>>>>>I don't see it yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>The only possible link is gas prices. But I'm not convinced they've artificially increased as a result of the war.
>>>>
>>>>No, they have naturally increased as a result of the war.
>>>
>>>Using clever words does make the argument clever.
>>>
>>>Is there concrete evidence that the gas prices are higher than they would have been without the invasion of Iraq.
>>
>>Sure, bring me up the parallel universe in which the war didn't happen, and let's compare.
>
>
>Again, clever words but an un-clever argument.
>
>I suppose you'll just go on assuming things with no evidence as long as they support your bias.

I'm biased, right.

Should I repeat the part you omitted? The sentence below "No, they have naturally increased as a result of the war" was "Was there ever any war in middle East which caused the price of oil to drop?". So if you really want to talk beyond "he said she said" level, let's get back to that.

The oil price goes up when a Saudi sheik sneezes nowadays, and it was supposed to stay blissfully unshaken by a war around one of the greatest sources of oil, in the close neighborhood of another greatest source. Both Iraq and Iran are in the top ten exporters, and a war in the Gulf was somehow supposed to lower the prices or leave them dormant? When did that last happen? Name one such war when the price was unaffected.

To add to the nature of the beast, the big oil will take pretty much any chance they can to maximize their profits, as they did in 2006. And 2005.

We may argue over the meaning of "artificial" in this context. IMO, it's the nature of the matter to overcharge for any possible risks whenever it can. And it can when it has a good excuse, like a war or hurricane. It feels natural to do so.