Why are american and british soldiers in Iraq? !?

Now that the rationale provided by Bush & Co. for attacking Iraq is unraveling, it's time to ask what the true motivation was for the rush to war. Many dismissed the signs of antiwar protestors, which read "No blood for oil." But if we connect the oily fingerprints, beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney's, it appears those protestors were right.

Cheney's energy task force, in a May 2001 report, called on the White House to make "energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy" and encourage Persian Gulf countries to welcome foreign investment in their energy sectors. In August 2002, Cheney warned a meeting of veterans that Saddam Hussein could seek to dominate the Middle East's vast energy supplies, and said "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Before the invasion of Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sought to decouple oil access from regime change in Iraq, which, he said, had "nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil." Rumsfeld, Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice all invoked Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his ties to Al Qaeda, neither of which has materialized to date, as imminent threats to the security of the United States. Three days before the attack on Iraq, Cheney said, "we believe he [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." That claim, and Bush's Niger uranium statement in his State of the Union address, were bogus.

When U.S.-U.K. forces took control of Iraq, their first order of business was to secure the oil fields, instead of the hospitals and antiquities museums. Meanwhile, Kellogg Brown & Root was awarded a controversial $7 billion no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq's oil fields. KBR is a subsidiary of Halliburton, the world's largest oil services company, formerly headed by Cheney before he was tapped for vice president. In a 1998 speech to the "Collateral Damage Conference" of the Cato Institute, Cheney said, "the good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is."

The business is in Iraq. Since April 2001, the public interest group Judicial Watch has sought public access to the proceedings of Cheney's energy task force meetings, under the Freedom of Information Act. Yet Cheney has fought tenaciously to keep them secret. On July 17, however, Judicial Watch secured some of the documents from the task force, which contain the smoking gun: "a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects" and "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." The documents are dated March 2001, two years before Bush invaded Iraq.

The Bush administration's October 2001 bombing of Afghanistan, although justified as a response to the September 11 attacks, was also part of U.S. oil strategy. Afghanistan never attacked the U.S. Yet, the U.S. and U.K. ousted the Taliban and secured Afghanistan for the construction of an oil pipeline from Turkmenistan, south through Afghanistan, to the Arabian Sea. Bush had been uncritical of the Taliban's human rights record when Unocal oil company was negotiating for the pipeline rights before September 11. After assuming control of Afghanistan, Bush conveniently installed Hamid Karzai, a former Unocal official, as interim president of Afghanistan. "Operation Enduring Freedom" will allow oil corporations freedom to exploit Afghanistan for profit, while the Afghans continue to live in squalor.

Likewise, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" has enabled U.S. corporations to exploit Iraq's oil, while thousands of Iraqis continue to die, lose their jobs, and live without electricity. American soldiers are still dying while U.S. taxpayers foot the $3.9 billion monthly bill. Oil has proven to be the most terrible weapon of mass destruction.

Marjorie Cohn, a professor of law at Thomas

The British and the US were the one who led invading forces to get rid of Saddam Hussein in 2003, until the time he was captured and at present, these forces of both the US and the British is still in Iraq to safeguard the newly installed government there.

Keeping the government afloat,they found out is not that easy with the so called collision forces that opposess both the US and the British and with the funding of some Islamic extremist outside Iraq many of the soldiers of England and the US are dying everyday.

Because we do as were told, the military isn't a democracy - we don't like going to the desert for six months of the year but it's part and parcel of the job, it just so happens that to keep our respective countries safe we need to commit to fighting a war away from home soil. If the UK and US don't take the responsibility who will? I don't doubt that there are ulterior motives for being in Iraq, but there is a worthwhile job to be done there all the same and we as civilised nations should lead the way in making the world a safer place to live, not just for ourselves, but for those who are less fortunate and can't defend themselves. No one said it was going to be easy but the backing of our own people is paramount to success. Even if you don't agree with our position in the middle east (as many don't) get behind the lads - we need your support.

Bush thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was full to bursting with terrorists who were training to kill Americans. Such was his conviction that he saw it necessary to send in the biggest military force in the history of the world to depose the evil Saddam and his regime and beat the crap out of a third world country, slaughtering thousands of innocent people in the process and costing billions of dollars.

Maybe a snipers bullet could have seen to Saddam and maybe helping the Iraqi people come to terms with a democratic way of life, steadily, might have been a little more constructive. As for the terrorists, expert studies have shown that because of the war terrorist groups have had no use for a recruitment drive, Bush has done the job for them.

Two reasons: 1. To steal the oil; 2. to establish a permanent base in the Middle East to be in a better position to steal more oil in the Caspian Basin and Iran.

Don't believe me? Then read Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast in which he exposes how securing the oil has occupied the neo-cons' minds since day 1 of the occupation to the exclusion of everything else, including the security of US soldiers.

Well,I guess some people in the World really do know whats going on,yes we are in Iraq because our president wants a Oil Revenue Bill to be passed in order to receive a healthy amount of Profits out the deal,as well as Oil itself and it doesn't matter if it costs him thousands of American lives.

Mr_ektingyue

I just googled this and I dont remember "because they are tired of being killed by terrorists" as the reason we sent them to iraq.

and it seems to me that most of the deaths in iraq are Iraqi innocent civilians dying because americans are there. So should they be tired of dying cause americans are there? I wonder how many millions of them regret the day Bush decided to spread democracy to them. Did you know thats exactly what the muslims extremists say about hating america? that they are tired of americans killing muslims or helping kill muslims? maybe you did...maybe you dont care.

There...it just came back to me...thats the reason they are there ...last time I had checked...it was because the soldiers are there to spread democracy...not cause they are tired of being killed by terrorists.

Do you people ever realize just how neanderthal you sound? I wonder if your knuckles drag along the ground when you walk. Get some sense about you..get some reality into you. The world does not revolve around america. Other people have rights and sovereignty and they have a right to be left alone too ..just like you do. Is it possible that the terrorists hate us because they know that american is full of idiots warmogering imperialists like you?

"if we pull out they'll just take it back over" !!!

Are you kidding me? it belongs to them...iraqis, and muslims...its their land...they can take it over if they wish...they can make their own gvt.,.even a theocracy if they wish. we have no right to dictate anything to them. GET THAT THROUGH THAT THICK SKULL OF YOURS.

I have no thought who you're bearing on. No conservative I actual have ever many times used has ever reported Al Qaeda is defeated in Iraq. We defeated Saddam and bumped off him. as quickly as we wipe out Al Qaeda, we've then taken a substantial step to triumphing perpetually.

Mainly because Bush wants oil at any cost, and a piece of land of his own in the Mid East, but also because pathetic, gullible idiots like Mr_ektingyue, paducah_billy and coconut wireless still exist in our society.

US soldiers are in Iraq because Bush thinks he can accomplish something there -- which is irrational, given all the years of evidence to the contrary.

Democracy cannot be exported -- it can only be imported. And it cannot be imposed by force -- that's not democracy.

British soldiers are in in Iraq because Britain is an ally of the US, and hasn't completely decided to act in a rational manner.

America are there because they just want to fight, and appear to be patriotic and World Leaders as ever.

UK regiments are there because Tony Blair wanted to impress Bush. Obviously, their is no need for that anymore!

I watched a programme not long ago on ITV about the Grenadere Guards, and how the soldiers got sent to Iraq. They didn't know what they were fighting for, and young lads of about 19 were being killed for no reason. Very sad..

But if you want to know why their is a fight their, America just wants the oil. Thye're failed to understand that the size of their land and consumption of fossil fuels has cost them, and now they must resort to taking it from other countries.