Bingo!

I remember Greenspan wrote an article linking Gold to economic freedom.
(see http://www.freecanadian.net/articles/1966.html )

Well Black Gold is also appears to be "Freedom".

(And for the record, I think "Freedom" was, and still is, a rather compelling reason for a bit of regime change in Iraq, Saddam was a weak leader afterall...)

  Amen Jack,  Although I also believe there was a little of revenge for the attempted assasination of Papa George. Only because I would think that way. Also I have never thought the oil in iraq was the ultimate goal but rather the military presence in the whole region, ala the Truman/Carter doctrine. Kunstler put it well in talking about the gross hypocricy of many dissenters who moan and groan about oil as the spoils of war and then run off in their Lexus to get the latest concoction at Starbucks.  You can't have the lifestyle if your not willing to pay, militarily, for it. I'm not justifying the decision, just putting it in the perspective that the average Nascar afficionado would understand.

For what it's worth, Andrew J. Bacevich titled Chapter 7 in his book The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War as "Blood for Oil."

I wrote my reaction after skimming that chapter here:

http://odograph.com/?p=159

Yeah, "Blood for Oil" is a slogan.  But I think saying it makes us face the question.  More than, you know, speaking just the motivations we are more comfortable with.

Jack

I actually did not comment on what the reasons were.  I do comment that facts do not support the reasons that were put forward by the Bush administration - WMD, support terrorists and finally to bring democracy.  If they were true, Pakistan would be a target based on the first and third counts and could probably be spinned for the second (harboring terrorists).

I am also impressed with the TOD in general regarding critical thinking whether I agree with what is said or not (this does not come from any single statement).  I did not target the American people but institutions that bombard you, me and others with stories that have little basis on fact - the main stream media have often been complicit and this observation has been a running theme in TOD.

In fact, my sense of why the U.S. invaded has and still is being shaped in many ways by what I read here and elsewhere (it is far from simple).  Treeman's comments on having a military presence is one of the most intriguing and may have been a key reason but it also may have evolved to being the reason to remain in Iraq (with it becoming clear that the security situation makes oil production and export a difficult affair) - this would imply that Israel does not provide, as a US ally, sufficient military presence in these times (role of Israel is a very complex issue so pardon my brevity).  Your comment on why China and others opposed the war because of oil has a lot of support from what I have read.  

By the way, I have not studied the situaion in detail regarding Sudan, China and Darfur and all that.  Perhaps you could begin a thread that debates that situation - it certainly merits debate.

You make it sound as if there is a small daring minority that questions authority. In fact, the majority of Americans doubt the Iraq war and large percentages doubt the Bush storyline.

Yes, now that is the case, but before the invasion the jingoism and 9/11 fear were heavy in the air.

Quotes such as this one from the post above are hardly examples of critical thinking:

"What one can never forget it is that Iraq is a country that was invaded (by ours) for no purpose other than to control its oil. In this regard it is no different than any country invaded by Nazi Germany. "

"War for oil" is a meaningless slogan that is as common as other advertisements and the comparision with Nazi Germany is absurd.

Why is it meaningless beyond the fact you say it is so? Let us look at the pattern of US policy towards the 'axis of evil'

Iraq -- oil, no nukes, weak
Iran -- oil, working on nukes, relatively strong
NK -- no oil, nukes, relatively strong

Who got invaded? Saddam.

The Iraq war was many things to many people -- and one of them was oil.

The UN passed more severe resolutions against Saddam's regime than any other in history. How did oil motivate that?

Because the US/UK strongarmed them into doing it. Plus, oil was relatively abundant so there were other readily available sources of supply. Furthermore, the sanctions were a legacy of Saddam's past aggression against Kuwait.

Remember, Saddam only became a 'bad guy' when he invaded Kuwait. We were happy to arm him and provide intel when he was busy merrily butchering Iranians.

And if the U.S. really wanted Iraqi oil why did Cheney just negotiate to get Haliburton contracts. Saddam would ahve been happy to agree.

Why don't mobsters just obey the rules and pay market prices? Protection rackets are profitable, that's why organized crime and power politics will always be with us. Which would you rather have running Iraq? Saddam, or a plaint client-state president who knows his role is to put up and shut up?

Of course oil played a major role is the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. But it played a major role in Russia and France's opposition to the war. Oil is the main reason for Chinese support of Iran, Sudan, etc. Do you see the genocide in Darfur as China spilling blood for oil?

Sure. Oil revenues are supporting Sudan's ability to tell the UN to fuck off. It's also giving it the ability to arm the Janjaweed and outfit its military. No one is saying these countries AREN'T doing what they are doing because of oil politics. What's we dispute is that war supporters don't want to admit America's hands are dirty too.

The reality is that highly opinionated individuals on both sides of this issue are spinning the story to suit their view of the world. Critical thinking is a two-sided sword that questions all storylines. I think what you really mean is "I am glad you agree with me."

This is just post-modern 'there is no objective truth, just different points of view' BS that conservatives have stolen from Queer-Studies professors to justify ideological positions they agree with and benefit from.

Yes remove Saddam because Bush felt that containment is not sustainable and Saddam have a track record of being a menace in Middle East.  With US being almost the sole bearer of providing oil trade protection in the Middle East, it gives lots of incentive for US to remove Saddam.

Democracy was a bonus thing.
Yes, WMD and offensive weapons were the main thing.