George Bush nearly pelted with shoes

[CGM]

Tell me one single British/US foreign policy move in the Middle East in the last century which wasn't in furtherance of our control over their oil. Or name one single Arab regime other than Syria that we don't currently prop up to some extent.

By prop up, you mean support? Alliance? Well guess what, lots of countries support other countries. But I want to stay focused on the point of my involvement in this part of the thread.

By "in furtherance of" I assume you mean "intended to"? "reason for"?

The issue is whether or not Iraq war is about control of oil. Initially you were the one who said it was. I disagreed. The old knee jerk oil thing I think I called it. You tried to provide evidence that it was the reason, I wasn't the least bit convinced by your "evidence". I even think you took a couple of tries.

But OK. What exactly does the words "control their oil" mean to you in this context?

OK, let's limit this to whether the Iraq war was about oil. I'm telling you it is. There's no other reason for us to be interested in the region otherwise. We have a century of documented history of an Anglo/US effort to control the region and its oil, and at a time when oil has never been more important to the world then countries like Iraq have never been more critical for us to control. Iraq may well have the world's highest oil reserves of any country, but more importantly it's the only country in the world at a time when oil supply is struggling to keep up with demand that can significantly increase its oil output. Iraq is the world's most valuable real estate, economically and strategically speaking. Controlling who it sells its oil to and what currency it sells it in (and to a lesser extent which companies produce the oil) is absolutely critical to the US continuing to remain the world's preeminent power/economy.

It isn't "knee-jerk" at all, after a century of our invading/overthrowing/manipulating Arab governments to control their oil, you're going to have to come up with a good reason other than oil why our latest venture there happened. Iraq contains oil, sand and camels. Sand can be found all around the coastline of the continental United States and in numerous quarries therein. The amount of freight carried by camels in the United States has declined significantly over the last century to the point where the internal combustion engine has almost driven US camel hauliers out of business and camels are now a bear market. That only leaves oil.

You've given some pretty good reasons why a country might want to control Iraq, but that don't make it so. You say maintaining it's position as the world's pre-eminent econmy is a prime motivator, but let's just call it maintaining enough oil supply to keep things running.

I find it hard to argue againt your position. And you should find it hard to argue for it. It's not like we have proof of US/Britain motives for the invasion. You have taken a bunch of facts and built a somewhat logical argument. But I don't see a whole lot of evidence or proof. I'll give you credit for at least coming up with some kind of analysis, which is better than the knee jerk crowd who cry out "oil control" without much in the way of critical thought.

As I understand it the Iraq war has cost the US a couple trillion dollars so far. That kind of negates the economic benefit gained from this supposed control or Iraq oil, wouldn't you say? And then there is the human and political costs of the war. Sorry, but I'm sure even George W. Bush can see that this war is costing him, and the US, dearly.

OK, ostensibly Iraq was about the WMD thing, and maybe there was some issues about support of terrorism. Let's not get into whether or not there is any justification for terrorism. And let's assume without arguing that if Iraq has nukes, then the US has reason to be concerned. I do not think the US lied outright to the UN, as well as it's closest allies, about Iraq developing nukes. As I recall there was evidence that Iraq was trying to acquire technology to develop nuclear weapons. As it turned out, no physical evidence of this activity found. Myself, I consider it entirely possible that Hussein has stashed whatever he had in Syria. Why do you suppose Hussein put the UN and the Atomic Energy Commission off for so long? And I don't know about you, but with all due respect, to suggest as some have that Hussein would cease and desist from anything just because the UN told him to is kind of naive. I am quite sure that Hussein would try to develop or acquire wmds if it was within his power to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of the Iraq war. I myself sided with the UN position on the issue, as did the Canadian government, against our closest ally and friend, the USA. I just think the USA deserves a little more credit than saying, they just want to control Iraq's natural resources (oil).