You are in error with sentence one ... making sentence two meaningless within the context of my previous point that the U.S. had been receiving Iraqi crude prior to 2003.
Here is
proof that the U.S. received Iraqi crude prior to 2003. Be sure to see the percentage breakdown at the bottom -- that's just for 2002 alone.
Getting the facts straight helps to make you believable.
You are correct. I had thought prior to the war there was a sanction against US purchase of Iraqi oil.
However, I did a little more digging, and discovered something even better.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mttimiz1a.htm
What I get from this is that, we have purchased far more oil from Iraq, than we are currently. In fact, the biggest increase in oil purchased from Iraq, came during the Clinton years. I can only assume that is when the Oil-for-Food program started. Unless you know differently.
However this still doesn't support the conspiracy theory, since we were getting tons of oil, in fact the largest recorded shipments of oil, prior to the war. So it doesn't make sense.
Your statement here contains a glaring error of prediction.
If Saddam refused to sell to a US purchaser and sold our equivalent amount of oil to China, then, what with the huge resulting scarcity of oil available to be remarketed to the U.S., those others Saddam did sell to would still have to sell to their regular customers or suffer perhaps the loss of their licences in some countries, be forced to sell to their countrymen in others, and those who did manage to escape penalties would start a bidding war that would skyrocket the price of crude to the winner beyond retail sellable margin.
The recession-depression was guaranteed, one way or the other, by the diversion of U.S. Iraqi crude to China.
And, by the way, Saddam could indeed most certainly choose new trading partners once the sanctions against him doing so expired ... and they were about to expire ... when we invaded.
You do not understand what a commodities market is. That's ok, most don't.
In a commodities market, vast amounts of raw goods, change hands very quickly, and in a short amount of time. There are three groups of people for nearly every market. The Buyer, the Seller, and the Trader. Commodities Traders can be from any country, but has little effect on where the commodity goes.
For example, a commodity Trader from Burma purchases one tanker from Brazil, filled with oil, roughly 2.2 Million barrels of oil. Now once that ship leaves the dock, what control does Brazil have over that commodities Trader in Burma? Zero. Then the Trader sells the oil to the US or whomever.
This is what happened in the 70s during the Arab Oil Embargo. Although the Arab countries refused to sell their oil to US Traders, the Trades they did sell them too, simply sold it here anyway. If they sold it to Germany, and the Germany Trader sold it here, it didn't make a difference.
Similarly, the contracts to Chinese commodity traders, will not even show up on the oil radar. The Chinese traders will sell it on the open market, just like all the other Traders. We will purchase it through them, or through who they sell it too.
Erroneous, meaningless, nonsensical, reply indicates incomprehension of straightforward presentation being replied to.
Funny how I used YOUR logic, and you correctly identified it as being "erroneous, meaningless, nonsensical, reply indicates incomprehension".
YOU are the one who claimed that Bush attacked Iraq in order to prevent the U.S. going through an economic downturn, and China from getting oil contracts.
Yet that is exactly what happened. So in your view, Bush must have changed his mind and decided that we needed and economic downturn and China to get oil contracts. But like you said, that doesn't make sense. Why? Because your whole stupid theory doesn't make sense.
Correct premise, false conclusion.
The goal was to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights so that Saddam would be unjustifiably deprived of his freedom of choice right to sell Iraqi crude to whomever he wished (divert U.S. Iraqi crude to China) once the sanctions ended.
But I just proved conclusively, we didn't steal his oil distribution rights. Opps.
The goal was to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights so that we could CONTINUE to receive our pre-invasion share, according to the sanctions, of our Iraqi crude, even after those sanctions had expired.
It appears your compulsion to be condescending prevents your from gathering and perceiving the facts.
But I just showed the figures that prove we are not "receiving our pre-invasion share". We got more oil prior to the war, than after.
Just like your whole theory. It doesn't fit the facts. It doesn't make sense. It isn't logical. Moving on...