The US invaded Iraq primarily for their oil

Seeing how Con has again yet to provide even a single working source to reinforce her arguments I will now take this round to show evidence of what really happened.... 1) Bush never intended to invade Iraq before he became president, He agreed with his predecessors that Iraq was a hostile nation ruled by a tyrant but he never formally stated during his election campaign or any time before then that he wanted to invade Iraq. If the pro can provide WORKING SOURCES that suggests otherwise then I can try to argue that even if such a theory were probable, oil was not the primary reason for such motives. I cant exactly offer evidence saying something was NOT said, that would be like in the episode of south park where someone tries to argue that aliens were at the first Thanksgiving by saying that "well no one ever said that aliens werent there" (see video at top) http://www.skoften.net... When the US did invade Iraq Congress gave several reasons justifying the invasion. Many of these reasons evolved before Bush became president which justify that if Bush hypothetically did want to invade Iraq before he became president, then it would be for reasons that justified an invasion before he became president. The Resolution passed by Congress authorizing the war offers these reasons for the invasion, - Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement - Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons - Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." - Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". - Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush - Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, are known to be in Iraq. - Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," - Iraq paid bounty to suicide bombers. - The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them. - The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight terrorism. - The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia who feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power. - Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. http://en.wikipedia.org... Many of these causes for the invasion originated from events that occurred before Bush became president. If Bush wanted to consider an invasion of Iraq before he was actually president, there were plenty of reasons to justify this. However bush never stated in any televised debate that he wanted to invade Iraq before he took office and the pro cannot offer any evidence to counter this. 2) Pro's link again didnt work, so I will provide it here. (I find it a little sad that I have to provide sources for the pro to use against me) http://www.newamericancentury.org... (scroll down to page 14, left side) The Pro failed to show that the text she took out of context was proceeded by this statement. "Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" Basically, the report shows that security in the Middle East is of vital importance to the world, and that the US wishes to be a large factor in bringing peace to the region. The statement the Pro is using to claim the US is in Iraq for their oil is misguided because the US is acting on intentions for bringing stability to the region. To do that though requires a long term commitment of military troops to the region to enforce peace, and the Iraq war is currently a conflict within a conflict that even when it ends will still require US troops to be in the Middle East for the sake of preserving peace. 3) Ive already negated your evidence suggesting that oil was not a factor in the invasion of Iraq. You have completely ignored the possibility that Rumsfeld originally had a hunch that Iraq was behind 9/11 before the truth was found that Al-Qaeda was behind it. America declared war on Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan in 2001, and there were many different reasons why we invaded Iraq. Al Qaeda was formed and based out of Afghanistan but they operate in many countries prior to 9/11 in countries such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, etc. http://www.nytimes.com... There are no credible sources proving that the US wanted to frame Iraq for 9/11 like the Pro claims... 4) The link still doesnt work, and If you look at the quote you can see that the (alleged) exchange only promises coordination with France and Russia if they were to offer assistance in Iraq. However France and Russia have not intervened in Iraq, so it can be concluded that 1) this exchange was not carried out, and 2) it shows that oil was not the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq 5) "Instead, the U.S. did not even give them the opporrtunity to make good on their word before launching an attack. This is completely non-sensical" Your claiming that the US should have trusted Saddam and let him try to prove himself even though Saddam had a history of breaking promises, violating contracts, disregarding UN resolutions, etc. because he might have been honest........ If a dictator has a history of breaking promises, and he makes more promises to stay in power, then his word should not be trusted, its very sensible. As for your claim that Saddam would have gone into exile for a sum of money, that doesnt mean Iraq wouldnt be under a dictatorial regime, Saddam would be gone but someone could seize power and rule the country with a fiercer hand. That is how Saddam came into power in Iraq in the first place, the dictator was eliminated and instead of a democratic government being created another despot just seized power. If Saddam was paid off, someone else would ruthlessly rule Iraq, and then the US would have the same problems just with a different face. http://www.int-review.org... 6) I concede that Cheney profited from his former employer and that oil and gas companies contribute funds to candidates is also true, but this in no way can justify that Dick Cheney wanted to invade Iraq JUST for his former employer to move in JUST to make some quick profit. 7) " My point was that having control of oil gives you a lot of political and economic control" My point was that the US government does not actually control the mining or sale of oil, as for resolution 1483, It authorized the lifting of trade sanctions against Iraq, allowed the US and UK to maintain peace while the country transitioned to a new government, and recognized the new government as the official ruling government of Iraq. The Pro is completely wrong, therefore this argument goes to me. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cfr.org... 8) American troops defended the oil refineries because it would be on that oil that Iraq rebuilt their economy... If they were not defended then Iraq would be far poorer, this does not show we invaded Iraq only their oil it only shows we wanted to protect the industry that would help rebuild Iraq's economy. Justification for the war is shown at the top... Thanks for reading :D