The US invaded Iraq primarily for their oil

1. President Bush nor his cabinet denied the quote I sourced, indicating it's probably true that it was said. Con merely states it wasn't and says he cannot provide evidence that it wasn't. While that's true, he can provide evidence that all of my sources saying it WAS said are lying. He has not and simply complains about them. Meanwhile, I have accumulated more sources incriminating President Bush.Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill wrote a tell-all book verifying that Bush had intentions to invade Iraq before 9/11. Con will say we cannot prove that it was about oil. O'Neill obtained one Pentagon document dated 3/5/01 entitled Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts, which includes a map of potential areas for exploration, which contractors would have interests in investing, etc. [16]. This book includes other sources and citations (such as the document). Firsthand eyewitness testimony is indeed admissible as evidence in a court of law. As such, if we have numerous sources saying that they saw or heard something, then we have every reason to believe it's true. Others have also spoken candidly about Bush admitting to wanting to go to war in Iraq way before 9/11, such as the ghostwriter of his memoir [17]. While there were other motives for invading Iraq besides oil, it was a certainly a factor though not the only one. O'Neill revealed that Bush made plans for post-invasion Iraq including divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. Since very close friends of Bush directly profited from this, we have every reason to consider it a contention in favor of the resolution. 2. Dropping In This Round For Space 3. Dropping In This Round For Space 4. Con says "1) this exchange was not carried out, and 2) it shows that oil was not the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq." Whether or not the essential bribe for oil was carried out does not negate my actual point, which was that oil can be and was intended to be used as a political and economic bargaining tool. Con has not disproven this. I also fail to see how this proves that oil was not the primary reason for invasion; Con didn't detail the connection.5. Con says it would be non-sensical to give Hussein the opportunity to make good on his word. He has ignored every single other surrounding point, so I'll waste my character space repeating them. A) Con ignores that other countries were involved in the peace talks (Egypt, etc.) meaning Iraq had a much greater incentive to cooperate. If the entire world was against him, Iraq would surely suffer the consequences of isolation, etc. B) Much of the UN and many of America's own allies were against the war. If they had given Hussein the opportunity to cooperate and he messed it up, we would have had more support. Bush ignored this obvious incentive.C) Hussein allegedly would have gone into exile thereby losing all power and control for a reported 1B dollars. The war in Iraq wound up costing $709B. This was a cheaper and less bloody alternative, yet we chose war. D) Iraq had 2 choices: cooperate or not. If they did, war could have been avoided. If they did not, war was inevitable. By making war inevitable regardless, you lose the possible benefit of cooperation. Even if it was likely Hussein wouldn't cooperate anyway, there is not one benefit whatsoever (and I more than welcome Con to try and provide one) to automatically assuming it. We declared war in 2003 when 9/11 happened in 2001, so we were not acting on immedite urgency. This is important for Con to refute.6. We must conclude that Cheney and friends' immense profit from the war was a good reason to go to war. Halliburton profited from oil specifically. Furthermore, Cheney not only directly benefited through his own name but also in the form of campaign donations and other political and business connections he received as a kickback for hooking his friends up in this way. O'Neill's book documents the strong influence Cheney had over Bush, and how Cheney specifically wanted to keep Bush sheltered against his (Cheny's) opposition in order to have more influence over the president [16]. Thus we see Cheney's oil incentives are very important. 7. Con writes, "My point was that the US government does not actually control the mining or sale of oil..." In the last round I detailed exactly what control the U.S. had/has, and what they stand to gain from it. Con has not and cannot deny that. 8. Con says we want to help rebuild Iraq's economy, but far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people as the politicians promised, Resolution 1483 continued to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Moreover Iraq's oil production decreased and got worse after we got involved. Con's Cited Reasons For Invading Iraq - Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreementTwelve years after the fact makes this b.s... more on this later.- Iraq's alleged WMDsThey didn't exist.- Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."I've negated this in R1; see Darfur example. - Iraq's "capability and willingness to use WMDs against other nations and its own people".We supplied Iraq with weapons, so this is not a valid reason. Further, the WMDs didn't exist. - Iraq's hostility towards the U.S. as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. BushThere are innumerable assassination attempts on Presidents. We do not (cannot) respond in that matter to all of them, holding entire countries and not particular individuals responsible. Further, this attempt was in response to Bush Senior's direct actions against Iraq, and is nowhere near compelling enough to seek war over a decade after the fact. - Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, are known to be in Iraq.They were also known to be in other places which we did not declare war on (Pakistan, etc.). This is also negated considering we targeted Iraq specifically before knowing ANY details about what happened on 9/11 (see previous Rumsfeld point). - Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations."See above.- Iraq paid bounty to suicide bombers.Hussein decided in 2002 to pay the families, though I've given evidence that Bush set his sights on Iraq since 2001 and earlier making this an irrelevant contention.- The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.See previous point on countries "harboring terrorists." - The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight terrorism.We can debate the validity of the Constituion itself. Moreover, the actions the President is allowed to take to fight terrorism are certainly debated within the framework of the Constitution. Saying "the Constitution allows it" is basically an appeal to authority anyway. - The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia who feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.Irrelevant. A lot of governments want a lot of things. - Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. Again, see my Darfur example. We can say we want to help people, but conveniently we choose to help the people who can also help us (and by us, I mean politicians and their corporate friends who profit from war at the expense of everyone else). All of these have been negated.Not one of them stands out ABOVE oil as a main contributing factor. Nonetheless, I don't deny that there were other contributing factors. I just acknowledge that oil was certainly a big one, though overall profit (in terms of military defense contracts, etc.) is the #1 reason. Con denies this in the opening round, foolishly believing America acted solely with good intentions. SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...;