As always, Imajinit your imagery says it all:)

Greywar,

No, although the American consumer was buying oil from Iraq through the oil for food program (at an inflated price), American oil companies were completely shut out of the process. Look at who had the oil contracts and who supported or opposed the war:

US - Oil companies were shut out by Saddam regime - Supported invasion
Britain - Oil companies were shut out by Saddam regime - Supported invasion

China - Companies had contracts and were actively involved in Iraqi Oil Industry - Opposed Invasion
Russia - Companies had contracts and were actively involved in Iraqi Oil Industry - Opposed Invasion
France - Companies had contracts and were actively involved in Iraqi Oil Industry - Opposed Invasion
Germany - Companies had contracts and were actively involved in Iraqi Oil Industry - Opposed Invasion

Have you spotted the pattern yet?

More to the point, what would you suggest was the real reason for the invasion, if not oil? The reason given was Imminent Threat, through some nebulous WMD/Terrorist connection.

1) If we wanted to attack a dictatorship that is proliferating nuclear technology, we would have attacked Pakistan. Let's not forget that they were a democracy 5 years ago, now we send billions of dollars in aid and weapons to a military dictatorship that is THE WORST proliferator in the world.

2) If we wanted to attack an oppressive government that hosts the financial and political supporters of terrorism, we would have attacked Saudi Arabia, or at least brought some pressure on them to reform.

The only reason left that makes any sense is the expansion of our access to and control of the regions oil industry.

The other option was that our top minds really did believe the false intelligence that the Iranian secret police fed us through Ahmad Chalabi. That we really did think we were going to find huge stockpiles of illicit weapons and that the Iraqi people would greet us as liberators. Oops.

     Benny - All we had to do to get our hands on Iraqi oil was agree to lift the sanctions involved witht he oil for food program. Check over the UN issues that were debated between the wars. Saddam was so desparate for more money his government had proposed this very solution several times. If we wanted cheap-ass oil all we had to do was agree... Additionally the very topic of the article lays this argument to rest before it can begin. If we wanted the soddig oil we would have *taken* it. After all everyone in the world already thought we had despite having no proof of it so seizing the oil for the USA would have caused no additional stir. You argument also holds no water but thanks for playing along

Greywar,

You are repeating yourself.

Lifting the sanctions would not have convinced Saddam to allow US companies to make investments in Iraqi oil infrastructure, it simply would have accelerated the rate at which he was awarding those contracts to companies owned by other countries. The only way to allow our companies greater access to the oil sector in Iraq was to shake up the government.

Additionally, you didn't answer the question. Give me another justification for the war that makes more sense. There is none.

I like your catch phrase, "holds no water". That's nice.

Why didn't the U.S. simply take the oil then rather than place it in the hands of people who may or may not give it to us at prices we can accept?

As for another justification for the war... Saddam being a threat, supposedly having WMDs, and all those other ones they had.

Yes, Robot, all of which reasons were completely made up to manipulate the American People into supporting a war of conquest.

Saiyan,

Even the current administration could not get away with openly stealing oil. However, there is a belief among neo-conservative academics that entrenching us business interests into the gulf region oil industry is the next best thing.

Pertaining to your alternate justifications:
1) There were no WMDs. The UN weapons inspectors seemed to know that, funny that the CIA couldn't figure it out.
2) How was Saddam a threat to America? Did he support Al-Qaeda (no). Was he in a position to invade America or one of our regional allies (no).
3) Other reasons? Those seem to keep changing.

The real issue, now is, will this plan work? The most likely result of next year's popular elections will be the rise of an islamic leaning shiite-sunni party that is allied with Iran. The fact that Iran fed us false intelligence about the WMDs seems to indicate that they have the same assumption. The most powerful and popular figures in today's Iraq are Shiite clerics. They have espoused all sorts of different views about the current political process, but none of them are exceptionally supportive of a continued US precense. Since it is very unlikely that we will be able to significantly reduce troop levels there for several years, the stage seems to be set for increasing Iraqi antipathy towards the US. Since no Iraqi leader will realistically be able to ask the US military to leave, they will be placed in the position of needing to take some public stands against the US, but not being able to do it on the military level. The result, I think, is that they are going to be very reluctant to allow much US coporate control of the Iraqi oil fields.

all of which reasons were completely made up to manipulate the American People into supporting a war of conquest.

Man they are really cranking out those tinfoil hats! Welcome to the discussion.

1. Actually hans blix's own reports stated that there were WMD's but that they couldn't be located currently and that no proof of their destruction could be produced. Go read em. Additionally withing the last 3 days they have been finding parts smuggled out of contry into Jordan from Saddams WMD program.

2. We have found several Al-quaeda training facilities inside Iraq. Zarqawi was and is operating in baghdad. what do you want? Photos of Saddam sucking off Bin Laden?

Yes, Robot, all of which reasons were completely made up to manipulate the American People into supporting a war of conquest.

Considering that the only people suggesting this are people who dislike Bush with an irrational passion, I can't take this conspiracy theory seriously.

Pertaining to your alternate justifications: 1) There were no WMDs. The UN weapons inspectors seemed to know that, funny that the CIA couldn't figure it out. 2) How was Saddam a threat to America? Did he support Al-Qaeda (no). Was he in a position to invade America or one of our regional allies (no). 3) Other reasons? Those seem to keep changing.

Well, we did find some WMDs. Not much... I think only two shells, but if they're as easy to find as the anti-war people would have me believe, the UN weapons inspectors should have found them long ago, so there were WMDs. The only explanation there is is that the UN weapons inspectors were bribed by Saddam.

Let's say that doesn't matter. How does going to war based on reliable information that turns out to be false mean that the real reason was oil?

Also, I have a question. If I go to a war with somebody who has been known to want me dead and was doing all he could to develop WMDs, and I had reliable information that he had those WMDs, and once I defeated him, I find out he didn't, does that mean that even though I believed that he was an actual threat, that I didn't believe he was an actual threat but was using that as an excuse to take over the world?

Also, I have a question.

 

     It is wasting your breath on these folks. They are driven purely by an irrational hate not just of George bush but also of their own country. These are the gents who never recovered from the first time they realized in junior high history class that the US is not perfect. Unable to reconcile that their own immaculateness was being *forced* to live in an imperfect nation they simply lash out at it hoping that perhaps those luscious Europeans will adopt them as long lost children of the pseudo-intelligentsia. Of course they won't leave on their own... a shame really...

I suppose the fact that any of us are bothering to rail over political arguments on an online game site is rather pathetic, and I suspect we're all wasting our keystrokes. Regardless, I'll continue to wallow with the rest of you...

1. Two unmarked twenty year old shells, that we sold to Saddam in the first place? Give me a break.

2. We told the world that this situation was so dire and unique that we were willing to overstep the fundamental law governing relationships between nations, that the attacker is always wrong. Turns out that nothing was different. That seems important to me, and is certainly important to the rest of the world.

3. No nation is perfect, but America has a tradition of striving to do the right thing, not just the most practical.

So we sold WMDs to Hussein and people are denying that there were WMDs in Iraq?

I see that we wrong, but I don't see how that means that those reasons we went to war weren't the real reasons, and that it was all about oil.

Just answer 'bot's question greywar, if you conduct an entire campaign without evidence, doesn't that seem accsatory?