Or rather, to me that is not the singular cause. It was much more than that. Saddam had already made a deal to Bush which would have given essentially full access to the oil for Bush's friends without the uncertainty and risks associated with waging war.

Rather, I think it had to do with an ultra-nationalistic (ego-centric) view of the US which they felt placed it above all other countries. "We're the super power and we should get the respect we need." Iraq was the weak kid on the block and essentially considered lacking in sovereignty because it has consistently shown an inability to defend its borders and thus should be controlled by the US who because we're the most powerful are thus the most deserving. The conquest of Iraq is nothing more than an outgrowth of the same sense of entitlement that this administration has shown in domestic politics.

So, yes, oil is one part of it, access to markets in the Middle East is another, but power and control are the primary motivators. The other items were really selling points to the primary focus of establishing US dominance and are the bones thrown to the corporations to obtain their support. The Bush Administration (and the PNAC/Neo-Con groups) feel there is some additional sense of economic value gained by the US due to fear (they call it prestige) of the US military prowess though given China's and India's growing success at the expense of the US which is being drained by these small wars shows such a strategy is illusionary and short sighted. Essentially the world has for the most part moved on past such overt examples of nationalistic sovereignty and do not judge the value of the US by the same standards the PNAC members do.

On Edit: Essentially the Bush administration and the neo-Cons in general takes an old-fashioned Westphalian view point of the world, as evidenced by their disdain of the UN and other shared global instruments of discussion and cooperation.

L-