By which I mean this: You have an odd view of economic. Sure, if Iraqi can charge 3 times or 10 times the current price- more power to them.
Do you think that oil companies are being nice by charging a low price??? That's pretty strange talk from a Lefty.
(Oh, wait, I got it, you think that the US government are forcing the oil companies to charge a lower price- and this being the fruit of those silly protests in the past.)

Your view of economic [sic] is badly hampered by an assumption that the global oil market is as 'free' as the American laissez faire ideal so vociferously worshipped on these pages. If the hypothetical post-liberation Iraqi oil ministry unilaterally tripled their price (or even merely doubled it), do you think they would sell any on the open market? Would the US buy from them, whether or not from a collective sense of guilt, if the profits were guaranteed to be used to rebuild Iraq... or would American (and multinational) oil companies continue to 'buy low, sell as high as possible'? What do you suppose would happen to Iraq's standing in OPEC (which, you seem to have misplaced, is where the real price-fixing occurs)?

As to Mary Anne's comments: think again, after reading this history lesson:

Iran, 1953: When the government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian oil company, the resulting sanctions on the country – led by Great Britain and the United States – resulted in economic hardship and political unrest. Fearing that such instability could result in a communist takeover and concerned about the precedent of nationalization on American oil companies elsewhere in the Middle East, agents of the Central Intelligence Agency organized a military coup in 1953, ousting the elected prime minister. The United States returned the exiled Shah to Iran, where he ruled with an iron fist for more than a quarter century. Tens of thousands of dissidents were tortured and murdered by his dreaded SAVAK secret police, organized and trained by the United States. [emphasis mine].

Here's an interesting timeline, from another source:

1972-Iraq announces the nationalization of oil. Pres. Nixon plots with Shah to arm Iraqui Kurds. Iraq placed on list of nations supporting terrorism



1975-Iraq Vice-president Saddam Hussein and Shah reach agreement ceding control of Shatt-al-Arab waterway to Iran. Kurdish aid abruptly stopped. Concerning the Kurds who were left in the lurch, Henry Kissinger said , " Covert operations should not be confused with missionary work".

1979-Shah is overthrown. National Security adviser Brzezinski publicly encouraged Iraq to attack Iran to take back the Shatt-al-Arab waterway - which the U.S had forced Iraq to cede to Iran four years earlier.

1980-"Carter Doctrine" states U.S. will intervene militarily to protect U.S. access to oil. Iraq invades Iran at U.S. urging.

1982-Iraq removed from terrorist nation list

1984-U.S restores full diplomatic relations with Iraq. Pres. Reagan authorizes intelligence sharing with Iraq. At same time U.S. begins sharing intelligence and selling weapons to Iran.

1985-Oliver North tells Iran that U.S. will help Iran overthrow Saddam Hussein

1986-U.S increases aid to Iraq

1987-Norman Schwartzkopf Jr. Named head of CENT-COM. U.S bombs Iranian oil platforms.

1988-Cease fire signed between Iran and Iraq. Center for Strategic and International Studies begins 2 year study predicting outcome of war between U.S and Iraq. Saddam Hussein announces $40 billion plan to peacefully rebuild Iraq.

1989-War Plan 1002 originally conceived to counter Soviet threat is adjusted to name Iraq as main threat in region. Plan renamed 1002-90.

January 1990 - CENT-COM stages computer games testing 1002-90. U.S. War College report states that "Baghdad should not be expected to deliberately provoke military confrontations with anyone. Its best interests now and in immediate future are served by peace".



[Here's the Google search results page where I found those, for your further edification.]

I, for one, do not take the reactionary-Left stand that this war is only about oil. I am rather tired of the reactionary-Right's insistence that none of it is about oil. This war is the next step in a historical process with clear antecedents in US foreign policy across repeated Right/Left swings in the US government - and, just like a huge portion of its economy and infrastucture, US foreign policy continues to be fueled by petroleum products.