You continue to prove that you know nothing about American interests and how we secure them. As far as I'm concerned, even though my circumstantial evidence is the weakest of my arguments, it is enough. Before the Iraq War, four of the biggest providers of oil to the U.S. and its allies had minimal access to Saddam Hussein's oil, afterwards, they had all the access they wanted and in turn, one of the U.S. main interests in the Middle East was secured. Oil and democratization are our main interests in the Middle East. Private companies are the ones who get the oil for us.You have also failed to provide VALID circumstantial evidence that Iraq was ever invaded for oil which automatically renders your argument that all of the underlying Western interests link back to oil as hollow and meaningless.
It's not better "safe than sorry". North Korea claims they have WMDs all the time, they even test some of them, but we don't invade their country. Why? Because they don't hold any of our primary interests. Iran denies having WMDs but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that if they don't have them already, they are working towards them. And yet, the United States has not invaded Iran. Why? Iran has not yet become an a huge impediment to getting oil or for any of our actions it the ME (it just yells at Israel) - it may if they get nukes.Saddam Hussein himself declared that he had WMD's to an undercover operative. He told the media this before he was strung up. He wanted to forment fear in Iran so that they would not attack him. I think actions to act on intel that suggested WMD's was wiser than inaction....we would be saying the same if he really did have them. He didnt, and we got it wrong, but better safe than sorry.
You're right, the removal of Saddam was in the U.S. interests because he was a block to US influence and stability. Why does the U.S. want influence and stability? Because without influence and stability, the United States can't get any oil (at least at a decent price).What Saddam Hussein did to his people was atrocious. His removal was inline with all previous US interventions like in Kosovo and so on. He was a dictator.
The removal of Saddam in itself was in the interests of the US. He was a major counter block to US influence and he did little to improve peace or stability. You have narrowed GWB's reasons considerably and concluded it made sense he would invade Iraq with little intel for oil. Even at the time, it was obvious the war would last for years and cost us more than we would ever get from it. Maybe you should re-evaluate.
As far as Saddam's atrocities - remember Rwanda, Darfur? The U.S. is a government, not a charity. It follows its interests, not its love of humanity. Helping Saddam Hussein's people was a side effect.
You keep telling me to reevaluate, but everything that you say shows that you have not studied international politics/relations particularly as it relates to U.S. enough to get a grasp on U.S. interests and how it secures them. Nobody who understands either would discount the role of oil as much as you have.