Why did the USA invade Iraq?
965674
The global economy is heading into a period called PEAK OIL. This means that we've reached the halfway point in terms of oil production. While there is still roughly 1 trillion barrels of oil left we will enter a period of declining returns. This means that once we reach the peak (nowish, 2010 at the longest) the world will pump out steadily less and less oil every year. This is catastrophic and will shake the foundations of our economy. We need approx 86million B of oil per day. This number gets higher and higher every year as the global economy expands, particularly with the white hot growth and demand from China and India. Pruduction will fall and demand will go up. Prices will skyrocket and there will be shortfalls as the gap widens between the oil available and demand for it. We have already seen the price of oil skyrocket from the low teens a few years back to close to 80. Its happening.\n\nWho will get the oil? The US reached their peak way back in 1970 and have steadily declined since. Now they are importing oil at increasing rates. They are aware of peak oil and need to secure sources for the future. They've done this by force. They are currently building massive military bases in the 2 best areas for oil reserves. (Approx 14 permanent massive bases in Iraq)The middle east, and Afghanistan which is on the doorstep of central asia where massive reserves are located. \n\nThis is why Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded. The US will be able to determine who gets whats left of the most valuable resource on the planet as oil reserves hit a steady decline. The rest is smoke and mirrors.\n\n-could the person that gave me a thumb down. Please post an intelligent rebuttal rather than a thumb down. I'm am shocked at how any educated person could have read what I wrote, then briefly pause in thought before clicking on 'thumb down?!?'
577248
This question has been asked loads of times!\n\nNo is the answer.\n\nAs to the misinformed person above, Iraq has never bombed the USA. Iraq has never been a threat to the USA in any shape or form. To the genius who thinks America invaded because of the terrorists there, Al Quaiida were not operating in Iraq!\n\nGermany, France and Russia did the right thing. They weren't greedy and sought to invade for the oil. They weren't indoctrinated by their media and didn't have a President who had to pick on small countries just so he could be seen to be doing the right thing.
614570
Our criminal leaders did not invade Iraq to "help" anyone but themselves.  They staged 9/11 to scare us into supporting whatever they decided to do.  Those of you who do not understand this, WAKE UP.
133821
Hi there,\n\nI think the reason is to show off their power or the greed for power.\n\nHere's why I think so-\n\nThe USA first attacked Iraq and captured Saddam Hussein near Tikrit. The reason Mr.Bush gave for that is that the USA suspects some biological weapons in Iraq.\n\nAfter the war was over but nothing revealed, Mr.Bush apologized for this bliss by saying that he received false intelligence reports. Now that's easy, it's the same thing as I kick you hard and then apologize. Whatever the damage should be done, it was done. \n\nSo I think the reason for these attacks is not any terrorist threat to USA or the greed for oil, but it is just to show off it's power to the world after the attack of Sep 11th. I just think it is a ploy to scare away the people. It means something like Mr.Bush wants to say "We are rich, we are powerful, we can do anything, so don't mess with us."\n\nI don't mean to offend all the Americans out there. I just told you my opinion about the attacks. If I offended anyone, my sincere apologies. And let me make it clear, I'm not being partial to Mr.Hussein. I think he ruled Iraq for quite some time with an iron fist.\n\nI just told you my opinion frankly, but anyone of you here are free to disagree with this. After all, everyone has their own thought process. \n\n\nrule wid style n luv@vinny
1003430
they were planning the invasion of iraq way before 9/11
804393
Not necessarily the ill advised invasion, but the handling of the whole damn thing is the reason for the civil war in Iraq. We should have never gone there in the first place as the invasion was based on a lie. However if we had made better decisions after we got there maybe we could have thwarted the civil war. The Generals have said since the beginning that we should have had more people and we should have disarmed everyone and secured the borders from outside influences, hind sight is better then foresight, but I think Rumsfeld was told there was a problem from the beginning.
740097
Your example would work better if Russia or England or China was the invader, but it's a valid point.\n\nPeople blame the Iraqi insurgents for fighting in a civil war, against a govt they didn't elect which was established when an enemy country unilaterally invaded and deposed the ruling govt. Whether we like them or not, it's fair to ask if they have reasonable grounds for defending their country against hostile occupying forces.
