The US invaded Iraq primarily for their oil

Thanks, Con. 1. My first point was that Bush decided to go to war with Iraq before he ever took office. Con does not deny this, and instead attacks my source. Therefore all I have to do is provide other sources indicating that this is probably true. Other sources confirming this can be found here [8, 9]. The fact is that the President nor his cabinet ever denied this, indicating it's completely true that this was said. I welcome Con to provide evidence that this was NOT said. Con has not argued against the Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century report, calling for military and other action taken against Iraq in order to get control of their oil. Con's silence shows he acknowledges that politicians and other advisers have called for using military action against Iraq for its oil, so we must consider the implications of that. Cheney and others had been saying to do this for years. It would be foolish to consider this irrelevant. 2. Con again attacks the source and not the argument. I said that there was a specific document written by a conservative think-tank advocating war in Iraq for oil. Con says the link doesn't "show the allegations," but unfortunately for Con I have a PDF link to the actual document proving exactly what I said. Con cannot deny this, and here is the link [10]. 3. Since there was a huge motive for the U.S. to invade Iraq for its oil, we must rationally conclude that Rumsfeld's actions to look to Iraq automatically (ignoring all other Middle Eastern and neighboring countries - including Pakistan where al Qaeda actually hid) indicates that the government specifically sought to incriminate Iraq without knowing any other details. Con has not disproven this in any way whatsoever. The terrorists were from Afghanistan - not Iraq - yet America declared war on Iraq, even after we knew Osama bin Ladin's group was from Afghanistan. Nevertheless, Rumsfeld's actions indicate he was acting based on the reports that the government should specifically seek to find ways to incriminate Iraq. 4. My 4th point was that the U.S. would use oil for political leverage in garnering support from other countries. Con refuses to address this claiming to not like my source. However the source only reported where the quote came from. The point about oil potentially being used for a political leverage is a fact; control of oil means economic and political power. What I sourced was a CIA director blatantly stating that this was the U.S. intention all along. The direct source for the quote can be found here [11]. 5. Con agrees that Bush ignored all of Iraq's attempts at maintaining peace. He claims that this is because Iraq had a history of breaking promises in the past. However, he ignores that other countries were involved in these peace talks (Egypt, etc.), and that the severity of the situation made it so Iraq had every reason to fear that the U.S. would actually act with military force if they did not keep their promises. 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. It would make no sense to invade automatically rather than make demands first and then act upon a lack of cooperation. Further, Hussein allegedly would have gone into exile for a reported 1B dollars. The war in Iraq wound up costing $709B [12]. This means it was far more expensive (and dangerous!) to invade Iraq, yet Bush went through with it anyway. He basically invaded despite attempts to maintain peace, a way to get rid of Hussein without war and without regard for the lives of American soldiers. Again, with absolutely no concrete evidence against Saddam, we must consider why Bush would do this. We cannot make these decisions based on HUNCHES but actual proof, which Con (and the government) have completely failed to provide. In the next round I could give more proof that the U.S. ignored all peace attempts and more analysis if need-be. 6. Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, profited more from the invasion of Iraq than any other corporation. Though Cheney claimed to have cut all financial ties with the company, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) asserted that Cheney's stock options increased 3,281% after the decision to go to war! Though he later pledged to donate that money to charity, it was only after he was caught. It still doesn't change the fact that he blatantly lied about not profiting from the war. Moreover, Cheney continued to received a deferred salary from the company. The Congressional Research Service has concluded that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a financial interest whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities. Deferred compensation is also a financial interest [13]. Therefore, Con is completely incorrect in saying Cheney did not have financial ties to Halliburton. As Lautenberg pointed out, "It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it." While these ties may not be illegal, there is a blatant conflict of interest. Con would be completely intellectually dishonest to ignore that. Much of the Bush inner circle, including the President himself, was made up of former oilmen. The oil and gas industry has pumped about $50M to political candidates since the 2000 election [14]. Clearly the ties between oil and politics are abundant. 7. My point was that having control of oil gives you a lot of political and economic control. Once again, instead of arguing against this point (which Con simply cannot refute, as it is a known fact), Con attacks my source instead. The problem is that again my souce merely showed where I got the quote. The quote is from a book. Con cannot deny that the quote backing up the link between oil and money/power exists in the book I references. Therefore, he MUST argue against the point itself.Con's only argument here is, "Apart from that the US doesnt actually own Iraq's oil supply, the Iraqi government allows a multitude of oil companies access to Iraqi oil for their own use, the US government doesnt control anything in this equation...." This is false. In reality, both Deputy Defense Secretary at the time of the war Paul Wolfowitz and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm... the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people." The complete opposite happened. Instead, Britain co-sponsored a resolution in the Security Council which gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. Therefore, Pro is 100% incorrect in saying the U.S. doesn't have a say in Iraqi oil control. Far from all oil revenues being used for the Iraqi people, Resolution 1483 continued to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings... [15]. There were strict conditions about who Iraq could contract for oil production, which drastically decreased after this ordeal costing Iraq a lot of money. Also, Iraq's ability to manage its own natural resources could be threatened by the provision that any disputes with a foreign company must ultimately be settled by international rather than Iraqi arbitration [15]. This is clearly antagonistic against Iraq. 8. New Point: American troops were detailed to secure oil facilities as they fought their way to Baghdad in 2003. While we ignored all the looting after the fall of Saddam's statue in Baghdad, the Oil Ministry was under American guard [15]. Clearly the U.S. protected their oil investments in particular. This all proves a major concern for oil profit above other humanitarian ideals.All of my points still stand. Con did not even ATTEMPT to provide any other reason for war, or justify going without LEGITIMATE evidence. SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...;