WMDs then he would have used them on our troops when we invaded but did not. After a full investigation and the death of the leader we confirmed that they had no weapons of mass destruction but the war still continued

It it is now known Saddam had no WMDs. UN inspectors had full cooperation with the Iraq military, and were allowed to look wherever they wanted. They reported no evidence of any weapons program could be found, but we refused to let facts dissuade us from our plans.

Oil and Petroleum Control

Answer 1: Because the U.S wants to conquer Iraq's petroleum. President Bush wants all the oil and little riches from Iraq.

Answer 2: Saudi Arabia had been asking the US for a long time to leave their country, but we depend on oil like an alcoholic depends on a drink. This made one particularly radical man named Osama bin Laden angry and he hatched several terrorist attack plans against America, the most devastating being the attack on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. Then he went into hiding in Afghanistan. President Bush was angry about the whole thing and vowed to hunt down bin Laden, so we declared war on Iraq. The current spin on Iraq is that we're there to instill democracy and show other countries that America's way is best whether they like it or not, all while ousting dictators.

Answer 3: Mainly oil and the fear of nuclear weapons and other WMDs.

Answer 4: It was oil... Something about when people of Iraq saw us crossing there terrorty for the oil. We though it was ours, because of the country syria and it was in the border of the two... but they got mad at us and started this hole thing. So the blame should be on both countries and what we picked to do to solve this in anger and madess. Bush picked war for us without thinking twice of trying to rearange this with peace and just not do this again.

So yeah, bush isn't the most intellegent President.

Rebuttal 1: If it was all about oil, US troops would be in the oilfields and patrolling the pipelines, not trying to keep rival factions from blowing each other up

9/11 and Combating Terrorism

Answer 1: There are a multitude of reasons for the Iraq War. First, following the attack on the US in 2001, is the overriding concern to eliminate the terrorist training grounds in that region of the world. The first ones to be eliminated were in Afghanistan. Once the Taliban in Afghanistan were no longer a threat, i.e. no longer actively cultivating and training al Qaeda terrorists, the next most threatening training areas were in Iraq and Iran. Because there was an abundance of further information of the existence of non-conventional weapons in Iraq and the likelihood that they would very soon be in the hands of al Qaeda terrorist, Iraq was the next target. This is the "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) rationale that is so often cited. Right or wrongly, the US Government has taken the battle to the terrorists in those areas and not on US soil.

Rebuttal 1: The war in Iraq was caused by an unprovoked attack by the United States. Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attack of 9/11. To attack Iraq in response to 9/11 is like attacking Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor. On September 11th 2001, 19 Al-Qaeda terrorists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, hijacked four planes. They crashed two of them into the World Trade Center in New York (The Twin Towers). Both towers collapsed within two hours of the hits. Then a third plane was flown into the American Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. The fourth plane however never reached its destination. Believed to be heading for the White house, some of the passengers and flight crew fought to regain control of the plane. Realising that the passengers were moments from overcoming them, the terrorists rolled the plane, sending it into an unrecoverable dive. It crashed into a field near Shanksville,

Rebuttal 2: It was believed that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the 9/11 attack. This was later proved wrong by the difficult and arduous process of calling any professor of Middle East Studies and asking them if it was remotely possible for a Secularist Political Leader to align himself with an Islamist Terrorist.

Rebuttal 3: Certain news outlets propagated the lie that Iraq was complicit in 9/11. Virtually no major network engaged in any fact checking, or even questioned the veracity of it. We now know it was completely false. In fact, Osama had offered his help to the Saudi royal family to remove Saddam from Kuwait. Saddam and his boys were evil men, no doubt. The question is, were they bad enough to justify unilateral US action to remove them and secure Iraq's oil?

Actions of Iraq in Years Prior

Answer 1: Another reason is that the leader Saddam Hussein, was using chemical biological weapons on the citizens of Iraq. We stepped in to stop it!

Answer 2: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and their unwillingness to obey the conditions of their surrender or cease fire that they agreed to afterwards.

Expansion of American Regional Influence

Answer 1: The real reason we are fighting in Iraq is to try and form a republic in the heartland of Islam hoping that it would be a moderating force against radical Islam. The reason so many neighboring countries send insurgents to disrupt this process is from either ignorance or greed. On the ignorance side of things, young Muslim men are being told that they can fight in a holy war to prevent an "American Form of Government" from invading Islam. In truth, I think we in America would feel better if the new Iraqi Government were formed like ours, but we know better than to try, so we are hoping Iraq can form a new form of Republic with a Muslim agenda. Personally I don't understand why Iraq doesn't look to Turkey for assistance in setting up a successful government with a Muslim agenda.

