America's repeated intervention in other countries is no secret, but the atrocities committed are often brushed aside. The war in Iraq is one such case. Suspicious of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration invaded Iraq in 2003, ultimately killing 100,000 people, destroying the country's infrastructure, and toppling dictator Saddam Hussein. While some may justify the invasion and argue that the war was in self-defense, much evidence indicates that the war was the result of a desire for control of oil. Regardless of intentions, the Iraq War was a direct violation of United Nations resolutions, setting a dangerous precedent for other “defensive” wars and undermining the credibility of the United Nations. All in all, the Iraq War was an illegal, illegitimate, and selfish war, pursued over oil, and had extremely harmful effects that were ultimately not worth the cost that the war entailed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay US interest in Iraq dates back centuries. As Peter Hahn, a professor at Ohio State University specializing in Middle Eastern history, writes in a published work regarding the history of relations between the United States and Iraq, the first Americans to encounter Iraq were evangelical Christians who built schools, churches and structures medical. As time passed, Iraq did not become a major figure in foreign affairs until the 20th century. Nazism began to take over Baghdad in the 1940s and America feared that Hitler might control the city and supported the military repression of Rashid Ali al-Gailani, who was Prime Minister for a short time, by the British. The Cold War also raised fears about Soviet expansionism in the Middle East and motivated America to keep communism out of Iraq, but Hahn says that “U.S. leaders have shown little support for democracy in Iraq or the advancement of its people, avoiding any liberal political objective on the market. in the name of the primary objective of keeping Iraq free from communism”. American leaders sought only to stop the spread of communism and cared little about anything else concerning the country other than oil. This is significant in understanding why America became involved in the war and the actions it took afterward. It is impossible to ignore the ignoble influence that oil has on American-Iraqi politics, as Iraq has the second largest reserve of this fossil fuel and the oil company had already gained a 23.75% stake in Iraq Petroleum Company in 1928 (Hahn). Nonetheless, the Bush administration still tries to shift the blame onto itself, citing America's right to self-defense in retaliation against the threat of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq, but these claims are illegitimate, unsupported legal and overwhelmed by evidence that the Bush administration's war was fought out of greed. Oil is obviously the real cause of the Iraq war, but it was officially fought because of weapons of mass destruction. David Krieger writes in an article for the Nuclear Age Peace Organization a very thorough explanation of the legal complications of war. United Nations Security Resolution 1441 ordered Saddam Hussein to stop all production of weapons of mass destruction and to obey security inspectors as they searched the country for possible threats, otherwise they would face repercussions. Although they were not completed,these inspections appeared inconclusive, and the Bush administration continued to insist that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of State Colin Powell produced intelligence photos of the locations where the weapons were stored, and Bush even claimed to know exactly where they were. This is very suspicious considering that in 2004 the Administration released a statement saying that their information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was completely wrong and unfounded. While the Bush administration may claim that their intelligence was sincerely incorrect, it is not unfair to draw the conclusion that this intelligence was deliberately intended to start the war against Iraq, especially considering various other factors. Even if American officials truly thought their country was at risk of attack from Iraq's non-existent nuclear weapons, America still did not have the authority to declare war. Although Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq would face repercussions if it continued to produce weapons of mass destruction, it was up to the Security Council to decide what those repercussions would be. Article 2(4) outright prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,” yet the administration Bush waged a war that was clearly not on the defensive anyway. Therefore, America directly violated international law. Even though America violated international law, some argue that the United States was justified in doing so. Article 51 states: Nothing in this Charter shall affect the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in the event of an armed attack against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken such measures as may be necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall in no way prejudice the authority and responsibility of the Security Council, under the present Charter, to undertake at any time actions it deems appropriate. considers it necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security (Krieger). In the event of an armed attack, a country has the right to defend itself until the Security Council has addressed the situation, although it should be emphasized that defense should not compromise the Security Council's duties to preserve the peace. After September 11, 2001, fears of another attack were not entirely unfounded. Former UN chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, even said that another 9/11 could be in the works (Krieger). This is something a country cannot ignore. However, Iraq had no connection to the New York attacks, meaning that the aggression could not be considered self-defense under Article 51. If anything, a war against Saudi Arabia would be more justified given the that most of the hijackers in 9/11 were born in that country. Regardless, any preemptive action taken without Security Council authority would have to be supported by strong intelligence to be accepted internationally, but this is impossible as the evidence America declared war on was very flawed. Former top US weapons inspector David Kay told Congress: "We were almost completely wrong about our intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." Regardless of Article 51 oof any defense or justification of the war in Iraq, Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council “would remain in charge of the matter,” meaning that only the