Is America in Iraq for OIL ?

Question

If not then
No WMD were found there.
Saddam is no more.
Iraq has never been a threat for American security.
Everybody knows there is nothing like AlQaeeda present in Iraq its all war propaganda.
And what America call Al Qaeeda is nothing more than those people who are against him.
I myself have heard several times on CNN and other News channels American officials saying that AlQaeeda is not like a physically existing organization but it is a more a concept, means any body in the entire world who is against America and want an arm struggle against it is a member of AlQaeeda.
There are so many countries in the world where there is no Democracy does it mean America will invade all those countries.
Nobody invest that much amount of money without any interest. Also there are so many American soldiers dying there.
Please only add sensible points

Just to add some more stuff
After invading iraq the first thing they did was to secure the oil fields. Not start protecting civilains, museums, hospitals, or news outlets.
Those who says why the prices of oil and gas have still not gone down should know that when you invest some where you start gewtting the return after some years. And mind it Iraq oil reserves values more than 3000 Billion USD + Natural gas there values 600 Billion USD. Also the petrol prices in America are still one the lowest in the world

Answer 1

2 reasons why the US is still in Iraq:

1) If Bush pulls US troops out he'll have to admit defeat & the libs will have a big victory & he just won't let that happen while he's still President.

2) Israel: Israel & the Pro-Israel lobby in Washington, know that if the US leaves Iraq the chaos that would insue could easily engulf the entire Mideast including Israel & that would be even worse than Iran getting nuke weapons. Israel doesn't want to have to deal with tens of millions of armed angry Arabs.

Answer 2

Though you bring up many points which taken out of context seem to indicate something, you have missed the obvious.
Iraq has been a mess since before the British were ther in the early 20th century. It has never been stable without the strong arm tactics of dictators like Saadam.
This is because it is made up of three ethnic groups who have never gotten along in the thousand years of modern history. The Shia, Suny, and Kurds are in total disagreement of who should be the primary occupant of what the west calls Iraq. They have waged horrible atrocities against each other for yeras, and continue to do the same up until today.
George Bush had the misguided conception that all these people needed was a little freedom from Saadam in order to become a viable society. He and his advisors mis understood the entire culture and continue to now, seeing everything through western eyes.
The threat they percieve is that the entire Middle East could become aligned against the United States and Western Europe and essentially enter into preferred trade pacts with the Asian countries and interupt the flow of oil the US is so reliant on. In waging this "war on terror", they have actually alienated many into making this concept closer tor reality.
The US needs to get a grip on things in the middle east, or get out. In trying to run a "Humane" war, we are getting right back into the Viet Nam scenerio of an enless stalemate.
If I was in charge of the war, I would declare martial law, enforce a strict lock down and curfew, and patrol every street and every house with bomb sniffing dogs to ferret out every piece of Saadam's arselal and any explosives shipped in by/thru Iran or Syria.
Next I would use the Iraqui citizens as conscript labor to rebuild everything to create a new infrastructure that would support a moder clean way of life according to middle eastern standards and not western. I would divide the country into three autonomous regions and sent each of the three ethnic groups to live in those areas.

Answer 3

NO it's not oil, it's oil supply. Before the Invasion there was a very good cahnce that the UN would have dropped sanction and allowed Iraq to sell oil unrestricted. Iraq was the second largest oil producer in the world. The price of oild would have plummeted from the $22 a barrel it was at the $17 or $18. That would have meant that Bush's Buddies at chevron and Exxon would have had to live on millions instead o Billions. To prevent this tragedy Bush invaded and knocked out Iraqs production. Now all of the oil crooks in Texas and Oklahoma can relax.