Answer 2: The administration's interest in that particular region of the world.

Removal of Saddam Hussein or Iraqi Benefit

Answer 1: Initially when the US commenced Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, it was a war against the country of Iraq; to remove Saddam from power. Iraq collapsed quickly, as it (its forces) did during Desert Storm (within weeks) in January and February of 1991.

Answer 2: There is NO WAR "against the country of Iraq" since Saddam's removal from office. Currently, although called a war by the press, it is a law enforcement function; in which LAW, ORDER, and STABILITY is being (attempted) restored to the nation. Terrorists, Insurgents, etc. are being hunted by the use of WANTED POSTERS, and other forms of media...to be arrested (or killed), tried in a court of law, and then imprisoned or executed, or set free if acquitted.

Answer 3: Ever since no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found, America has claimed that its mission in Iraq is two-fold, to create a modern democracy and to stop the persistent genocides that took place in that country. The United States enfranchised the Shiite Majority, provided for Kurdish autonomy in the North, and assembled a Constitution for the entire Iraqi population. This is in stark contrast to Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons on his own population and was responsible for committing genocide against the Shiite Arabs, Marsh Arabs, Kurds, Jews, Azeri, Assyrians, Yazidi, Bahai'i, and Chaldeans among others.

Rebuttal 1: Saddam ill-treated his people. I find it incongruous how sympathetic we were to the Iraqi people, particularly the Kurds, when we fomented rebellion during the first gulf war then abandoned them in a Bay of Pigs style fiasco. Why did we rescind the no-fly zone allowing Saddam to quell the insurrection we instigated with the chemical weapons we sold him, if we truly had the interests of the Kurds at heart? Why did we permit Turkey to launch raids against Kurdish populations in the mountains of Northern Iraq after the war? And why don't we have any sympathy for other people around the world? Villages in Sudan were being systematically destroyed while we took snapshots from space. We did nothing to intervene there, or elsewhere. But Saddam was sitting on OUR oil. That makes for a huge humanitarian effort.

Conspiracies and Longer Historical Outlooks

Answer 1: The United States claimed that Iraq was involved in the production of weapons of mass destruction. This reasoning was totally discredited to no one's surprise but the United States administration. That leaves us with the obvious answer 1) The US Arms Lobby needs to have a war going on to make a profit. 2) Iraq is a major supplier of oil to Europe and this has forced up the price of European oil. Europe is a competitor of the United States in the world market so the United States will end up in a stronger position competitively speaking. There are probably a thousand other reasons the US invaded but the fact that Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator had absolutely nothing to do with it if you take into account the number of dictators that the USA has financed and supported over the years.

Answer 2: The driving force to the Iraq War was Dick Cheney and oil friend executives engaged in the oil business who had been attempting to get back into the mid-east oil business for more than 25 years. The primary reason the US and UK had lost this business was a result of them not adequately distributing the Iraq, Iran, and Libya government, their share of the profit. For example, in 1952 Iran decided to nationalize the oil which had been under control of UK oil companies. Shortly afterwards, the UK and US formed a coup to assassinate the leader. Since that time, the people in those countries have formed a hatred of the US and UK. Also recognize that the Bush family came into the oil related business when Prescott Bush was involved with Dresser Industries which later became Dresser-Rand was purchased by Halliburton in order to get Kellogg in 1998. Prescott was on the Dresser Board of Directors. George Bush 1 use to work for Dresser. US and UK Sanctions started sometime in the late 70's. During that time span, France, Germany, and Russia retained a relationship. That's the reason they voted against the invasion into Iraq. It all comes down to Cheney's secret meetings associated their greed for money and oil.

