If none of the 19 Hijackers were from Iraq, why did we invade Iraq?, Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with it

None of the 9/11 Hijackers were from Iraq, 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia, so why didn't we invade that country?, plus, Osama Bin Laden is from there, and 2 were from the United Arab Emirates, how come we didn't invade that country?, 1 was from Egypt, who was the leader, Mohammed Atta, so why didn't we invade Egypt?, and one from Lebanon, so why didn't we invade Lebanon? Why do people continue to believe that Iraq and Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 attacks?, or why do they believe that he played a role in it?, there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi government played a part in 9/11, and why do people still believe it? In fact, Saddam Hussein and Iraq hated Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, and yet people still believe they had a connection, which is ********. There were no weapons of mass destruction, they never found any and they never will, also Saddam Hussein was never a big threat in the first place, we treated him as if he was our rival in power, which was crap.

Update:

Seriously, why did we make a big deal about Iraq after the first Gulf War in 1991, and why do we make a big deal about Iran? We treat them as if they are next Axis of Evil, they are not even close to being as powerful as the Soviet Union was or Nazi Germany or Italy under Mussolini or Japan under Tojo, The United States compared to Iraq and Iran is like trying to compare a Bear and Mouse, like we are a thousand times more powerful than them, like why don't we pick on someone our own size?

12 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Saddam Hussein proved he had the chemical weapons when he killed hundreds of his own countrymen (the Kurds) shortly after the PG War.

    After he lost the PG War, he agreed to let the (obsolete) U.N. keep tabs on him and his country to ensure he would not try to develop WMD's. The terms he agreed on, to end the war, were that, if he did not allow the U.N. to monitor his WMD activity, then there would be "dire consequences." So, about 6 years after the PG War, Hussein kicked the U.N. out, and the U.N. wrung its hands and wimpered, but did NOTHING else...

    Meanwhile, Hussein rejoiced when Clinton won the presidency in 1992... hmm... wonder why... Hussein breathed threats against all sorts of people (and made good on threats to his own countrymen)... and basically, he grew stronger and flexed his muscles more and more...

    Along came 9/11, and the U.S.... up until then, sadly naive to how hated it was... had to take a good, long, serious look at its enemies (you know, those who breathe threats towards it) around the world. So, a more serious look at Iraq brought attention to the fact that the spineless U.N. had been kicked out of Iraq and thus a very dangerous Hussein - who had, indeed, gassed the Kurds - and had, indeed, made many threats towards the U.S. - had gone unmonitored since 1997.

    That's where it became a critical issue... it was about letting people back in to monitor that situation and Hussein refusing to let anyone in.

    It really does all make good sense. You have to decide if you are spineless like the U.N. or if you have the guts to face the truth.

  • 1 decade ago

    The source below is the link to the Congressional Authorization for Offensive Military Operations Against Iraq. The reasons are listed in there.

  • kejjer
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Don't you guys ever read my other post.

    Here is a link.

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200801...

    look for the answer by ME---KEJJER.

    I don't know where you get this statement--

    <Why do people continue to believe that Iraq and Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 attacks?,>

    I don't know of anybody that has said that Saddam had anyting to do with 9/11

    But if you read---the 9/11 commission report--you will find that IRAQI intel agents met with alqueda several times in the 1990s.

    And if you google "AL SHIFA" you will find that the Clinton administration believed Saddam was working with Alqueda to develop WMDs in the 1990s.

    and if you know anything--you know that Bush kept the CIA director from the Clinton administration--George Tenant.

    Source(s): That thing on my shoulders.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I see your points....all of them, I wont try to answer them all because quite frankly Im tired of re typing the same stuff hundreds of time a week, Ive found a link that seems to clear up everything, it may not be palatable but I believe its about 90% of the truth, which in this day and age is a real good ratio.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA

    Youtube thumbnail

    &feature=related

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Telly
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Unfortunately like the administration, you are making many false assumptions. For instance, you say, "there never were no WMD's. This is of course not true. There were. Saddam used them. A very well documented fact. Ask the Iranians. So he moved them. No big deal. Point is, that assumptions are made on all sides. The reason for moving into Iraq never had anything to do with 9/11. Where do you get the idea that it did? The administration didn't say so! They went in to enforce UN sanctions that no other country had the courage to enforce! Yes, it appears that the administration made mistakes but lets not make mistakes with facts either! Obviosly Saddam was a huge threat, not only to America but also to many millions of innocent people in Iraq and other nations. I know you wish this whole thing didn't happen. We all do, but don't let it alter your objectivity!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    How many Germans were flying Torpedo Planes over Pearl Harbor on Dec.7th, 1941?

    How Many Italians were Flying Dive Bombers over Schofield Barracks that Day as well?

    Your Ranting, andTypical of the BDS set.

    Source(s): OIF Vet
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    How many times does this question need to be answered ? Further, everything you point to as fact, is mearly political heresay! Bring some real information to the table, and you might see some intelligent responses.

  • Chaz
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Bless you my child! Indeed why. Depends upon whom one asks. They claim that Bush was given "faulty intelligence". I, on the other hand believe his intelligence was faulty at the moment of his conception. laughing....

  • 1 decade ago

    do some history and political science reading and you can understand this more. While you may not agree with it, you should study history.

  • 1 decade ago

    because "supposedly" iraq had/has weapons of mass destruction.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.