OK, a basic question(s). Or as simple as I can make it.

Why the double invasion of Iraq, for Kuwait, WMD's, and the overthrow of Government ?
Why the inaction against an organisation that butchers civilians, children and soldiers in public, commits mass rape, sells stolen oil on the 'black market' and seeks to overthrow legitimate Governments by means of force ?

I don't understand

It seems that financial reasons to invade another country are more important than humanitarian.

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (12 Oct 2014 1.14pm)

"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak

Oztria ?

"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak

Not sure it is my logic that is "misinformed" and "lost". I have put the points in front of you. It doesn't suit your "cut and paste" fixed world view. So,the invasion was not essentially supported by the US and allies because of oil, and the line of politicians, soldiers and bankers in the know a lot more than you or I, who have since admitted it ,on the record, all know less than you . Fair enough.

Iraq initially, was a problem for the US once it knocked over one of its major client states (Kuwait) and was in a position of threat to Saudi Arabia. A result of that were sanctions that limited the ability to utilise its oil production - an issue that would remain whilst the regime was in power. The US had compensated by sustaining its oil reserve from Venezuela, however that became threatened once Chavez and cohorts obtained power and essentially raised the state nationalisation of oil to 60%, and increased the taxation on oil sales, it also put the reserve in 'unfavourable' government - which could restrict the provision of oil to exert political pressure on the US. It also meant the US economy could be unduly affected by decisions taken by a socialist regime.

Without a reliable reserve, and with countries like Russia increasing their power in those markets, viable alternative reserves were required. Iraq was arguably the easiest to justify, and secure. It had an unpopular leader, a history of conflict with the west and one of the largest oil reserves available.

IS represents a different political problem, redeploying to Iraq means a return to the post-war Iraq situation, in which US and allied forces would be engaged in a protracted conflict in the 'Sunni Triangle', at great cost. It also would mean tacitly declaring the failure of the US and Co in Iraq and rebuilding - notably of the Army and Government as being any kind of effective power.

Ultimately, for political reasons, direct intervention in Iraq in response to IS, isn't a viable option. The original occupation was unpopular with the US population. Whilst any effective destruction of IS will require incursions into IS held Syria, risking the US becoming engaged in another protracted guerrilla conflict, which it would have to supply across a hostile border (Its likely that Sunni insurgents would remain in that area).

Ultimately, the US needs the Iraqi Kurds, Sunni and Shia factions to defeat IS more or less on their own two feet. Returning to Iraq would set back potential US foreign policy to a post-Vietnam era.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Guessing they've not finished the secret oil pipeline then so needed an excuse to be in the region a bit longer. Or were they bringing it out in jerry cans and need to make a few more trips?

Edited by johnfirewall (12 Oct 2014 6.10pm)

Yeah, lets move on legal.....You carry on thinking it was all for oil.

I'll carry on thinking you're ignoring reality.

Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Oct 2014 8.13pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)