One way to stimulate economic growth is to engage in war. As various trade agreements and business tax incentives permitted US companies to move manufacturing and jobs to foreign countries, the US began a downward economic spiral. Engaging in war was a way to temporarily reverse that trend. We don't know who attended Vice President Dick Cheney's secret energy cabal in 2001, or what the topic concerned, which permits us to engage in free speculation. I believe his Texas oil buddies made preliminary invasion plans to void Iraq's oil contracts with France, Germany, and Russia. The US was unable to control Iraq's oil distribution through UN food for oil sanctions, so we launched a war. The excuse that Iraq was building WMDs and was involved in the 9/11 attacks was information for the Bush administration paid Chalabi and his associates, and was known at the time to be false. 50 years ago today (as I write this), President Eisenhower warned us against the military/industrial complex. We have not paid sufficient heed to his warning, in that the Iraq war was the first war fought by the US without congressional spending oversight. More money flowed into the hands of private contractors than in any previous US conflict. Fraud and corruption ran rampant, with billions of dollars of US public funds still unaccounted for. We used our military personnel, who earn around $25,000 per year, to train private contractors earning $150,000 per year to do their jobs. There are numerous other examples of waste and abuse. The war was a gravy train for many US companies, and the administration did its level best to hide the true costs off the books

No one really knows the truth of this war and by the polls of the U.S. citizens there are more than half that don't trust the President. Bush entered the war on the pretense of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" but thus far has not shown any proof this ever existed.

Comedy

Answer 1: Bush stole Saddam's lunch money

General Abridged Answer

There were many long term, short term, and trigger causes that plunged the US into the Iraq war. The US had a long-standing conflict with Saddam Hussein over his turnabout from ally to enemy, and his invasion and destruction in Kuwait.

The attacks of 9/11 were a tragedy that made most Americans hate the anti-US factions in the Middle East. Saddam's dictatorial way of governing was looked down upon by the realist and idealist US government. WMDs were posed as the main reason for bringing down the Hussein regime but they didn't exist. A first-tier terrorist is someone directly involved in 9/11 or who harbored those involved with it. There was no strong evidence that Saddam was either one of those, but public opinion in the US viewed him as one.

Answer 2

President Bush insisted that Iraq had WMDs. That was a lie. They didn't it was 100% the US's fault. Iraq did not provoke any sort of military action against them.

9/11 was also attempted to be connected to Saddam Hussein but it to this day has no proof in its favor. Or any reason to believe that.

Answer 3

The US has been in conflict with Iraq several times, but I'll assume you mean the latest.

The leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, has, in the past, been a very aggressive leader, continuing to launch attacks in Kuwait, Syria, and Iran.

In the early 2000's, the Central Intelligence Agency received intelligence that Saddam had access to "Weapons of Mass Destruction", so President Bush turned this information over to the United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The UN took concern over it and requested that inspectors be deployed to Iraq to try to find if Saddam actually did have access to these weapons or not, but Saddam refused to cooperate.

In response, the UN/NATO deployed soldiers to Iraq, believing it was a better choice than allowing Saddam to continue his operations in secrecy. This is what led to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

By the end of the conflict, Saddam had been detained and executed. These high-powered weapons were never found, and some believe that Iraq never had access to them, but such comments are debateable.

At the end of the day, it was a good excuse to wipe out a hostile dictator.

Answer 4

well we don't really know but most people think that it is over oil ??

but who knows ??

----

There are several theories on this:

1. An attempt to gain control over Iraq's northern oil fields for economic reasons
2. A desire to establish a strategic military presence near Central Asia (an underdeveloped region with unexploited resources largely under the control of ex-Soviet states)
3. An effort to bolster America's image as military power to strengthen the domestic Republican/conservative power base
4. A new Crusade (an extension of centuries-old conflicts between Christian and Muslim political forces)
5. An effort to clean up and solidify the elder Bush's presidential legacy by completing the removal of Saddam Hussein (which the first Gulf War failed to do)
6. A desire to liberalize and democratize some fairly oppressive states.

1 and 2 are currently givens, with an extensive military and economic American presence in the region for the foreseeable future.

3 is likely (the Bush administration was decidedly jingoistic), but if true, backfired badly.

4 is possible (given some of the early anti-Muslim public commentary on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars), but probably only for public consumption. Few attempts have been made to create religious conversion in the region.

5 is (again) likely, but backfired badly

6 is the current explanation, but the least likely. Democratization was the 5th or 6th explanation to be offered (after - if I remember correctly - ties to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, removal of a dictator, defense against an 'axis of evil', and stabilization of the region); it was never mentioned in the Afghanistan war, and only entered into the dialog about the Iraq war well after the fall of Baghdad. Further, no real effort at creating a stable democracy in either country has ensued (the current government in Iraq is uncomfortably similar to the Bath regime prior to the war - an autocracy with democratic trappings).

Answer 5

The war in Iraq is said to have started because of the terrorist attack on 9/11. There have been many that believe that the attack on the World Trade Center buildings was a US government ploy in order to start a war with Iraq because of the amount of oil in their country.

