The US invaded Iraq primarily for their oil

1. Con failed to prove that Bush's cabinet did not have intentions of using military action in Iraq. In fact, the source he proved completely supports the quote I posted about the cabinet having every intention to consider using military action in Iraq! To quote directly from his own source, "The Baker report, which was submitted to Cheney in early April 2001, recommended considering a military option in dealing with Iraq, which the report charged was using oil exports as a weapon, by turning its spigot on and off to manipulate oil markets."http://www.wnd.com...Con suggests,"So if Bush's cabinet agreed to it they were agreeing that America's long term energy problem must be dealt with, it is not any kind of sponsorship of a secret oil-driven invasion of Iraq like the Pro claims." Con is clearly missing the link between oil and the energy crisis; oil was obviously therefore intended to be the solution to the energy crisis, since oil = energy.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. Con's own source actually confirms my point. It notes, "Fitton says the White House still refuses to produce the list of corporate and other private task force members who met with administration officials, including Cheney, former head of Halliburton Co., a Dallas-based energy-services firm that recently landed a half-billion-dollar federal contract in Iraq." In other words, the WH continues to be shady and secretive regarding the blatant link between beneficiaries of the war in Iraq, and those who made the decision to go to war in Iraq. Additonally, Con's very own source validates many of my other arguments. For instance, "Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a long-time Bush friend from Texas, headed a Denver-based oil company before joining the administration." In other words, Bush's cabinet had direct connections to oil companies. The source verifies that it would be near impossible to talk about Iraq without considering the oil implications. Therefore, we have every reason to note the complete impartiality of the decision makers. Actually, this source of Con's (wnd.com) validates many if not most of my other points, but let's deal with them as they come. For now I'll respond to 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. Next, 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. 2 & 3. I have just a few minutes left to post this round, and don't have the time or space to respond so I am dropping these contentions. 4. My 4th point was that the U.S. would use oil for political leverage in garnering support from other countries. Oil potentially being used for a political leverage is a fact; control of oil means economic and political power. Con doesn't deny this, and simply says it isn't credible because it came from a lowly adviser. This is the opposite of an appeal to authority; it suggests that something is not valid because it came from someone with just a little authority. However this former CIA director criticized the Bush administration for lumping together many different materials with different capabilities under the broad category of WMDs. It would seem that a president would have access to the very best scientists who would be able to distinguish between what weapons did what. Bush's disregard for the details means he pushed forward with the WMD excuse with other intentions or rationale in mind. Do I think other factors played a part? Absolutely. However oil was certainly an incentive. Con can't deny the benefits of oil, so this point must stand. A country is certainly stronger, richer and more powerful when they have access to it.5. A) The point is that B) Con says time was an issue, saying after 9/11 everyone was terrified about the next attack so we couldn't afford to wait any longer for a potential diplomatic solution. We went to Iraq in 2003, with a 2 year lapse after that terrorist attack. Further, there were no connections between al Qaeda and Iraq making this a useless contention. Beyond that, I've already proven that there was a reason to look to using military action in Iraq before 9/11, so this isn't entirely accurate. C) Con can't prove another dictator would have come to power. The U.S. would have removed Saddam's power and attempted to implement "democracy," just like we did after Saddam's death. Also, we don't invade every country run by dictators. The fact that we would have singled Iraq out just strengthens the argument that Iraq had something in particular that we wanted access to (oil). D) Links between AQ and Iraq have been accused of being the results of lies and forgery [18]. Take note that all of the alleged threats Con posted have proven to be false and inaccurate. I'd also like to see the source where he copied and pasted those stats from.6. Yes, I am suggesting Cheney manipulated Bush to invade Iraq for his own wealth? In fact, I have given a lot of evidence in support of this which Con has chosen to completely ignore in the last round (because he cannot refute the evidence of the incentive). 7. Con explains how Iraq profits from taxes. He completely failed to repsond to my points that Britain co-sponsored a resolution in the Security Council which gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. Until Con addresses this point, we see that Iraq's profit is limited and inhibited by the U.S. government, while U.S. companies continue to profit from it. The point here was never that Iraq doesn't benefit from oil production. Obviously it does. It's that the U.S. had oil incentives to achieve, which we see carried out by subsequent policy. Furthermore, Con has failed to address that Iraq's ability to manage its own resources has been taken away, so that issues must be settled by international rather than Iraqi arbitration. This confirms that our interest in oil is not about making sure Iraq profits from their resources (as politicians have falsely alluded to), but that control over their oil supply and production gives us political and economic leverage. Again, Con has not and cannot deny this fact (so he chooses to ignore it instead). 8. Con actually dropped point 8 (which was an add-on to 7) and posted reasons to believe that Iraq was a threat to national security. First and foremost, even if Iraq was (or was considered to be) a threat to national security, does NOT eliminate the idea that oil was still a primary factor of our invasion. Therefore, all of these points could be true and it would still not negate the resolution. However Con's basic points were that Iraq is deemed hostile (so are a bunch of other nations... North Korea, anyone?). Our Intelligence was not solid. Con says, "So you agree Saddam was funding suicide bombers." As I pointed out in the last round, I've given evidence that Bush set his sights on Iraq since 2001 and earlier making this an irrelevant contention. Con ignored this because he can't combat it, choosing instead to appeal to the conservatives who comment on this debate rather than realize his point has been negated. Con also continues to appeal to the Constitution, ignoring the fact that I pointed it out as an appeal to authority. No more character space -- See comments section for Sources link; it won't post here.