Why did the US kill people in Iraq?

Answer 1

It was over oil in the Middle East.

But the War on Terror is about A campaign initiated by the US government under President George W. Bush which includes various military, political, and legal actions taken to "curb the spread of terrorism," following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Answer 2

Answer 1

The declared reason was that Iraq is promoting nuclear weapons. However, it was proved that this was just means to invade Iraq to destroy its army and police and bring Iraq back to the old ages and the meantime to get control of Iraq oil and Natural Resources. Apart from the Iraqi victims through the claimed war on terror that reached in some estimates over one million, give a look to the current Iraq political, social, economic status to find that:

1. Iraq practically now is partitioned; this in favor of whom?
2. Every day there victims of violence and opposing fronts. This in favor of whom?
3. Iraq has neither an established army nor an established police. This in favor of whom?
4. Iraq lost its leading status in the region regarding social and medical insurance systems. This in favor of whom?
5. The Iraq oil is almost under control of foreign countries to pay the bill of the war on Iraq. This in favor of whom?
6. The Iraqi historical museums were destroyed and robbed by foreign gangs. This in favor of whom?
7. The Iraqi one million children who died due to sanctions and due to the use of uranium missiles. This in favor of whom?

I wonder how one defines the war against terror while he himself is waging terror.

Answer 2

The primary reason given by the administration of George W. Bush was that Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, was engaged in the production or acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). These are nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons (examples are the anthrax letter attacks in the US and the Sarin gas attacks in Tokyo--neither of which had any connection to Iraq). It was suggested that Hussein might provide these weapons to terrorists to attack the US. He had already used chemical weapons sold to him by the US against Iran, and also against Iraqi Kurds. Before the war UN inspectors announced they had found no evidence of WMDs, despite unfettered access. After the war was under way, additional investigation concluded Saddam did not have WMDs.

It is not a logical conclusion that the incorrectness of the administration concerning the presence of chemical weapons means that there was an ulterior motive (affirming the consequent) and it is also an illogical jump to assert that anyone could pinpoint exactly what those motives are (argument from silence). Is it possible that the US saw the War in Iraq as a good time to gain Iraqi petroleum resources? It is possible but the evidence does not bear out this conclusion since the US does not control Iraqi petroleum resources. In 2009, the new Iraqi government offered contracts for oil field usage and petroleum complex construction. The following fields were awarded to the following companies in the following countries in order of stake-size, which show that the US really only has a stake in one of the fields and does not evince an attempt to take over Iraqi resources

• Majnoon Oil Field: Royal Dutch Shell (Netherlands) and Petronas (Malaysia)
• Halfaya Oil Field: China National Petroleum Corporation (China), Total S.A. (France), and Petronas (Malaysia)
• West Qurna Phase I: Exxon Mobil (USA) and Royal Dutch Shell (Netherlands)
• West Qurna Phase II: Lukoil (Russia) and Statoil (Norway)
• Rumaila Oil Field: Owned by Iraq, subcontracted to BP (UK), China National Petroleum Corporation (China), and State Organization for Marketing of Oil (Iraq)
• East Baghdad Field: Planned to be worked by Iraq's Oil Ministry

Additionally, Answer 1 posits litany of questions which are used as rhetorical devices and banks on the fact that most people do not know history or political science well enough to challenge them.

Concerning Ethnic Struggles in Iraq Prior to 2003:During the Saddam Period there were serious ethnic tensions. The Kurds desired independence and some even allied with the Iranian government during the Iran-Iraq War to push for freedom. There were Shiite protests for additional autonomy throughout the south of the country and there was a push by rural Sunnis to distance themselves from the government. In 1991, there were ethnic uprisings by both Kurds and Shiites in Iraq to overthrow Saddam, but these failed due to US unwillingness to overthrow his government at that time. However, there were no ethnic conflicts, why? Because Saddam Hussein committed numerous genocidal campaigns to attack anyone who threatened the unity of Iraq, such as the Anfal Campaign which murdered over 80,000 people, primarily Kurds. Saddam's trial was over the events of the Dujail Massacre where over 140 Shiites were murdered. Thousands of Marsh Arabs have been disappeared.

The lack of strong centralized power in Baghdad has now allowed these different groups to actually fight for what they want. The West did not create these ethnicities' desires for independence or autonomy, they only gave the desires inherent in these people a chance to flower.

Iraq's Partition and violence favors who?: Iraq's partition primarily favors Kurds in northern Iraq and Sunnis in Anbar Province who can effectively rule themselves for the first time in generations. In terms of foreign powers, the effective partitions in Iraq are most helpful to Iran which no-longer has to deal with a Secular Sunni adversary like Saddam Hussein, but a pliant Shiite Nouri al-Maliki. In terms of the violence, the actual carnage benefits no one.

