[NutCrackerBoy]

I don't know any supporters of the Iraq war who believe it's a "pragmatic venture to keep oil flowing." To some of us, fighting terrorism and removing the world's most ruthless dictator is more important than money.

I don't disagree with you but let me put it a different way.

I've debated moonbats and I choose to concede them a little cover for their "it's all about oil!" mottos. They're arguing from a position of impossible Utopian idealism anyway - they can't let go of the concept of the corrupting influence of oil and money. So I just say pragmatically: OK, you've got a point!

The entire world economy runs in part on oil; these guys in the Middle East have got it and want to profit from it. When one of them (Saddam Hussein in 1990) starts aggressing and conquering, motivated and financed by all that oil, because of the tremendous wealth involved, it's a big danger, a big destabilizer. And whatever is the cause of the terrible state of Islamic governments, if we don't make Iraq and the rest change, there are going to be terrorists with nukes crawling up our butts.

The US and friends conceivably could withdraw and ignore the Middle East, but the deadly economic/energy embrace we are all in won't let us.

[papertyger]

I've debated moonbats and I choose to concede them a little cover for their "it's all about oil!" mottos.

Why?

[Puppage]

"it's all about oil!"

If that were true, then we should have invaded Canada or Mexico for their oil and saved on airfare

[Drew68]

So I just say pragmatically: OK, you've got a point!

I agree.

I've had the same argument. I always say, "Of course it's about oil! What do you think our cars run on? Love?"

I mean seriously, people act like fighting over oil is a *bad* thing!