1# "what is FACT is that the U.S. had the opportunity to seize Iraq and "manage" their oil at the end of the gulf war. I guess their oil lust was temporarily sated by something else eh? Nobody seems able to give a good account of why this occurred (without it flying in the face of "its all about the oil")."
No! US had no *poltical* capability to sieze Iraq at end gulf war & it is simply naive & bar-room politics to believe Bush snr had that option. Militarily it *could* have been done but the coalition Bush put together was *only* achieved by Bush committing to those participants that the war was *only* to push Iraq out of Kuwait. If US army had pushed on to Bhagdad he would have triggered an Arab revolt & Bush would have been branded a liar by those Arab govts he got in behind his coalition. So the facts as stated by Bush himself *are* that he did not have the mandate or real political ability to go on to Bhagdad.
2# "nothing to do with security etc etc."
Mike - what "security" ???? - The only security in relation to Iraq is oil security!.
3#Well........unfortunately this argument explodes into a trillion tiny droplets of protoplasm if one is forced to consider that we were on the brink of war with N. Korea in 1994. And it wasn't about oil...WAS IT
Mike, can you produce a single popular daily that from the time that backs up your insistance that we were on the verge of war with NK in 1994 ??? - Cheney & Rumz have been on the verge of war with at least 4 nations. My point here is that Cheney & Rumsfeld have wanted to engage in pre-emptive nuke strikes against several countries not just NK - these guys are warmongers who believe might is total right.
4# hipoccracy - true but is this the *best* point you can score !!!
5# You forgot to add, that the replacement for Saddam has to stick his nose up the republicans rear ends whilst on his knees, yes then I would agree that Bush & crew would probably not invade. Why bother when you finally have the target govt on a leash.
Cheers
Doug Marker