2. Completely irrelevant to the discussion, ad hominem.
3. Completely irrelevant to the discussion, I really suggest you argue against the arguments, not the people making the arguments. This sort of behavior only makes you seem ignorant of rhetorics.
It isn't a war for oil? Then why is it still on? Let's go through all the arguments we've been fed for the war in Iraq:
War on Terror: Even if Iraq housed Bin Laden himself, the very moment the first bullet was fired, he'd be out of there before it hit something. Additionally, also if anything, the war has -strengthened- the terrorists' recruitment grounds by killing a lot of family members. Additionally, any money coming from the Iraqi government will have stopped now, so this can't be the reason for staying in Iraq.
The WMD's: Why the war was started, remember. Funny how nobody seems to have found as much as a trace of those. ... obviously not why the US remains in Iraq.
To "Liberate" Iraq: I highly doubt the war was started to "liberate" the Iraqis, since it wouldn't only be a trend break for America to do so, there are other places in more dire need of "liberation." In any case, the tyrant is slain, so the US has no reason for remaining. Not to mention, the humanitarian angle for staying is also broken, since there simultaneously are genocides going on in other places of the world, so that would be a priority if the US truly wanted to save lives.
If we add another agenda, to ensure oil flow from Iraq; that is actually a valid reason for staying in Iraq. If the US leaves Iraq, civil unrest will ensue, and there will be no oil... so obviously it would be in the US' interest to remain.