Resorting to grammer nitpicking when proven wrong, huh?

I'll requote you since you deleted it

"Anyone who says anything about the middle-east isn't about oil, is lying."

Though neither it nor Iraq was about oil... it's the easier sell, since their isn't any oil there. (Well there is, but not a significant amount.)

Also worth noting... the vast majority of Afghanistan's metal contracts have gone too... the Chinese.

Who also have done a lot of investing in Africa for their resources and oil.  Africa isn't as barren as you seem to think.

I'm not attempting to suggest anyone is without blame. 

However, the Iranian's did self-determine their future when they became a duly elected, democracy.  That was, the will of the people.  The problem is, the US and UK crushed it. 

Do you know why the King of Jordan is the Kind of Jordan?  Or how the Shah of Iran came to power?  Of how the Saudi royal family ever rose to power?  Because when the British were carving up their empire after WWI, they decided to make the countries monarchies in the image of Great Britain.  None of the people who are "kings" today have any affiliation with royalty.  They are "kings" because in the early 20th century some British guy said "Yeah, he'll do."  That wasn't the will of the people.  The Shah being reinstated as the ruler of Iran wasn't the will of the people.

Don't confuse the Iran of the 1950's with the Iran of 1979 or today.  The religious fundamentalism that overtook Iran happened because not only did we crush the democracy, but we killed the people responsible for it.  They weren't anti-US or anti-UK, they just wanted more control over their national wealth and future and they did believe that a guy put in power over the promise of money in a sham of a deal should be the leader of Iran. 

Had the Shah been depose backed in the 1950's, my guess is Iran would have actually been a much different place than it is today.  It at one time was a very modern, very moderate nation composed of both Christian Persians and Shia Persians.  Now, because of the Shah, the extremist Shia's have control.

You do realize that just because a country is largely Muslim and a desert doesn't make it part of the middle-east, right? 

Technically, Iraq was about oil.  You have to go back to a DoD document from the 1990's that was presented to then President Bush by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, outlining why we should continue to wage war with Iraq, for the purpose of creating a friendly democracy, which would help secure oil.  Iraq was barred from selling it's oil due to a UN embargo (pushed for by the US), so the only way to get access to that oil (other than by breaking the embargo like the French and Russian's did) was to go to war with Iraq.

We knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  We knew anyone who told us anything differently was lying.  We knew the Iraqi's didn't have the capability to build a bomb, let alone launch one.  All that capability got destroy either by the UN in the early 90's or Israel years earlier.  The story the Bush administration gave to the American people was a completely false, bullshit story and we absolutely knew it.

I didn't suggest Africa was barren.  In fact, I never said Africa was barren.  The problem is, most of the countries in Africa have little there we value economically.  If they did, we'd get more involved. 

yes i know a bit,obviously its just my point of view but i doubt any state is better under hardcore religious authority if thats what it is,i don't really like to get into it because as i say what do i know about peoples belief,persia has a beautiful history

i saw a documentary about how the british mapped out most of the middle east,making crazy borders where there were none,it wasn't very clever and most of the tribes were essentially nomadic,of course i'm no expert

persia/iran is the middle of the old world,religion,pollitics,power,ancient culture,empire,strategic you name it she has seen it

No, but Afghanistan is in the middle east region politically.  Note how you didn't even attempt to argue otherwise in the first post.

And no... Africa has tons of things we value economically... like oil, and minerals, that the chinese are investing in and taking advatnage of. 

Also... you've got the wrong Iraq war... even though that one also wasn't due to oil... if either was due to oil... the US would have a lot more oil interests in Iraq then we do now.

Most of the oil benefits actually seem to be going to China and other countries... just like Afghanistan.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html

No, it's not. It's in the arabic region, but not the middle east.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East

Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen. Those are the countries of the middle east.

There is sometimes reference to "the Greater Middle East", which does include Afghanistan, but that is not the same thing as the middle east, even "politically".

Pakistan and Afghanistan are both solidly in Asia, whereas the Middle East is in the borderline region between Europe and Asia (and Africa).

http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/MEast.htm

Politically it is... which is what I was talking about... afterall if we're talking true geography, Europe isn't really a continent... it's missing SEVERAL geographic needs to be a continent.

Though regardless, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were about Oil, as can be seen by just how little the US has profited from it.   Those who have profited the most have been China, Russia and France.

That map includes Russia, Greece, and Somalia, too. Are you claiming that those three countries are part of the Middle East, too?

The map is just a general region, containing all of the Middle East and then including any other countries that are also in the vicinity.

And given that this is about Adinnieken's comment that "Anyone who says anything about the middle-east isn't about oil, is lying", I don't think that "sometimes it's politically included" is really a valid counterargument. The point is that the *actual* middle east is what is being talked about, not the greater middle east.

Eastern Russia and Somalia... yeah.

Fine, if you want to be nitpicky.  Iraq wasn't about oil.  As can be seen by how the US is getting royally spanked by other countries when it comes to oil contracts being awarded.

Hell, despite there being all kinds of oil in Libya, I don't think that was oil motivated either.  Afterall Libya was cooperating with the west, giving it everything it wanted lately.

Oh, I'm not getting into the actual argument over whether the reason for US activities has anything to do with oil. However, it was fairly clear that the mention of the "middle east" meant the actual middle east, since oil is a major thing in the middle eastern countries, whereas most of the ones just outside don't have as much oil (there are exceptions, of course).

If you must know my personal opinion, I think oil was a factor, but not the deciding one. I think the main primary motivation for invading Iraq is best summed up by my first post in this thread.