The US gets its oil from Canada,America and Africa, it doesnt need ME Oil. But it needs to control it to have leverage over other major powers.who DO need oil from there. To get control of the oil you can either bribe them, like Saudi Arabia,try regime change through military coups, or threaten and eventually attack them. Democracy or crimes by the countries leaders are totally irrelevant. In fact it would be much harder to deal with democracies.

It amazes me that people think this. Al-Qaeda had a significant presence in Iraq, so much so that we called them AQI (Al-Qaeda in Iraq) rather than just Al-Qaeda. Saddam's regime fell quickly, who do you suppose it was that we were fighting after them?

By the way, my sources are the guys in my battalion who have done a few tours.

EDIT: This actually irritated me so much that I had to go and find an article on Wikipedia so people reading this can educate themselves.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_in_Iraq_and_the_Levant

From the article you linked:
"It was established in the early years of the Iraq War and pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004"
So it doesn't in any way negate what I said.
PS: I'm honoured to be the reason for your first post. Stay happy!

just like in most African development countries, democracy isnt actually among the top priorities that Iraq needs.

1. (play-) democracy does not bring law nor order.
2. democracy does not wipe away corruption.
3. democracy does not make the critical chances a troubled economy may need to shift its course.
4. democracy cannot be eaten.
5. democracy does not equal healthcare.
6. democracy does not create working infrastructure
etc

Democracy is fine and dandy, when it has stable environment where it can function: that is more or less stable society where people have actually time to be interested in and engage in politics.

Strict but stable military dictatorship (for example Saddam ironically) is really better as first step to democracy. Here they unfortunately destroyed everything and left the people pretty much fend for themselves in the ruins.

The only way you could say AQ had no presence in Iraq is if you consider ISIS to not be a part of AQ. However, that would be like saying Democrats from New York and Democrats from California aren't all Democrats.

You said: "The U.S. wasn't fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq at all." - Wrong. You also said "Al Qaeda had basically zero presence there." - Wrong.

"Despite significant setbacks for the group during the latter stages of the Coalition's presence in Iraq, by late 2012 the group was thought to have renewed its strength and more than doubled the number of its members to about 2,500.[41]"

Sounds like a presence to me.

"A letter and later an audio recording by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al-Qaeda, was leaked to Al Jazeera in 2013, disbanding the Syrian faction of ISIS.[42] However, the group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, made it clear that he contested this ruling on the basis of Islamic jurisprudence,[43] and the group has since continued to operate in Syria. Starting in April 2013, the group made rapid military gains in controlling large parts of Northern Syria, where the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights described them as "the strongest group".[44]"

If ISIS isn't considered as part of AQ, why can the leader of AQ disband them at will?

"In early June 2014, following its large-scale offensives in Iraq, ISIS is reported to have seized control of most of Mosul, the second most populous city in Iraq, its surrounding Nineveh province, and the city of Fallujah.[45] ISIS has also taken control of Tikrit, the administrative center of the Salah ad Din Governorate,[46] with the ultimate goal of capturing Baghdad, the Iraqi capital.[47] ISIS was believed to have only 2,000–3,000 fighters up until the Mosul campaign, but during that campaign it became evident that this number was a gross underestimate.[48"

Perhaps a bigger presence than originally thought. Either way, AQ's presence in Iraq is and has been a non-zero sum since 2004 at least.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. By my "had", I meant before Iraq was invaded.

It'd be like me saying "Europeans had basically zero presence in the Americas". Obviously that isn't true now, but I was speaking about before 1492.
All information you have provided so far talks of an emergence of an Iraqi branch of Al Qaeda AFTER the US invasion. This is why I implied that the US invasion of Iraq was the impetus for the current Al Qaeda presence there.

Ah, well in that case, I offer no argument. I thought you were implying American troops in Iraq had not fought Al-Qaeda because Al-Qaeda simply wasn't there. Which I know to be false.

I too apologize for the error in communication. All's well that ends well :)

And now we have Ex Warmonger-in-chief Anthony Bliar, Esquire, making the rounds of the media trying to push his "It was right to remove Saddam in 2003 because..... [insert banal, unsteady "reasoning" here]" while looking tgerribly unsure of himself while doing so. I'd really love to get this corrupt, slimy little thing making those arguments in front of a war crimes tribunal in The Hague, along with Shrub, Cheney and the rest of the Haliburton leadership.

Just what we need another war to piss away our money. I guess it will look good for our unemployment numbers once it really ramps up, but I'd rather spend that money fixing our country or even our allies countries over that sandbox. But yes, let's spend tax payer's money getting our men and women killed while the fat cats in the military industrial complex line their pockets.

Agreed.