and, I suppose, be close to Iran. And, if needed, protect the Gulf kingdoms.

This is why the Brits, after WWI drew the maps so arbitrarily. To have access to the oil fields. They were the ones who laid the oil pipes in the first place, all the way to the Mediterranean.

It's true, all the regional conflicts seem to center on areas that were the subjects of colonialism/imperialism. I know it goes much farther back than that but that seems to be the breaking point.
My go to analogy is we have to learn to stop pissing in other peoples sandbox before we don't have so many enemies in the world.

There were many tribes - really, this is what they were/are - in the Ottoman Empire. And they lived next to each other more or less at a peaceful co-existence. But Britain and France drew arbitrary borders and declared them states. In Iraq, they put the Sunnis and the Shiites and the Kurds in one country. And they installed the two sons of Sharif Hussein as kings in Trans Jordan and Syria. When Syria was given to the French, the kings was transferred to Iraq. From there, many claim stemmed the mistrust of the West.

All of the attempts of the western nations to exploit other nations and their misguided actions fomented divisions that we live with today. Your response shows that you have a more detailed understanding of the issues than I but the effects are so similar whether discussing South America, Central America, Africa, or the Middle East. When another nation tries to exert undue influence they will be seen as enemies.

And Rummy was mad at his old friend Saddam

and the oil supply.

It's that cut and dried.

Spread free-dumb and democracy.
Saddam gassed his own people.
Revenge for 9/11.
Fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here.

But really, because O(il) I(srael) L(ogistics).

And because war is a racket.

But then I'd have to kill you.

and therefore it is very easy for politicians to goad us into wars against people of color.

and the war itself was convenient for many reason: oil, halliburton, the general war machine that benefits, a distraction from domestic policies etc.

and the non-compete contracts to re-build what we destroyed.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

he, unlike Becevich, a graduate of West Point and who lost a son in the latest Iraq adventure, was a veteran of another of our alphabet soups. He was a Right Winger but never saw the "muscular use of force" as the solution or a religious item. I am betting those who have seen the results first hand...

...in his effort to kill Poppy Bush, using weapons of mass destruction made from vials of Niger Yellowcake!

I mean c'mon! Isn't it obvious?

and showing enlargements of pictures of where the WMDs were going to be found. ALL those assholes should be in jail.

Oil, spreading Democracy, ludicrous belief it would allow the US to control the Middle East, guaranteeing a 2nd term for 'W', all of these, IMHO were reasons that one or more Bush admin members had in mind.

It we never about the WMDs.

"yeah we havent had one of those lately."

showing up Dad......finishing what his Dad didn't. All the other legitimate reasons cited here are just smoke screens for Dubya trying to one up his father.

but it's in the interest of various existing companies to pump the world dry, since that doesn't require immediate changes in their behavior. Those folk want us to project US military power in the Middle East, as part of maintaining the status quo. That's why we invaded Iraq under former oilman GHWB and under his son GWB. GHWB didn't develop political support for the project and had to pull out. GWB constructed wide political support, not only by tying the invasion to the 9/11 attacks, but also by buying corporate support by offering lucrative unmonitored contracts. The object of the GWB-gang was to destabilize the entire Middle East and then to escalate. The destabilzation project didn't have all desired effects in the GWB years but it was, unfortunately, partly successful in the longer term. And large-scale military operations require establishing logistical systems and operational goals which together possess enormous political inertia. So it's been politically difficult to leave Iraq, and some of the deliberately-induced deterioration of the situation there contributes to the difficulty of leaving

So number one is ego.
Number two is history as several have stated above. I recommend a book Desert Queen by Janet Wallach which shows the lead up the the U.K. drawing the lines which are now country borders in the middle east.

Saddam stopped listening to us. And by listen I mean obey.