i've never really understood the war for oil thing.
not now, not 15 years ago.

if you fight a war in the middle east,
supply is compromised and prices rise.

we didn't have Iraq's oil before the war
and we aren't going to have it after
even if we "win" the war
and Iraq establishes a real democracy.

so is it simply a deeply mis-guided war for oil?

One thing to keep in mind is that if you are a producer of oil, war's in the Middle East increase your profits by making the oil that you have more valuable.

i fully believe
that our major political parties
are deep into the pockets of big business
and that the bulk of what they do
is done to help those businesses,
but i guess i'm not quite ready to buy the idea
that we've invaded iraq twice in 20 years
for the express and only purpose
of temporarily increasing the profits
of a very small handful of companies
with the unintended consequence in each case
of radically increasing mainstream interest
in replacing oil altogether
in the mid-to-long term
which would have a far bigger impact
on long term profits of the same companies.

i guess i'm a lot more willing to believe
that this was about revenge
or finishing an unfinished job
or simply a cheap excuse
to keep "the war on terror" on the front page.

jhimm - I can buy into what you're saying also, actually......and I've never really been a full supporter of the "war for oil" stance anyway. Or at least, that isn't the first argument I'd make for why we went to war.

I think that there were a number of high-minded reasons for invading Iraq. And they were certainly how it was sold to the American public. But I think that the sum-total of reasons were varied (including those that you mention, jhimm), but that it distinctly included the short term profits of oil corporations, given the background of the parties making the decision.