[Bardan the Slayer]

No, the 'knockdown price' line was simply a response as to why the USA didn't simply buy the oil off Saddam. If all that mattered to the US was getting oil right now, and as much of it as fast as they could, as cheap as they could, this is certainly what they would do. However, governments think in long term strategies (most of the time), and if the USA was only interested in "getting" oil, I still believe they would go for the knockdown price road.

USA international opinion would drop below rapist level if it was seen to be dealing witn Saddam for large quantities of oil purely for it's own personal gain, I don't believe they would ever just buy immense quantities of it off him. They'd probably not like the fact they would be funding a regime in a way guaranteed to get them on the wrong side of everyone. Much better for them to oust Saddam and claim humanitarian motivations, then get knockdown oil from the newly installed government, and deal with the far lesser 'corruption' accusations that would be levelled at it.

The important point to realise is that all of the 'knockdown' comment was merely a response to Wutang about why if getting oil right now, and as much of it as possible was the USA's only aim, I think they would go the 'install a new government and make a deal' route than 'buy it off the most unpopular man in the world' route. Remember, though, i don't think that this is the USA's motivation, and so though all of the above is what I think it would do in a given situation, it's not what I think they are doing.

There was nothing in the main body of my post that suggested that I objected to Saddam's control of Iraqi oil being ousted in this way. I'm actually quite in support of it. The economic health of the world will probably be greatly improved by it.

I'm no economist, but there seems to be a big link between the stability of oil supply and the growth of the various stock markets. If you remove Saddam, you remove an extremely volatile and unpredictable element that is, in effect, making a difference to our day-to-day lives because of his uncertain influence. Add to this that an oil-grab would set you up for a while, but that removing an oil-damaging tyrant could sort out the economy for a great many years to come, and you arrive at at least one of the reasons the USA is waging this war. It's probably a far more important reason to the republicans controlling the puppet .. .cough ... president than any humanitarian concerns, but who cares?

Saddam being gone is a good thing. A democratic government in Iraq will be a good thing. Does the fact that it was motivated by a desire to stabalise the US economy make those things bad? No, it doesn't. Good things can grow in questionable ground.

I don't agree, though, that regional stability is the goal. There is a difference between oil stability and regional stability. In fact, having a USA-sponsored government in the heard of Arab country will probably be an unstabalising factor. Most of the Arab governments hate Kuwait for being exactly that. Iraq would become the same. The rest of the Arab nations would see it as becoming fat off dealing with 'The Great Satan', and there would be more political instability. The oil supply, however, is the important thing. People say war for Oil for a reason - because it is. War for stability would be an admirable goal, but it's not the current goal.