Council could authorize any action against Iraq and any other action by a country isolated is illegitimate. . The war in Iraq has no legal structure and is completely excessive. America's unjustified actions should be of great concern to any American citizen - or rather to any citizen of a country - because if the United States of America is allowed to get away with openly defying international law and declaring war based on evidence errors like this, there is nothing to stop other countries from doing the same and declaring war on us, based on the fear that America could potentially use weapons of mass destruction against them, in the same way we have done us. With Donald Trump threatening North Korea on Twitter, Kim Jong Un could justify a war against America using the same reasoning used by the Bush administration. Challenging the UN in this way also weakens the UN's credibility. The Nuremberg Principles list “crimes against peace” in the first bullet point, crimes punishable under international law, and a very important thing about law is that it can only be respected and ultimately enforced if applied equitably; no one can stand above it. “If the United States could proceed to war against Iraq based on a claim of potential future attack, that would open the door to a wide range of claims of potential future attack by one country against another that would justify the unilateral initiation of war, whether or not on the basis of factual basis, paranoia or simple expediency. It would throw the international order into chaos” (Krieger). If some countries are allowed to escape the consequences of an illegal aggression against another country, how can the United Nations remain faithful to its task of maintaining world peace, especially if it appears to favor some countries by allowing this violation to go unaddressed ? Although the war in Iraq seems to remain a distant memory from people's minds, in reality it threatens the stability of the world and could lead to even more serious consequences than initially foreseen. This undermines the legal system put in place to prevent wars of aggression and sets a dangerous precedent if left unchallenged. self defense? The short answer is oil. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world and oil production has increased rapidly. Two-thirds of the Middle East's oil goes to India and China, so Iraq has a powerful position as a major oil exporter, and its favor towards the Eastern or Western Hemisphere could significantly change the world market . Being such a powerful force in the industry, Saddam Hussein's erratic and unpredictable energy export policies made him difficult to manage and dangerous to the market. Iraq was a “swing producer” and there was a strong possibility that Saddam Hussein would take Iraqi oil off the global market for an extended period of time to damage prices. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a major supporter of the invasion, warned in a 2001 energy report of an impending global energy crisis that would "increase the vulnerability of the United States and the world to disruption" and would left America facing “unprecedented energy price volatility.” safety. He highlighted the impact that Iraqi industry would have on oil markets and the functioning of the Organizationof oil-exporting countries, “both of which we have a vital interest in”. As a result, US officials wanted to ensure the free flow of Iraqi oil to world markets by privatizing its production to allow foreign companies to take over, which was done by crippling the oil industry in Iraq through the invasion. Considering the position Iraq was in at the time and the strong desire to invade because of the benefits the United States could gain, especially considering that the Vice President was a strong force pushing for war, it is indisputable that the war in Iraq was selfish and not considering or caring about the well-being of anyone but America's pockets. Not only was the war destructive, but post-war reconstruction plans did not consider the humanitarian and social effects of the war and focused only on maintaining Saddam's authoritarian structures while maximizing the benefits of Iraqi oil. . While it can be argued that America actually contributed a lot to reconstruction thanks to the 17 groups established by the State Department to help it, each was governed by a senior US military officer and imposed martial law. True Iraqi citizens remained advisors. This is very ironic considering that the same country that contributed to the destabilization and destruction of the country they invaded is the same one that casts aside its own leaders and tells them that they know how to govern it better than their own people. America promised to have a “broad and sustained American role in managing the country's reconstruction” and to send thousands of troops in the coming years “in defense of the country's oil resources.”oil fields,” but the ultimate goal was privatize the oil industry. Looking at the current state of Iraq before and after the war, America certainly did not contribute much to reconstruction. Based on conversations with Iraqi citizens, the country is probably worse off than before the war, which is a big statement considering that Iraq was previously ruled by a tyrannical dictator. After examining all the relevant facts, it is clear that any claim that the war in Iraq was not about oil is a blatant lie. The invasion was not only selfish but very harmful to the country of Iraq as a whole and costly to America. Bottom line, it wasn't worth it. By the time the last of the US soldiers left Iraq in December 2011, the war had lasted almost 9 years, had cost taxpayers $800 billion, had cost 4,500 American lives and 100,000 civilians – although that figure tends to fluctuate and a Civilian death toll of 500,000-1,000,000 is not an unusual figure. The war appears to have cost Iraq the most in terms of lives lost, humanitarian crises and infrastructure destroyed. Of the various atrocities committed by the United States in Iraq, the most famous of which is most likely the incident involving the US-run Abu. Ghraib Prison. Evidence of prisoner abuse became public, and seven soldiers were convicted of torturing and humiliating detainees. It is contradictory to claim that the United States contributed to reconstruction when troops in Iraq actively harmed citizens in the same way that Saddam Hussein did, when he tortured his political opponents in that same prison. American soldiers tortured civilians in more ways than one. In a harrowing article for the Washington Post, Gail McGowan Mellor writes about five American soldiers who entered an Iraqi home, killed the family of a 14-year-old girl and proceeded to rape her before 22,6%..