Answer 6

There is no such thing as an Iraq-Iraq War.

Iran-Iraq War

If the question intends to ask about the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988, several causes of that war include:

• Oil-rich regions along the border and access to the Persian Gulf.
• Religion: Saddam Hussein was a Secular Sunni and Ruhollah Khomeini was a Fundamental (Usuli) Shiite
• Government: Ba'athist State vs. Islamic Republic
• Nationalism / Power
• The two countries had a long history of border disputes, going right back to when the countries were the kingdoms of Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and Persia (Iran).
• Iraq wanted the new and unstable Iranian government to fall.
• Saddam Hussein sought domination of the Middle East.
• Radical Islam threatened to spread into Iraq from Iran.
• Territorial disputes between Iran & Iraq.
• Iraq was aiming to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state
• Saddam Hussein wanted to annex the Ahwaz Arabs (who were under Persian Occupation in Iran)

Iraqi Insurgency

If the question intends to ask about the current Iraqi Insurgency, there are a vast number of reasons as to why Iraq boiled into Civil War when the United States arrived. Saddam Hussein had a very strong grip on the country and as soon as he was forced to let go, all of the different issues he had held at bay (through very autocratic and violent means) came to the fore.

1) Sunni-Shiite Conflict: The religious differences between Sunnis and Shiites (both variants of Islam in the same way that Orthodox and Catholic are variants of Christianity) are not terribly important for the purposes of understanding this conflict. The religions function as ethnic groups. The Shiites have been the majority population in Lower Mesopotamia for nearly 700 years but have never been in power. To keep power over them, the Sunnis repressed and tortured Shiites. The promise of democracy means that the Shiites would have power for the first time in Iraq's history and many Sunnis are scared of Shiite retribution, leading them to fight the Shiites to keep them repressed.

2) Mawali-Arab Conflict: The Mawali (non-Arab Muslims) in Iraq are quite numerous. The most famous group of Mawali in Iraq are the Kurds, but they are not alone. The Kurds have wanted to pull away from Iraq for a very long time and create an independent Kurdish State because of how horribly Saddam Hussein treated the Kurds. The Arabs, however, want to maintain the Kurdish regions of northern Iraq because they contain a number of Oil Fields and they do not want to instigate conflict with Turkey, which would oppose any independent Kurdish State. Kurds have also been incredibly supportive of the American Invasion and its respect for their lifestyle and Peshmerga (the Kurdish Militia). This has also engendered hatred from the Arabs on account of the Sentiment of Humiliation.

3) Sentiment of Humiliation: Iraqis see the United States as a Western occupying power not unlike the Colonial Empires of Britain and France which previously occupied the region. They feel humiliated that once again, they were unable to properly defend themselves and are at America's mercy. Some groups (like the Kurds and Christians) approve of the American presence, but most Arabs strongly disapprove of a continued American stay in Iraq and began to react violently to promote American withdrawal. Al Qaeda picked up on this sentiment and moved into Iraq to further foster jihadist reactions.

4) Muslim-Christian Conflict: This conflict is relatively one-sided since the Iraqi Christians have neither the facilities nor the disposition to violently engage the Iraqi Muslim population, but many Muslims in Iraq mistake Christians in Iraq for being in an alliance with the Christian American forces and European forces in general because of their friendship with the conquerors. The affability that Christians in the Arab World show Europeans is usually respect for the elimination of the Dhimmi Status and the Promotion of Equal Rights as opposed to being an indication of a long-standing political alliance. However, the mere notion of the fifth column brings many Iraqi Muslims to violence.

5) Localized Tribal Conflicts: Iraq is composed of numerous well-defined tribes. Each Iraqi (whether Arab or Mawali, Christian or Muslim) knows what tribe he belongs to by birth. These tribes regulate everything about a person from who he can talk to, to whom he can do business with, to what his faith must be, and even where he can live. Numerous different tribes compete over local resources and it is not uncommon that the bloodiest conflicts arise between two tribal elders from different tribes squabbling over three or four city blocks. Moqtada al-Sadr was probably the most famous tribal elder so inclined to use violence to solve his problems with neighboring tribes and the Americans.

Answer 7

The act of terrorism supposedly started during 9/11, but uneasiesness was going on long before that. Then it was the fact of religious believes within the country. My bet is that is fighting for World Power and it's the oil that the U.S. government is interested in.