The US invaded Iraq primarily for their oil

(Ill go into the 7 points then if the character count permits I will come back to the Iraq war in general later.)1) The source you provided does not show any of this information at all, in fact the source you listed takes you to a website that you can tell is biased against Bush. See for yourself.http://911review.org...As for your second source, It claims to have taken that excerpt from an article on another website, but the link they provided also does not work. As for the other source I do not find it a credible source because it offers no actual working links to articles they claim to have found the information from. The same website also tries to use Bible verses to show how oil impacts the modern interactions between nations, and even goes on to claim that the US tricked Saddam to invade Kuwait......Iraq was a destabilizing influence to flow of oil from the middle east because of their military aggression against oil rich neighbors and that Saddam has threatened to restrict the exportation of oil from his own nation if it could trigger an economic setback to the countries taking action against his regime. http://news.bbc.co.uk...http://www.guardian.co.uk...http://en.wikipedia.org...2) The source you again provided does not actually have a working link to show where these allegations are coming from, nor does it show the actual document these alleged claims have come from. However the US has sought to play a role in Middle East security because the Middle East has always been home to hostilities between important nations in the economic markets, and with countries becoming increasingly nuclear, maintaining lasting peace in the Middle East is becoming a larger priority because if the US fails to do this then a nuclear conflict may unfold causing untold damage. http://www.americans-world.org...http://www.jstor.org...3) This source shows Donald Rumsfeld's immediate actions following 9/11 but it in no way implies that oil was involved in his decisions in any way. In the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks a number of enemies thought to be behind the attack were considered. Osama Bin Laden at the time was still low on the Radar and so other historical enemies of the US were considered. One of which was Iraq who the US fought against in the First Gulf War where Saddam retained power and his distaste for the US. If Rumsfeld (allegedly) thought that Saddam could have been responsible for the attacks BEFORE evidence came out much later showing Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks then Rumsfeld is only guilty of having a bad hunch over what was going on. This has nothing to do with Oil in Iraq, the actual reasons behind the invasion, etc.4) This point also relies on the same biased and faulty website that does not actually show where this alleged exchange occurred, between whom, etc. If you could provide a different source that shows this actually occurring then I will address it but I will not waste my time with theories based on poor, biased sources. 5) If Bush had a very good reason for the invasion then no amount of peace offerings will forestall any invasion. Saddam had a history of broken promises with the US and the UN that involved Israel, his brutal oppression of the Kurds and Shi'ites in his own country, manufacturing weapons, using them on his own people, having ties to terrorist organizations, resisting inspectors, fighting Iran, threatening Saudi Arabia, occupying Kuwait, etc. Point is Saddam had a very bad history of abiding to foreign influence only interested in peace, and no amount of fake promises for elections or compliance to laws he previously violated could have forestalled any US invasion as late as 2002. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.guardian.co.uk...http://www.dailymail.co.uk...6) This actual working site only shows that Halliburton profited from a government contract. The report does not show in any way that Dick Cheney personally recommended the company for the contract or that he even had a say in the committee or organization that seeked out an oil company for the contract. The report also does not show that Dick Cheney or anybody else actually received any profit from Halliburton's profits in Iraq. To claim that Cheney may have approved an invasion of Iraq JUST so that he could use his ties to an old oil company to get a government contract to operate in Iraq JUST for his own profit is as likely as likely as the 9/11 conspiracy theories...7) The source you use to justify this argument is from an ONLINE DEBATE WEBSITE LIKE THIS ONE. 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....I've proven that there was indeed motive to invade Iraq for its oil.Your sources dont show any actual evidence of anything you claim to support this ideaI've proven that it was the US's intention to do so even before 9/11.Based on an illegitimate source that also shows no actual evidence to an original source that such a concept existsI've proven that the govt. had that in mind as soon as 9/11 occurred, even without a known relation to the incident.You found one source that shows how one person thought that Iraq might have had a role in 9/11 based on a hunch, there is no evidence a well planned, grand government plot to invade Iraq following 9/11 existed. I've proven that U.S. politicians have personally capitalized from the invasion.Youve shown that one politician who had ties to an already successful oil company has been doing well in Iraq, you havent given any solid evidence showing that he has actually received any hard profit from the Iraq invasionI've proven that it benefits the U.S. politically and otherwise to exploit Iraqi oil.You have suggested that countries that export large amounts of oil play a large role in the international market, but the US does not actually have rights to Iraqi oil like you have claimed. Oil companies that the Iraqi government allows to operate have that right and even then they are not under any direct jurisdiction to give a large amount of profit to the US government. These oil companies are also not under any direct US control that the US can use to negotiate with other nations by forcing these oil companies to restrict oil exports to these nations. I've proven that the U.S. ignored attempts to maintain peace.Well Ive shown that the US had a numerous legitimate reasons to not tolerate Saddam Hussein's mischief in the Middle East any longer by invading the country to remove him from power and eliminate a very large threat to world peace.