You have a very fitting nick. Just how does one oil field change anything.

I'm still waiting to see the details of the deal. The initial report shows that China will be doing the work for a fee only. They get paid $6 per bbl of oil produced. The report didn't say anything about China earning any interest in the oil. I suspect there's more to it then that. China's oil industry isn't geared towards being a service company. Even if China doesn't earn any of the produced oil I suspect they are doing it on some sort of an option or right of first refusal basis. In other words, Iraq can sell the oil on the global market but China has the right to meet the price and buy the oil before any other buyer. For at least the last 10 years China has been focused as much on securing access to oil as buying into existing production.

China sends money to Iraq.
Iraq spends money on US military items.

But the real answer is that we don't have to own the Iraqi oil or even force its sale to the US for the US to benefit. By conquering Iraq and allowing its oil to flow into the global market, oil prices are reduced for the whole global hegemony. That's the benefit of defending and maintaining a global market.

It's not a theory. We destroyed the country and engendered so much hatred among the people that no legitimate leader could obey us and survive, and we finally are so weakened that we must accept that, bit by bit. Our compensation for letting Maliki destroy Cheney's PNAC oil strategy is that we avoid more mass uprisings that would bring US casualties back to 2005 levels so we can claim we're "winning". Which could make the difference in the election.

We've lost. Our leaders can't even explain what victory means.

GWB is just too incompetent to control what he invaded and conquered.

BTW: See the military's (Joint Chiefs) view of Iraq War policy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/07/AR200809...

Alan

I've never been particularly of the view that oil was a primary reason for the US push into Iraq, but if it had been, one possible reason why the US didn't get expected very favourable oil treatment was that the neocon's desired new president of Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi

both fell out of favour with the neocons and achieved a much lesser position in the Iraqi government. When your crony doesn't get appointed most of your future plans fall apart.

So when Bush said "We must protect Americas intrests
in Iraq" he was talking about (A) sand? (B) Israel?
Since sand isnt of much value, at least if theres no oil under it. And Israel is LESS safe now because of the inability of the Bush admins to extricate themselves from the quagmire of Iraq...I say it was (D)Strategy
not just Iraqs oil....but military strategic placement
of military bases in a geograghicly strategic location
such as IRAQ! for control of middle eastern oil in total.
I sense you dont think strategically