First things first, you need to get your info from some different sources; the liberation line is a little tired. If I remember right, the first 2 reasons the U.S. went to Iraq were alleged ties to 9/11 and WMDs, and then liberation and the spread of democracy.
So why then claim it had something to do with oil?
Secondly, I don't think you understand the idea of hegemony. If it was not a concern, the U.S. wouldn't give a **** about democracy in Iraq/ liberation, so long as Saddam wasn't an economic or military threat to the West. Unless of course the U.S. had a desire to go against its history and become some great benefactor to non-Western states.
Wrong again. We always gave a crap about democracy, but moreso lately. The reason is simple. Democracies are inherently more friendly to the United States, less belligerent to their neighbors, and generally more inclined to peace.
Go against our history and become some great benefactor to non-western states???? Are you freakin jokin with this asinine statement? "Consider one of history's rare controlled experiments. In the 1940s, lines were drawn through three peoples--Germans, Koreans and Chinese--one side closely bound to the United States, the other to our adversary Soviet Russia. It turned into a controlled experiment because both states in the divided lands shared a common culture. Fifty years later the results are in. Does anyone doubt the superiority, both moral and material, of West Germany vs. East Germany, South Korea vs. North Korea and Taiwan vs. China."
As for oil, if it wasn't important we would never have had any involvement in the ME.