Answer 4

You are a fool, CNN is terrosit propoganda, we did find WMD's, if we leave Iraqis will die and america still has its humanity so we wont let that happen, Alquaida is real but most insurgents have started many little cells many of which are funded by Iran and do not claim Alquaida, we do not have a record of invading countries to "bring democracy". We liberate countries to instate stability so that way the world economy doesnt fall apart from wars, not many american soldiers have died there, less than 4,000 dead is a historically low figure. These are all sensible points, stop watching CNN seriousely it is an extremely bad source of news, even worse than Fox.

Answer 5

US interests in the region are tied to our dependency on oil imports, though we have vast untapped resources ourselves, but the Iraqi oil almost all goes to Europe. The argument has a tiny grain of truth in it, so it'll never go away, but it's really specious.
You seem to have scratched the surface of knowledge about 4th generation war without realizing it. There are organizations like al Qaeda that don't conform to nationalist definitions, and they must certainly be dealt with. If you study the subject in more depth you may be less confused. Both military and law-enforcement agencies have had considerable success world-wide in combatting these groups, and without a significant level of security clearance you're likely never to know about most of it. Setting up a stable government in Iraq may turn out well or it may turn out poorly, but it's certainly to early to tell. The al Maliki government's only been in place for a year, and the half-support of people like al Sadr has made for a difficult start. Maybe in ten years we may know whether it was worth a war to help with the fight against the al Qaeda-like groups, but getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not a bad side-outcome. Unfortunately for the administration, its reasoning for going to war was more complicated than the public's expectations of clear, straightforward reasoning. Perhaps we're just too simple-minded.

Answer 6

No, we are there because Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction and had close personal ties with Al Qaeda and was going to give them weapons any minute now. Oh wait, I mean that we are in Iraq to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of the evil Ba'athist Regime and to bring to them our democratic values which they have been yearning for all these long years. Oh wait, I meant that we are over there to create a stable Middle East that will be supportive of our policies. Oh wait, I mean we are going to fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here. Oh wait, I meant that Iraq is a convenient base of operations to aid Al Qaeda in their struggle against Hezbollah in Lebanon - not to mention that it shares a border with the next target that has nothing to do with money or oil.

The real question is why are we not in Afghanistan in huge numbers? Iraq was not a haven for terrorists where they could train and receive support from the government, Afghanistan was. The Afghanis needed American workers to build the infrastructure of a stable country because there wasn't any before. Iraq needs American workers to build its infrastructure because we bombed the hell out of it. We haven't finished the job in Afghanistan and that's where we need to be. Iraq was and is a complete and total distraction from the war on terror, which apparently is not a military priority to the current US administration, not to mention a waste of American lives.

Answer 7

You obviously weren't there, and all you want to do is bash the right, so I'll address anyone else who shows up here. If the war was about oil, we evidently screwed that up too, because the oilfields have been in Iraqi hands since the creation of the provisional government. They are part of OPEC, so we don't get it any cheaper than if we boought it from Saudi Arabia.

Answer 8

no...did you really have a question or were you just trying to make a political point? WMD's exist/ed...read The Bomb in my Garden. In addition, over 500 chemical warheads have been found. The "no wmd's myth" is stupid.

Can you name for me any way that the US has profited from Iraqi oil during the war? Didn't think so...There has been no preferential export of oil to the US...

The sole purpose of deposing Saddam Hussein was to liberate the Iraqi people. Saddam ignored 17 UN resolutions and was eventually convicted of crimes against humanity...

My problem with the war is that you can't build a democracy from the top down...the people have to want it and back it. That's where all the sectarian violence is coming from.

Answer 9

Do you people have a problem with reading truth? WMDs were found just not in the quantity they had hoped to find. Too many of them were given to other Muslim countries. What does it take for you to read the truth once and a while? Oh that's right, you're a liberal.

Answer 10

NO...

The potential yearly profit from Iraqi oil production is far less than the yearly cost to us to be over there. It is a bad Marxist argument to say we are only there for oil. Also, if oil is all we cared about, we could have taken over Venezuela and other Latin/South American countries, since thats where we get 85% of our oil from anyway.