We all know that there were never weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Iraq was not involved with 9/11, we didn't have to fight "them" there rather than here because there was no "them" in Iraq, etc. So, I was always willing to buy into the notion, which I find quite rational, that King George and The Neocons simply wanted to get their hands on Iraq's oil so they could hand it on over to the likes of Exxon and BP. Seems to make sense in light of the legislation that the Iraqi government is considering.
However, over at HuffPo, I found the following in the comments to this post, and I have to say, this, too, makes a LOT of sense to me:
"The actual cause of the war was one of the worst economic forecasts ever made. If the weapons inspectors were allowed whatever additional time was needed (three months, ex months etc.) to finally declare that Sadam had no WMDs, then BY THEIR TERMS the economic sanctions imposed in 1991 against Sadam would have automatically expired.
It was the fear that if the UN inspectors declared that Iraq had no WMDs, and Iraq was then allowed to sell as much oil as it wanted to whoever it wanted that the dreaded "12 and 12" scenario would occur. This scenario was based on the fact that the countries and places that Saddam hated most were vulnerable to a collapse in oil prices that could occur if Iraq were to produce and sell 12 million barrels per day of oil and thus drive the world price down to $12 per barrel.There was some logic in the "12 & 12" scenario. Who did Saddam hate most? There had been over 1,000,000 dead in the war between Iraq and Iran, Sadam hated Kuwait. Saddam hated Saudi Arabia for its role in the war with Kuwait, and probably Texas was the location Saddam hated most after, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. How could Saddam destroy the economy of all four of those places in one fell swoop? Flood the world with cheap oil."
What do you think? Is this a plausible scenario?