as for the other battles

[fansince62]

credible argument

[tex]

Start with delusion. Many foreigners wrongly think America's stated motives cloak raw greed. In a poll late last year, Pew asked whether the United States might invade Iraq because it "believes Saddam is a threat" or because "it wants to control Iraqi oil." Oil, said 76 percent of Russians, 75 percent of French and 54 percent of Germans -- and only 22 percent of Americans. The idea that a country would risk troops and money for anything but selfish gain seems so silly to many other peoples that they cannot grasp it. (Not coincidentally, Russian and French oil companies are favored by Hussein's Iraq.)

Add the BBC to the list of oil war believers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/business/programmes/moneyprogramme/archive/oil.shtml

[Tarhog]

The truly irrational basis for this argument is clear when you consider that were oil our motive for intervening in the Middle East we surely would have taken what many said we wanted in 1991. What logical mind could conclude that:

a) We have a ravenous appetite for unlimited access to oil.

We're willing to invade and kill for it.

c) We're willing to see young Americans die for it.

d) Even though in 1991 we spent billions, took 9 months moving the greatest military force in history halfway around the world, and were 15 minutes away from the richest oil reserves in the world, we decided it would be better to wait a decade and come back for it.

The second someone can explain to me why we wouldn't have seized oil assets in 1991 were this even on the radar screen, I'll buy the whole stinking conspiracy theory. Maybe it was all a big plot to wait until Halliburton and that evil Dick Cheney were PERFECTLY POISED to make their devious move...BWAHAHAHAHA