Even given that understanding of Iraq's political situation, it still doesn't explain why oil prices have risen more, after our invasion, than before our invasion when we had greater stability in global markets. You seem to be implying that a common Offense would not result in increased oil consumption, that would otherwise have been consumed by the civilian sector of the global market. Without our engagement, oil prices should have stayed at the level they were prior to the invasion since consumption would have remained constant.

I would agree with your position more, if Congress had formally declared such a condition to exist. They have not, and there are other Constitutional mechanisms available for foreign policy that do not involve the extensive use of our exorbitantly expensive superpower.

I disagree with your contention about Saddam's election not being democratic since people voted in an election. He didn't have to have an election, at all.

How does your point of view account for our level of interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign state? From one perspective, it can be considered hypocritical to complain when a sovereign state interferes in our internal affairs. Would we have our current concerns over terrorism, if the UN had been more involved in helping red states become more productive members in our global economy?

In other words, even if their is a duly constituted authority, you are claiming that adherence to the rule of law, is a purely situational consideration for you. How do you account for that point of view when anyone else in the world can claim the same thing about the rule of law, and the US.