Why was Iraq invaded? Was it because their nationalized oil couldn't be bought out by companies?
348889
supposedly it's because of "weapons of mass destruction." but we all know it's because of the oil. the shitty part is now bush has had us over there 3 years, and the fuckin gas prices are still pushing $3 and probably $4 in summer.
760786
Geopolitically the industrialized world is totally dependant on oil from the Middle East.  There is no industrialized nation that does not have in their national interest the seeking of a guarantee that there must be an uninterrupted flow of oil into their nation.  They all hover around the Middle East like moths to a light, ever manipulating, bribing, arming, trading, selling technology, whatever it takes, to buddy up with the Sheiks.  Use simple "rule out" and you find there are many countries with worse dictators and political systems around the world that we have not, or would ever consider invading to "set those people free."  It is  only because there is oil in Iraq that we even know where they are on the map!  It is hard, but it is true.
350329
Why did we invade Iraq, oh ya didnt they have WMD's?  That cant be cause N. Korea has six, which they have openly admited to.  Why dont we invade them?  No wait, it was because they were living under an oppressive tyrant, Saddam, right?  Is Iraq the only tyrant oppressing his people?  No what about, parts of Afica where wild militant groups and terrorists are free to roam and do as they please.  So why did we invade Iraq?  It couldnt be to establish a governement with people with previous good relations with the White House, to sell us oil at a good price, could it?  Well then, why didnt they prez. just say so?  I'm sure the American people would have backed him up if he said we were sending our troops to Iraq to die for oil . . . blood for oil, thats a worthy cause.  But, I guess the threat of Saddam having WMD's sounded better.\n\nYou're right on point dog.  Didnt we invite and welcome the Saudis with open arms too?  Is this De Ja Vu?
1087457
Gosh your mouth is so small. I will entitle you to my land deeds\n\nNow the facts about politics:\nIslamic countries have oil. Big transnational companies need oil so they bribe some western governments to produce lame excuses and terrorize the western public so that they can steal away oil, just like in Iraq.
566313
The reasons are numerous and all based on greed and a callous disregard for human life and international law. Eisenhower warned us about the growing threat posed by the dread military-industrial complex 50 years ago. It has come to its fruition (on a spectacular scale) under the criminal administration of our idiot king. Disregard everything you've heard about justification on the grounds of Saddam being evil, the threat of WMDs, the "war on terror" and the imposition of democracy from the outside (an oxymoron if ever I've heard one). This is and ever was all about money.\n\nThe wealthy (and frighteningly powerful) oil giants like ExxonMobil have recorded record profits since this criminal invasion of a sovereign nation. Halliburton and other such evil corporate giants have amassed truly staggering sums from their prearranged government contracts. Wealthy, sinister and extremely powerful people are lining their pockets on this war. And innocent civilians, American and British soldiers are sacrificing life and limb entirely for that purpose. How f**ked up is that?!
156952
Well no ones answer will be objective (except for mine of course LOL).  The fact is that their were multiple  Terrorist training camps in Iraq and bush made it clear that we are against any country that harbors terrorists.  Sodom Hussein also gassed thousands of curds.  Leading to the weapons of mass destruction accusation.  Manly he was an incompetent leader who had invaded other countries before and wouldn’t have a problem with doing any thing that would kill innocent people.  And no it wasn’t for oil.  If it was than why am I pay so much for it.
283967
Well, the invasion of Iraq may have occured because of that in part. However, the securing of oil reserves is also part of it.  The Peak of Oil production has limited the remaining oil in the world to approximately 1 trillion barrels, that means as more is pumped out there will be less for increasing demand. (Picture the top of a bell curve)  Holding onto oil allows for the continued supply.\n\n   As for the bourse coming online at the end of this week in Iran, it may lead to the dumping of US currencies by countries like China and Russia as well as the European Union.  These state actors won't dump all their currency, but since China holds over 800 million US dollars, they may divest a few hundred million in order to pick up Euros a more stable currency that has far less debt behind it. (Over 8 Trillion dollars if you've been following the news).  The result is a devaluation of the US currency and inflation to prop it up.  \n   Will the USA go into Iran?  I doubt it, it's 3 times the size of Iraq and the US does not have the military to put soldiers on the ground to hold what it might initially be able to take.  Also, since Iraq and Iran are, for religious reasons far closer than than have ever been, the prospect of fighting a mass uprising in Iraq while in Iran is too real to consider.  \n   There have been suggestions of nuclear weapons being used to neutralize threats.  I doubt the USA wants the political fall-out domestically and internationally to let the nuclear genie out of the bottle again.  \n  Will oil be sold in Euros?  Almost certainly, will it negatively affect the US economy, definitely.  Can it be moderated?  Possibly, by negotiating with Iran to sell in Euros in increments.  Will negotiations take place?  It doesn't seem likely given the current political tone.  Is it a mess?  One like that hasn't been seen since World War 2.
302930
the money is staying with the iraqi people, and where it goes is determined by the iraqi government. and for the record, Bush sold his oil company years ago, so he couldnt possibly have gained from it
403304
Canada has a lot of oil. According to all the liberals, that is the only reason Bush invaded Iraq, so it makes sense that Canada would be next. Plus it's closer to home.
