The US invaded Iraq primarily for their oil

Pro completely screwed up my sources. .. . The source i gave regarding the "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts" report was about the oil maps, but because you had failed to provide a source for it (again), I had to go look for it. This website (known for being completely right-winged and heavily anti-Bush) accuses the administration of several things regarding the reasons for the War in Iraq. Even though you completely disregarded my arguments about why the UN banned contractors from drilling for oil, you completely focus on the two unsupported claims the source made near the end of the article. This did not come from the Baker Report though like the Pro believes (for some reason) this came from the article about the oil maps in question. The baker report is shown here . http://www.informationclearinghouse.info... The source the Pro is losing her mind about relates to the oil maps, shown here . http://www.wnd.com... "Right here Con concedes that the U. S. had a practical incentive for invading Iraq for its oil - the energy crisis, and the possibility that Iraq was using oil as a "weapon. " Therefore, even if you believe it was necessary to invade Iraq for these reasons, it still concludes that oil was a primary factor. " Let me summarize the Pro's debacle right here, 1) The Baker Report doesn't state that the Bush administration should use "oil exports as a weapon, by turning its spigot on and off to manipulate oil markets" to invade Iraq 2) That, and all these other non-factually supported claims, comes from a severely anti-bush website 3) The energy crisis in The Baker Report only mentions Iraq in some of its points but its main focus is how to eliminate America's energy crisis in general with the War in Iraq as a sidenote. 4) To claim that I "Concede" that the US had a practical incentive to invade Iraq for its oil after mistaking one legit source that proves just the opposite is true, for a biased source that makes wildly unfounded claims, must be dismissed as irrelevant. How do I know that this source the Con is now basing more than half of her argument on is a completely biased website against Bush? " Did you know that the Bush oil crony who headed regime change in Afghanistan is the same Bush crony who is heading regime change in Iraq? Find out all about him, his connections and his behind-the-scenes maneuvering in Paul Sperry's explosive new book, "CRUDE POLITICS: How Bush's Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism. " " ^ right at the bottom of the website followed by several other links that completely slander Bush This website i provided was only to show how the US revealed oil maps of Iraq to contractors and to explain that beforehand, the UN banned foreign oil companies from drilling for oil in Iraq. In response the Pro took wild accusations from the site, confused it with the contents of the Baker Report, and now is trying to get you to believe that is what was said in the Baker report and not a website that screws up the truth more than Fox News. .. . "Con's point that we decided to allow drilling for oil now that the proceeds wouldn't fund Hussein's regime. While that may have been a benefit, it ignores the reality that many people stood to gain from this investment. Further, foreign investors benefitted more from this investment than Iraqis. " The Iraqi government taxes these companies a whopping 35% to operate in Iraq. That 35% powers almost the entire Iraqi economy and much of the funds that the Iraqi government has to spend on programs for the people. Do the contractors benefit from operating there in the first place? Yes. Do the Iraqi people benefit from the government taxing these companies at almost 40% to then use those funds to help restructure the entire economy? Yes (But Pro says no) "Con brings up the Gulf War. Obviously this would be a dumb reason to invade Iraq, but even if it played a role in Bush's decision, it still doesn't negate oil as a primary (not necessarily ONLY - but primary) factor. " I am not saying we should have invaded Iraq in 2003 because we didn't finish him off in the First Gulf War, what I am stating is that people had many reasons to remove him from power well before 9/11/01 2), 3) You dropped the topics of arguments 2 and 3, and this is my last round so dont try to use these as evidence in the final round as a cheap shot because I wont be able to respond to them after you dropped them, twice. 4) The fact that this recommendation came from a lowly adviser is a very important detail that the Pro simply ignores. If we look at the White House as a company where Bush is the CEO, the person who believed that access to oil should be used to convince other countries to help invade Iraq would have been an idea of the guy who works in the mail room. .. "this former CIA director criticized the Bush administration for lumping together many different materials with different capabilities under the broad category of WMDs. " Weapons of Mass destruction come in a lot of forms though, Mustard gas, radiation bombs, any kind of biological bomb meant to spread disease, any kind of launchable missile, or any device that could blow up a building. WMD's apply to a lot of different weapons so it would be a poor assumption to consider WMD's as only nuclear bombs. .. . 5) I have already shown that in the 2 year time lapse between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq that Saddam only continued to become a bigger threat to American security. Maybe the Pro overlooked my list of events of what happened in Iraq between those dates. .. . "Further, there were no connections between al Qaeda and Iraq" These suggest otherwise. .. . http://news.bbc.co.uk... . http://www.foxnews.com... . http://articles.cnn.com... . http://terrorism.about.com... C) I can claim that another dictator would have come to power because that is exactly how Saddam came to power in the first place. .. . . http://www.int-review.org... As for singling out Iraq, are you blind or are you just ignoring every time i show how Iraq has been resistant to UN weapons inspectors, invaded many countries, bombed their own people, paid money to families of suicide bombers, etc? D) Id like to see some actual working sources from you 6) Unless Dick Cheney was a master of hypnosis he, along with every other adviser in the White House, were not in control of Bush, he is not a robot with someone holding the controls and you havent given any "proof" since you havent provided a single working source that wasnt one I ended up giving to you. .. 7) Ive already shown how the idea that the US and the UK control Iraqi oil is a lie, . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.cfr.org... The US invaded Iraq for many reasons 1) They were a threat and they continued to show signs of increasing hostility in the years right after 9/11 2) We already for years had legit reasons to remove him from power 3) It could not be disproven that he did not possess weapons of mass destruction 4) Saddam was a very evil dictator who was well known for dropping chemical bombs against his own people and during times of war 5) Saddam funded terrorists and enemies of the US Time out, why would we invade Iraq for oil if today we only get 5% of all of our total oil imports from Iraq? . http://www.eia.gov... Why would we make such a fuss over Iraq oil if we get so much of it from everywhere else? crap 226 characters left. .. It is for these reasons why I think that the US did not invade Iraq for their oil.