I'm confused how exactly was invading Iraq beneficial to us?

Question

xenypoo-Considering the fact that we didn't really give them the option of whether or not they wanted democracy in the first place, we kinda forced that down their throats , I'd say that's pretty arrogant, and asides that I don't see the point of it, wouldn't it make more sense to lend support to people who actually wanted support fighting for their own democracy in first place? Like Tibet? But asides from that, I don't see how that benefits us in particular....

Answer 1

The invasion wasn't to our benefit, it was the benefit of protecting neighboring countries.  Saddam threatened Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and a few others.  He boasted that he will launch his ICBMs with a payload of destruction.  From what I remember, they were very excited that we ousted Saddam.  I can't express enough of their joy!

I, for one do not believe we were there for oil.  Our gas prices are rising and yet we don't touch it.  We never forced them into democracy.  For what I recall, they voted themselves in a preliminary on the future of their government.  They wanted the democracy themselves or else they wouldn't vote on their party leaders.

However, Saddam did announce himself an enemy of Osama and Al-Qaeda.  Funny thing was that they used to be allies.  Not sure what made the change, I was too young then to remember.

Answer 2

It was beneficial to the arms manufacturers and the companies who scrambled for the contracts.  It was beneficial to the US because they now have many soldiers experienced at subduing resistance because they will be used on US citizens in the very near future.

Edit:  Ask me that question at the end of September.  I am confused how a supposedly ethical nation can allow a million deaths and still ask what benefit it was to them...

Answer 3

If you haven't gotten it by now, you won't.  

Answer 4

Idiots like wudbeiser and lawrenceba do make me laugh. If the USA was taking the fight to the terrorists' homeland, or the "centre of Islamic extremism", it would have declared war on Saudi Arabia. How many Sept.11th hijackers were Iranian again? Or Iraqi?

Good job the Saudis don't own a huge percentage of the USA isn't it? Oh, wait....

Edit to lawrenceba;you really need to do some reading or get your info from somewhere other than Fox or wherever. Yes, Saudi is an absolute monarchy, an extreme Islamic one that regulalrly has public executions (don't have them in Iran), has religious police to ensure strict adherence to Islamic dress codes (not so in Iran), has very strict censorship laws that restrict artistic expression (again, not so in Iran, and is also the largest supplier of aid to poor Islamic nations. Unfortunately this "aid" is almost invariably in the form of a strict & puritanical Islam, which basically blitzes more moderate forms or Islamic worship. And bear in mind that the revolution was partly a response to US meddling-a long and not-so noble tradition of the USA in middle eastern countries. How many people know the British & US governments engineered the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh in the 1950's (democratically elected leader of Iran), simply because he nationalised his own country's oil reserves? Or that the chemical weapons used by Saddam (yes, the same Saddam installed by the USA) during the Iraq/Iran War were supplied by his old friends the British and US governments?

lawrenceba-So from your answer, the USA only attacks if a nation's government has influenced and aided an attack on the USA. So please tell me where the evidence is that Iraq or Afghanistan did either? And on that basis, is it not fair then for Afghans & Iraqis to take up arms against the USA for attacking them and occupying their country? And since Iran has never attacked the USA, where will your justification be for an attack on that nation? Your answer basically confirms that are comfortable with the USA seizing power over one of the world's key energy areas-gas from Afghanistan, lots of oil from Iraq, and lots & lots of oil from Iran. As John Pilger said, it is the Great Game speeded up, and the USA is as rapacious an imperialist power as ever.

Answer 5

If you play chess, or served in the military, you might understand the strategy.  It has to do with the center of Islamic extremism, namely, Iran.

If you don't or haven't, no explanation can clarify.

Edit; No.  Leaving Saddam in power also left another hostile entity to the USA in power, and since we are fighting an ideology and not an Army, it was more prudent to to rid Iraq of Saddam, allowing the Iraqi's to be free of him without fear of reprisal by him, and establish a freindly government to us, at least as freindly as their own domestic politics will allow.

Also, al-Qaeda has made the tactical mistake of allowing its opponent (the USA) to choose the battleground.  They could have sat back and not done anything in Iraq and really tied down the USA in the long run.  By fighting us there, they exposed the weaknesses in their ideology by attacking people of their own religion in an effort to subjugate them brutally, plus their attack capabilities are also severely weeakened.

Edit- To Mike L....what makes you think Saudi Arabia is the heart of Islamic extremism?  Do they have an Islamic government?  No; they have a monarchy.  That is not to say they are innoncent bystanders; they are not.  However, the Islamic Revolution of 1978-79 was not in Saudi Arabia, it was in Iran.

Edit-Mike L.  I have read about this for over thirty years, and am well versed in Saudi practices.  I am fully aware of Wahabbism and the spread of Saudi soft power.  I as aware of Islamic laws of Saudi Arabia as my reading can make me.

Once again, it also a part of an overall strategy.  As of now, with US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is squeezed.  Also, Saudi Arabia is just over the border of Iraq if indeed we decide we have been attacked as a result of direct Saudi governmental influence and aid.

I will never say the USA is innocent of wrongdoing; that is infantile.  However, if I am faced with a choice of defending my country or that of another when both are equally to blame, I will defend my country before that of another.  If that offends you, too bad.

By the way, I don't watch Fox news....or CNN...or MSNBC.  Do not judge what one does because they have a differing opinion than you do.

Answer 6

The Oil companies told president bush to go to war with iraq.

Answer 7

Stopping the spread of terrorism!! Duh!!!

Answer 8

There is a difference between invasion, and helping the Iraqi People to break free from a Tyrannical Government. Meaning Saddam Hussein, who no longer can terrorize innocent people.

The Iraqi People have a democracy now, due to our Soldiers, and England's. Little girls go to school now, where they weren't allowed to before, because they were born to live at the mercy, and whims of Muslim men, not to be treated any better than a dog begging for a bone. Women are becoming free there, to choose a job, and walk, and not fear a beating for showing a wisp of hair under their burk-as.

All because our Soldiers are brave enough to help the needy, and wanting, when asked.

The Iraqi People are more free now, then ever in the history of Islam. They're grateful to the Troops, and so am I. That's why it's beneficial.

Thanks Troops.

Answer 9

bush wanted to finish what his dad started. bush wanted to go to iraq before 9/11

Answer 10

It doesnt bush just wanted a reason to get his revenge for what they did to his dad etc.......and he wants there oil and baiscally own them

Answer 11

rather than fighting our attackers on American soil we brought THEIR war to THEIR land

Answer 12

oil

Answer 13

Well, we went there so that Cheney ,the evil Vice d**k, could satisfy his minions and theoretically rule in h**l for all eternity and receive dividends from Halliburton which has relocated to Bahrain, which  also happens to be located in the vicinity.Dream's got it.