s.a.f said:
Oh sorry I forgot it was WMD's wasn't it? Thats the reason why the U.S was so interested in Iraq. They probably did'nt even realise Iraq had massive oil reserves. :whistle:
In addition to my previous answer to your sarcastic comment above, I'll also share with you what my sister said on this same issue some time ago (she's a former US Ambassador, and she knows what she's talking about). I had emailed her, asking for her opinion of the common belief that the Iraq wars were "for oil", and here is her response:
-------------------------------------
Re the oil issue: I know that everyone in the world, esp. non-Americans, think it was oil that drove us to Iraq. I absolutely disagree and will list my reasons:
1) During the internal USG discussions on Iraq prior to the invasion, and what were USG interests in Iraq, an interest in oil -- as opposed to WMD, Saddam's atrocities, desire to spread democracy in the Middle East, etc. -- was not articulated. I know this not only from my own sources but also from the many books/articles/research papers that have been written on the internal decision-making process within the USG prior to the invasison. All the available (and not yet available) material/information suggests that the White House and others were obsessed with WMD and spreading democracy. These priorities should not be underestimated. Also, it is useful to remember that energy security, now high on the USG's priority list as a result of rising oil prices and instability in the Middle East, was not an issue at the time. of the invasion.
Also -- and I am sure that many will laugh at this point -- the USG understood that revenues from Iraq's oil would belong to Iraqis, not to the USG. There is no way whatsoever that the USG could claim Iraq's oil revenues. If, however, the point is that more oil would be available on global oil markets, thus driving down the price....well, would Bush really want to drive down the price of oil, given his friends among Texas oil producers?!