54281
the americans wanted oil from the iraq. when the iraq did not want to give them they want to have war
992618
Why would we target any one next?  For the millionth time, we did not invade Iraq.  The coalition is there to Liberate it.  Peace and democracy in the Middle east benefits the whole world.  Get it straight.  \nWars are not a popular pass time, and the US like everyone else would like to just go back home and enjoy our lives again, and focus on other issues.
447450
Depending on who you listen to, there are several reasons. I shall attempt to run them down & provide a brief explanation of each, and state my own opinion at the end.\n\n1. Oil. The US needs a source of oil, so we invaded Iraq to get it.\n2. Big Business - The US needed a way to boost the profit lines of big business, and war is the best way to do it.\n3. Freedom - We needed to free the Iraqi's from Saddam's thumb.\n4. WMD's - Saddam had WMD's, he refused to let the UN make inspections, and it's too risky to let Saddam have WMD's.\n5. New Base Location - Iraq makes a great place to project power from in terms of the US military, it is adjacent to the Gulf, and provides ways to reinforce Turkey, as well as keep Iran in check.\n6. Violation of Gulf War cease-fire agreement - Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement of the 1st gulf war, so this war is simply a conclusion of the last war.\n7. Bush's daddy - Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr., so Bush Jr is seeking revenge.\n8. Terrorism - Saddam was conspiring with Osama, so the US had to intervene.\n\nAnd my opinion:\nBush Jr. was obsessed with Iraq, and decided long ago that he was going to end Saddam's rule. He found a reason, Saddam didn't back down, and now we're in Iraq.\n\nHope this helps as a general overview.
829224
Yes, I know the difference. Does our president is the question. There was the invasion of Normandy during the second world war, operation Overlord. A valid invasion in the course of a declared war. What our president did when he sent our troops to invade Iraq was an act of war, as it is anytime a country invades another country without declaring war. Saddam wanted Kuwait's oil. Bush can't find Osama, so this was a diversion to placate America after 9/11, and just like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and George's of Iraq, many innocent people were and continue to be killed.
179356
The operation was Called Operation Iraqi Freedom, that should explain a lot.  We were looking for WMDs that we knew should have been there and the other purpose was to rid the country of Saddam Hussein's regime.
631752
From one point it was an altruistic move by Bush to liberate Iraqi peopel. The present administration is altruistic in mitives than ever. But the way it does it really sucks.\nSecond, gaining control over oil prices since US needs energy resources fro its further development and domination in the world. The point US Strategy for 21st century makes is that Americans will never let any country to rise at the same hegemony level it has acquired.\nThird, there were miscalculations in US intelligence circles. Look what happened to CIA chiefs.\nSummarizing - the goal behind US invasion in Iraq is complex and very misguiding, but at all it is objectively considered as a political failure of Bush Administration.
