>without going into details,
>
>do you really think that oil is not a consideration in a war
>in this region?



a vast amount of the worlds oil reserves are
>in the region, and the west is heavily dependent on oil.

True, But Saudi Arabia has more of it than Iraq. Blair is correct when he said, it would be much easier to just strike a deal. The military/defense spending on this "war" is approaching the trillion mark, while the economy is shit(purposely so). There are much easier ways to get oil.

>
>the importance of the region doesn't come from all the sand
>it has.
>
>and do you really think that it has nothing to do with
>saddam?

It's MUCH bigger than Saddam. After the US occupys that region(It will do this), do you think our gas prices will drop and everything will go back to "normal". I don't one bit.

if saddam was toeing the line with the west, do you
>really think that the nature of his regime, or his having
>chemical / biological weapons would really be a
>consideration.

Both smokescreen excuses are used to justify going into the region. If he had them already and intended to use them against the US, he'd have done so already. In the worm-hole, this seems like two separate opposing leaders, but in reality, both these of dudes are puppets. Bill Clinton didn't take Saddam out because he wasn't allowed to...He was also a puppet.

>
>to be honest, i don't think that the war is solely to do
>with oil, i think theres a whole load of factors influencing
>the us and the uk, however, i also don't think its quite as
>simple as the official lines coming from the us and uk
>governments.

They always mix a little truth with a gang of lies. This line about it not being about oil, is a truthful line, because it's MUCH bigger than oil. EVERTHING you see has been carefully orchestrated and are the manifestations of plans that began decades ago(likely further), by the individuals who both Saddam and Bush answer to higher up the pyramid.

Truth 2 U