I re-wrote my response to this several times, trying to find the right tenor, before I realised that you've already got all the "answers" you'll ever need so it's pointless.  Then I thought to myself, "What the hell, I've had a shit day at work and I'm feeling pretty passive aggressive so send it anyway."

So, pick the response you like best.  Or don't.  They should all come across as pretty critical of your derisory reply so if any of them seem positive please understand it is by accident rather than design.

1 - Is this half arsed response meant to be compelling in any way?  It makes young earth creationist arguments look reasonable.

2 - So presumably you mean we can't trust democratic politicians.  Do you trust the undemocratic ones?

3 - Is that it?

4 - Wow!

PS - you know this is rather cathartic - I don't know why I've resisted for so many years.

un gobierno elegido por votos le quieren hacer golpe de estado ?

Desde quando un gobierno, solamente por que ha sido elegido con votos, tiene el derecho de hacer todo lo que quiera a su pueblo?

Y de elegido este gobierno tuvo muy, muy poco, pero eso ya es historia passada.

It's common sense.  Here's a little pratical expirment for you.

Compare the price of gas in the united states, vs the price of gas in the united states before the Iraq war.

Compare the price for a barrel of oil now, compaired to before the iraq war.

So... where is all that oil?

Your arguement is the US invaded Iraq for oil it didn't get.  So it could pay more for gas.

It's just a bad arguement.

I mean.... lets look shall we.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

So... a little under 7,000 barrels of Oil from iraq....

The US spent trillions of dollars for like...   2% increase in oil per month?

Pretty damn expensive oil, not counting the fact that we still have to pay for it.

Oh wait.  Except we were actually getting MORE oil from Iraq when it was ruled by Sadam Hussein.  A hell of a lot more

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMIZ1&f=M

So I mean... seriously.  What... we went to war with iraq and wasted trillions and trillions of dolalrs in oil to get less then 25% the amount of oil we could of been getting?

That makes total sense.

Saddam Hussein would of LOVED to sell more oil to the USA.  Saddam was only anti-USA because USA was anti him.

I'll gladly avoid further efforts at confrontation in this case.

The key difference is that while violent revolutions can certainly be successful, what follows is never pleasant. Because at that point you've given all power to those willing to fight, so the victorious rebels generally beget a tyranny all their own. The Soviet Union is an important example, or in a more modern sense, Eritrea, which is still a dictatorship run by the leading "freedom fighters" against Ethiopia, 20 years down the line. Or take Libya currently where they do have a democratic government, but many of the militias that started operating during the civil war have refused to disarm, and the government lacks the capacity to force them to do so, letting them run rampant. America herself is a completely different story, for both our Revolution and our Civil War, due to federalism in both cases (the local colonial governments decided to revolt, so a legitmate local government was organizing rebellion against a suzerain kingdom. Similarly with the civil war, which was the democratically elected governments of the southern states choosing to secede, so there was very little messiness and more importantly, legitimate authorities that could surrender and stop the fighting, because the armed forces answered to a legitimate body).

Truly *needing* to be armed against the government is a point that should never come to pass.

No, my argument is that the article I linked makes a better case that the Iraq war was about oil than you are making that it was not.

Fair play to you for trying to make a convincing argument here.  Unfortunately you have created an argument to refute a point that you made rather than the point made in the article.

The article does not make the case that the objective was to increase US oil imports from Iraq, it makes the case that the war was about western oil companies gaining control of Iraq oil.

"Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with losers: the Iraqi people and all those who spilled and lost blood so that Big Oil could come out ahead."

This is not what socialism is about, if anything Maduro has gone mad with power.
Anyway, what is actually going here?

I get the impression Venezuela is deeply divided politically but i don't know what else is going on.

Also, is there any proof Maduro fixed the elections? 

So let me get this straight.

Your arguement is that the US government spent TRILLIONS so oil companies could make hundreds of millions a year?   What is this a 100 year plan.

Again, i gotta ask... why?   Some oil tax cuts would of worked a whole lot better at making them more money for cheaper.

Outside that... it still doesn't play out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Iraq#Service_Contracts_Licensing_Results

Look at all that.... the US went to war, So that Exon Mobile and Occidental could make a a little over a billion dollars  a year... in revenue, not even profit?

That's crazy.  And that's not even counting the fact that the chinese have sicne bought in on western contracts, taking over parts of it that aren't even listed their for oil, because Iraqi contracts are some of the stingiest least profitable oil contracts out there.

As can be seen by the fact that Exxon has been trying everything it can to sell it's stake an pull out.

It tried to in 2012 with no buyers.

and sold some to China... who again, is the real dominant force, as it holds many deals with the companies who "won" and hold stakes in those oil fields unshown.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19c128a2-5818-11e3-a2ed-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2u4GDQwzL

The claim that the US Went to iraq for oil is total fiction, and is proven by the facts in no matter what direction you wish to spin it.

Ok, so that's twice you've tried to strawman me.  I'll say one more time, my argument is that the article I linked makes a better case that the Iraq war was about oil than you are making that it was not.

Here's another link - it makes a stronger case than anything you've said so far too.  It seems Republicans agree that the war was about oil.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/top-republican-leaders-say-iraq-war-was-really-for-oil.html

I'd like to believe you but the weight of evidence is not in your favour.

Let's just call this a day.  Clearly you think you're making a compelling case, while I think otherwise.  Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Don't forget the original strategy wasn't a bogged down war lasting years and costing trillions. So saying "why would they spent XXXXX to only get XXX back isn't the full story.

I don't know what the Iraq was was for, but I know politicians (here in the UK too) really wanted it and it's now been proven that the UK parliament was misled to ensure it happened.