Well, I don't disagree.

All decisions have multiple causation and multiples pressures. This is why bureaucratic inertia, corporatism and other complex factors have become studies in US Foreign Policy.

have you talked to people from iraq? politically is it like bush said that america is going on a crusade to ride the world of terrorists starting with iraq a country which has the 2nd biggest supply of oil, a country which is also close to iran. so your telling me that they attacked iraq just to send a message? or to free the country of their elected and loved dictator(the majority of the people loved him), bullshit, saddam shoudnt have died, bush should have, first vietnam now iraq putting their noses were it doesnt belong. we all know that the war in afghanistan isnt only about al qaida its about oil also. we also know that bushes dad had ties with bin ladin,  we also know that it is america who armed iraq and possible al qaida.

All I was saying was that declaring a war is seen as extremely affirmative action, in my opinion the reason for the war is that Bush didn't want to be seen to be dawdling in his response to 9/11 so he pushed the war through despite it being a rather stupid idea.

Also Iraq having high reserves of oil doesn't mean that America invaded for the oil, unless you can get some proof that America is now actually taking large amounts of oil from Iraq that it wouldn't have been except for the war...

I don't see how most of the stuff in your post relates to what I stated in mine either.

the stuff in my post say that their is no possibility that they attacked iraq because of political action. do you know what happened in the 90's? iraq invaded quwait, america came and helped them, and america has an amry base in quwait, quwait which also has a high reserve of oil. so america defended quwait for justice? all the soldiers lost in both wars against iraq for democracy?  obviously you don't know about the relationship btw the us and the middle east. in the 1970's all arab countries stoped giving oil to the us for months and that is when the first idea of hybrid cars started to occur. isreal did a massive deal with nissan so they could have in a couple of years, cars which work by electricity, and instead of gas stations they will have charge stations, this all points out how oil is important. i live in the middle east, i know how things are here, ever wonder why america has such an important relationship with isreal?

do you have proof that america invaded for so it doesnt appear weak? yes i can play the same game.

before the war against iraq bush said that they are going on a "crusade"(yes he used the worst world possible) against terrorism, turns out their are no terrorists, also the war iraq shows americas weakness against militias, against people who know their streets, against people who arent afraid of death, so if they did go for to show that they are strong then it absolutely failed,

Nope, no proof that America invaded so that it didn't appear weak. I'm merely saying that it's my opinion and quite a viable alternative to invading for oil. I opened this thread to ask for evidence that America invaded Iraq for oil which is why I was hoping you would post some rather than just rhetoric.

Since all you've actually posted so far is rhetoric I don't really feel the need to respond any more unless you post even some indirect proof of the benefits America has gained oil-wise from invading Iraq.

theoretic? it is true that the arab countries stopped giving the us oil in 1970s, and thats how the idea of a hybrid car came to mind. it is true that bush said we are going on a crusade agasinst terrorism and their were no terrorists, so now it has to do with politics, so america spent billions of dollars they gave away lives for political reasons, your too blind to realise what your country did wrong. america is the most hated country in the world just because they are the most powerful, not because they abuse their power and put their noses where it doesnt belong.

il let you believe what you want, after all how can a man change his views if he only knows his countries history.

Rhetoric is the art of speaking, but the way I meant it was more colloquial and a bit hard to explain. Basically meant that it was all stating a certain position without really addressing my points.

Also as I said earlier in the thread I'm most definitely not American (Kiwi thank you very much =P) and I don't support the war in Iraq. I don't even particularly like America as a state to be honest.

Also yes I believe America spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives for political reasons. As I said, I'm not actually trying to defend America here.

ahh ok, sorry for being aggressive. ofcourse their isnt actual proof that they went for oil, the us government would never let that happen. i live in the middle east, ive talked to people in iraq, i know what the us does in the middle east, they even tried to stop my countries civil war about 30 years ago, and i believe that they went for oil.

well everyone has their opinion, i dont hate america, but i hate their foreign policy. america are taking more loses then gains from the war in iraq, but poor iraq the country is destroyed. 

Among various reasons, a) protecting dollar as the global exchange currency (Iraq had started to exchange in Euro), which can potentially lead to the collapse of the American economy; b) secure the oil reserves to finance the higher future goals (so oil is not the reason but a major financial source)...

Isn't power the means with which to control resources?   By controlling more people and more land you control more resources.

It's like saying that everybody works to buy stuff... and the counter arguement being that some people work just for money.