240761
Weapons of mass destruction UN resolutions backed up the US and allies to invade. CIA and MI5 both said they had them. None were ever found. \nAt the end of the day saddam was evil and did need to be over thrown. However the US really needs the oil. Now that is not to say they want to steal it but they do need a friendly govt. to trade with. \nMost of the contracts have also went to US companies which is a slap in the face for the allies. \n\nmy source is just from watching news in the uk which went to town on our own govt for allowing us to be rogered by our supposed close friends in the good ole U.S. \nno disrespect intended. I my self work for an amercian company in the North Sea oil fields.\n\nGood question mate.
1008427
Nukes. Was that the real reason or the one they gave you? How old are you? The real reason for going to Iraq was for oil.
190812
Persoly i thought if there were gonna invade iraq, it would be a good choice, elimating a dicactor, and injecting liberalism to the islamic area, despite other bad motives (oil) \ni am astounded at how iraq is stil unstable, and how the u.s is turned into the occupational forces
42405
The vast majority of Iraqi oil is sold to Asia and Europe.  The last time I checked, the US bought less then 5% of the Iraqi oil exports.\n\nHowever, you also have to understand how the oil market works.  Supertankers frequently pick up oil under contract, often from several different depots.  So a Tanker may get oil from AUE, Iraq, and Kuwait.  It then takes it to Asia, where it is offloaded and stored.  That oil will then be loaded onto another tanker and sent to the US West COast for refining and distribution.\n\nOil is a very fungible commodity.  Just like Gold, it is seperated and mixed with oil from other sources, from manny different locations.  It is often stored by 3rd parties, and refined by 4th parties.\n\nSo has Iraqi oil been used in the US?  Of course.  Just like South African Gold was used in US jewelry during the embargo during the 1980's.\n\nDid the US go to war for oil?  Of course not.  It would have been cheaper to simply do something like forse the UN to remove the trade sanctions and prop up Saddam with more palace money, or do the same thing with Lybia.\n\nOf course, we could also remove all protection of Israel, then we would probably get free oil forever from some of the nations in the region.  If anybody believes this war was about oil, they have no understanding of international relations and commerce.
799361
One of the biggest factor that most people aren't aware of is that in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwaiit they weren't going to stop there.  They had plans on continuing the invasion and invading Saudi Arabia as well.  That is the only reason Saudi decided to let troops occupy Saudi soil during Desert Shield.  Because we swooped in and held Iraq at bay as well as using patriots to stop the scud missles directed at Saudi governement relations were good.  Although many Saudi citizens did not like our forces on their soil, they wanted the US to leave after Iraq was driven out of Kuwaiit.  They were afraid US troops would influence their country.  Saudi was very strict on what troops could bring into their country.  No bibles, alcohol, etc.
70119
Because we did not go to war with Iraq for oil.  We did not go to war with Iraq at all! We have a "war on terror."
925641
Yes it was. The US economy is built around oil but more importantly the US economy operates using the so called petro dollar. The Oil industry is the only thing that gives any strength to what in reality is a weak dollar. Now Iraq has one of the top five oil reserves in the world. Everything was going fine until Saddam began to sell his oil in Euros and not dollars. This was a huge threat to the US economy. This was the tipping point on whether Iraq would be invaded or not. When oil was being sold in Euros that essentially made it more expensive for the US to buy and thus threatened the economy. Britain was OK because it gets more Euros for the pound but as 1 dollar is worth less than 1 Euro oil became more expensive for America.\n\nThe excuse was then formulated that there was a threat from Saddam. Yes there was a threat... to the US economy but no physical threat. The threat was economic but in a capitalist world you simply have to live with that. Unfortunately the US backed by Britain (because the UK economy is reliant to an extent on the US economy) changed the rules and married war with capitalism.\n\nIf the war wasn't about oil why have the US not invaded N. Korea when they actually do possess and have tested the WMDs that Saddam supposedly possessed... the amswer is simple. There is no oil there.
280307
Helped both economically and its citizens but damaged 'co-alition's' public image. \n\nThe gulf conflicts are purely down to oil, if oil was not available to the world to use from Iraq Western oil prices would obviously soar crippling the economies and businesses.\n\nUnder the previous regime Saddam kept the revenues from oil for himself, his family and the Republic Guard. The West were very worried after the Gulf war when he burned oil refineries and oil rigs cause millions of £££ worth of damage and loss of a massive amount of oil. What's stopping him from doing it again?\n\nSo by securing oil supply from the Middle East it has actually helped both the US, UK and Iraqi people as this provides the money to invest into their infrastructure and improve standard of living. \n\nUnfortunately this is completely wrong! unethical and embarrasing that we could represent a race of people so materialistic and selfish its about time we realised that we can not keep raping this planet's resources and we need to limit use of resources and pollution before we come to a very abrupt end.\n\nThe war in Iraq as absolutely nothing to do with ridding the Iraq people of a dictator, nobody could give a flying f-uck..  look at Africa! no one cares about the dictators and warlords that have done far FAR worse than Saddam, unfortunately they have no oil.