Iraq has neither an army or police: This is blatantly untrue. The Armed Forces of the Republic of Iraq has 320,000 members. The police forces of Iraq (in their various different agencies and federal levels) have nearly 300,000 individuals.

Iraq's social programs suffered: While it may be true that Iraq's social welfare suffered, there is no reason to assume that Westerners benefited from it.

Iraq's oil is almost under the control of foreign countries: Based on what evidence? Iraq has maintained nationalized control of its oil wells. Western countries are more invested in Iraq now that Iraq is more open.

Iraqi historical museums were destroyed/robbed by foreign gangs: Most of the robberies of Iraq's museums were done by Iraqis who know that foreign collectors will pay top dollar for stolen museum artifacts. This also happened during Arab Spring in Egypt, which is not part of the War on Terror.

One million children died due to sanctions and uranium missiles: While this may be true, it is not in the benefit of foreign countries to poison little kids; it is in no-one's benefit. It is a PR nightmare, not to mention the ethical ramifications.

Please also see the Related Question below.

Answer 3Many countries in the world are having ethnic groups that want to separate from mother country (as in Spain, the UK, and other countries). Is that a justification for the super power to invade these countries to all these ethnic group to fulfill their goals? This never happens. Then why this happens with Muslim Arab countries?. What happened in Iraq is in favor of Turkey (to solve their problem with Kurds as it is a member of the NATO), Iran (to allow them having control on their sacred sites in Iraq and to support the Shiaa in Iraq), and Israel (as Iraq emerged as the strongest country in the region after Egypt signed the peace treaty with Israel). The Iraqi scientists were either persuaded to immigrate outside or being assassinated. As for the Iraqi oil, it has already been published in US news that one of the US goals of war in Iraq is to get control of its oil. The list of oil companies is not an evidence that the US didn't gain the Iraqi oil. The US has already the lion share in Iraqi oil. The current army and police in Iraq are established and armed per US specifications. The original army and police were dissolved immediately after Iraq occupation and without any compensation. You may refer to the prisons of Abu Gharib and Guantanamo to notice how human rights have been preached.

Answer 4

In response to Answer 3's claims and points:

Does having separatist ethnic groups justify invasion?-- No. If Answer 2 is read clearly, it does not make the claim in any way that having separatist groups creates permission for or justifies invasion. It is an explanation as to why there are separatist struggles now that a central and repressive power base has been removed. The justification for the invasion was based on what is now known to be a falsity, namely the Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Why are Muslim-majority countries invaded? -- Third-world countries are often subject to invasion regardless of the religion in those countries. Cyprus (Christian) was invaded by Turkey in 1974, East Timor (Christian) was invaded by Indonesia at roughly the same time, Tibet (Buddhist) was invaded by China in 1950, parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo (Christian/Animist) have been invaded by Rwanda, Angola, Zambia, and Uganda. It just happens that the countries that the USA has been invading are Muslim-majority countries since those are the ones that have had foreign policy disputes with the USA.

Turkey support autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan. -- This is actually false. Turkey opposed any and all moves to Kurdish autonomy or independence in Iraq. The current agreement of Kurdish autonomy was a compromise between US forces and Kurds promotin Kurdish independence and the Turks desiring no Kurdish autonomy at all. The reason Turkey opposes autonomy in Iraqi Kurdistan is that it could be a precedent for how to deal with Turkish Kurdistan and the Turkish government is opposed to any Kurdish autonomy in Turkey.

Shiite control of Shiite Holy Sites. -- What is the issue here? Typically we want religious groups to be in control or managing their own holy sites.

Removing Iraq as an enemy of Israel. -- Iraq was seen as the ascendant power in the Middle East because it was the most powerful enemy of Israel in the region, primarily in the 1980s. By the late 1990s and the early 2000s, Iraq was increasingly seen by Israel as a bulwark against Shiite Iran for which it had greater fear. It was not in Israel's interest to see Iraq severely weakened.

US Newspapers on Oil Motivation. -- US Newspapers can say whatever they will. Extrapolating oil motivation is relatively easy to assert and quite readily accepted. This is part of the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum, which means that if more people believe something, then it is correct. There is far more evidence of defense contractor scams in Iraq than there is of any serious attempt for the US to control Iraqi petroleum.

Dissolution of the Iraqi Republican Guard. -- Typically when a country is conquered, its military is disbanded and a new one is formed so that the army does not have conflicting loyalties (to the "dead" country and to the "living" country).

Abu Ghraib and other human rights abuses. -- No one argues that the US Occupation of Iraq was managed skillfully or ethically, but the US did not fight in the Iraq War with the intent of committing scandals like Abu Ghraib. There are numerous documents permitting torturous acts by the US administration, which is incredibly problematic from a human rights perspective, but these documents come out of the war's progression and are not a cause of the war.

Answer 3

Because some people are terrorists