1066054
When america coerced the un to enter vietnam under the guise of atrocities commited by the north against the south. it was the south who tried to set up a puppet govt. When vietnam won indepenence from france it was only one country.Liberated by the communist regime.The usa could'nt coerce the un to invade iraq they went ahead anyway for some ulterior motive. Certainly not the stated reason In both wars it was absolute banditry they will be deafeted.No matter how strong you cannot break the will of the people
1134813
We had no business being in Iraq in the first place. There are only two reasons why Goerge Bush invaded this sovereign nation: 1) he wanted to 'get even' with Saddam Hussein for humiliating his daddy during Desert Storm; 2) Dick Cheney wants all that oil swimming underneath Iraq's sands.\n\nSo, Cheney and Rumsfeld persuaded Bush to proceed with an illegal, unconstitutional war.\n\n(Check out a new blog - BUSHWACKER! -\nwww.blogger.com\nhttp://al-aback.blogspot.com)\n\nFinding no weapons of mass destruction, Bush is too much of a 'macho man' to back down, so continues his charade by telling Americans that Iraq is part of an "evil empire". Truth be told, the only "evil empire" is that of the United States as it bullies other countries around the world for its own economic benefit. Let's face it: there are all kinds of other despots running regimes around the world, but Bush pays no attention to those dictatorships. Why? Because they have no OIL. So the United States allows the genocide to continue, sometimes even providing financial aid! \n\nBush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are indeed the most evil, corrupt and incompetent people ever to occupy the Oval Office. The sitting U.S. Congress is the most evil, corrupt and incompetent body ever to occupy the Capitol Building. \n\nAll of these people deserve to be impeached, or tried for high treason. If convicted they must face a firing squad. Their crimes against humanity, against the Constitution, and against the American populace are unspeakable. George Bush has murdered tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, not to mention more than 2,500 U.S. soldiers. \n\nBush has no interest in turning Iraq into a democracy (how many other countries is he using these forceful tactics on to change their way of government?). Prediction: NO TROOPS WILL BE WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ UNTIL DICK CHENEY HAS AN IRON-CLAD, ROCK-SOLID AGREEMENT IN PLACE TO ACQUIRE ALL OF IRAQ'S OIL so that he and his friends at Hallaburton and Exxon-Mobil can become even more obscenely wealthy.\n\nShould there be a time table for withdrawal? Of course; since we're already there, it would be chaos if we left immediately. But we should have never been there in the first place. What George Bush did was illegal, evil, and repugnant to most of the civilized world. Bush has put Americans trillions of dollars into debt' he has tarnished our reputation as a global leader; and he has helped spread the terrorist movement because, now, many small countries are terrified of the U.S.A., afraid that they, too will be bullied into accepting democracy or Christianity as their way of life. Nuclear weapons might be their only way of defending themselves against the tyrannical United States.\n\nHistory will certainly record Bush as the stupidest man ever to occupy the White House, to date. If he and his cronies ever get convicted of high crimes, certainly Satan will have a special oil-saturated corner of Hell reserved for them, where then can spend their eternal damnation blaming each other for the mess they made of this Earth.\n\nBush's failed economic policies promises to make us a third-world country within a generation (China will then become the global power). Bush's 'cowboy capitalism' has made us the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. Bush's "tough" actions only shows his true colors: he is nothing more than an impotent, paranoid, insecure psychopath suffering from "little king" syndrome. \n\nWhat Bush has wrought will force Americans to live a lesser quality of life for generations to come. Within 50 years, the USA will be a two-tier social class: a handful of the very, very rich - and (the rest of us) the very, very poor, just like we see in Haiti and the Dominican Republic today.\n\nThe real tragedy is that there is no bright alternative on the horizon. Even if all the Republic maggots get thrown out, they'll only be replace
144900
Hi there,\n\nI think the reason is to show off America's power or their greed for power.\n\nHere's why I think so-\n\nThe USA first attacked Iraq and captured Saddam Hussein near Tikrit. The reason Mr.Bush gave for that is that the USA suspects some biological weapons in Iraq.\n\nAfter the war was over but nothing revealed, Mr.Bush apologized for this bliss by saying that he received false intelligence reports. Now that's easy, it's the same thing as I kick you hard and then apologize. Whatever the damage should be done, it was done. \n\nSo I think the reason for these attacks is not any terrorist threat to USA or the greed for oil, but it is just to show off it's power to the world after the attack of Sep 11th. I just think it is a ploy to scare away the people. It means something like Mr.Bush wants to say "We are rich, we are powerful, we can do anything, so don't mess with us."\n\nI don't mean to offend all the Americans out there. I just told you my opinion about the attacks. If I offended anyone, my sincere apologies. And let me make it clear, I'm not being partial to Mr.Hussein. I think he ruled Iraq for quite some time with an iron fist.\n\nI just told you my opinion frankly, but anyone of you here are free to disagree with this. After all, everyone has their own thought process. \n\n\nrule wid style n luv@vinny
67010
Well, the only reason Iraq was invaded was for oil,I mean come on...why else Iraq? There was no proof to begin with, but there was proof for Syria, Libya, North Korea, Oh but no. We just had to ivade a country with no evidence for them having WMD's didnt we? And i mean you just have to look through the lines at this one..