[My2Cents]

The war wasn't about oil. It was more about terrorism, uprooting a festering puss bag of oppression in the Middle East, and making a statement that the US and its allies are sick and tired of the insanity in the region. The fact that Iraq sits on a pile of oil makes it a strategic country, more strategic than NK, but it wasn't about oil, no matter how much the Guardian wants to spin this story.

[areafiftyone]

I would like to know what Wolfowitz said exactly!

[Go Gordon]

The fact that Iraq sits on a pile of oil makes it a strategic country, more strategic than NK, but it wasn't about oil, no matter how much the Guardian wants to spin this story.

I interpreted the article's reporting of Wolfy's oil comment to mean that oil WAS a consideration for war for two reasons, but not what the "no blood for oil" folks were alleging. First, with revenues from the oil, Saddam could fund his WMD programs. His hatred for the US and his ties to terrorists is well documented. Therefore, he had a source for funding terrorism. For example - $25K to homocide bombers.

Secondly, the revenues from Iraqs oil could be used, post war, to offset the cost to rebuild Iraq. Hence, the US taxpayers wouldn't have to pick up the entire tab.

Niether of these reasons is inconsistent with getting rid of Saddam because he posed a threat to the US and its allies. It just enhanced the viability of a successful reduction of terrorism, and succesful rebuilding of the country afterwards.

[Captain Kirk]

I notice that you didn't mention WMD, the main reasons used by Dubya and Rumsfeld.