It is a very solid argument that both of the wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, are resource wars. In fact, after the invasion of Afghanistan, the US installed Hamid Karzai as President. For conspiracy theorists, there has been speculation that Karzai formerly worked for the oil company conglomerate, Unocal.

Additionally, there is a very solid argument that the motivation for a large scale invasion / occupation / military action in Afghanistan is not due to the presence of Taliban or Al Qaeda, but to the presence of a major oil pipeline and other resource issues (perhaps even including opium...

After all, the Taliban (and bin Laden for that matter) was a former ally of the USA in the Soviet/Afghan wars.

So, putting the two wars in the same pod is hardly dishonest. They are both really about resources - they are not legitimately about protection from terrorism.

...that we call these invasions and occupations "war" when congress has not declared them as such.

I know, I know...that's what they "are" but constitutionally speaking, doesn't congress need to declare it to make it a war, legally speaking?

Opium poppies? Kite runners? Bert, the Resources dog don't hunt. There is nothing to speak of in the way of natural resources in Afghanistan other than poppy fields and a few hydroelectric dams. There are no oil deposits in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's only claim to fame was as a region that had to be crossed without being hijacked or killed. In a thousand years not much has changed.

The speculation that Karzi worked for Unocal is rightly the territory of the Tinfoil Hat crowd.  I recommend Ghost Wars as a good introductory history to the Soviet, American and Pakistani involvement in Afghanistan. It will explain Karzi's background with the Northern Alliance and when, how and why he broke with them. Compared to the alternatives, tribal war lords or a the medieval theocracy of the Taliban, Karzi is looking pretty damn good.

Asserting the US invaded to secure an oil pipeline don't fly either. Oil companies are interested in nation state stability and are not too particular which form of totalitarianism delivers a compliant citizenry. Would you please explain how the chaos of the current tribal warfare is preferable to oil companies than the dictatorship of the Taliban?

Sorry Bert, Iraq and Afghanistan are sperate wars fought by different forces for different reasons.

facts, history and logic .

1st the pipeline to which you refer is not an oil line, it is a natural gas line which has yet to be built. The Taliban were looking for someone to build the line when bin Laden put the kibosh on that.

2. Do you deny oil companies prefer a strong central government and docile citizenry? Well, that's exactly what the Taliban was offering Unocal, or any other multi-national with the resources to build the project.

3. People and organizations acting in their own interests is not a conspiracy it's a fact of life. Your hypothesis about world affairs is neither obscene or untoward, just painfully obvious.

4. And finally, your musing over the export of opium is exactly the kind of blue sky speculation that drives me nuts. Weaselly constructions like "Maybe, just maybe", "I'm no expert"  "some aspects" maybe common sense in your book. I call it evidence free speculation which conviently does not challenge anything you already believe. 

Iraq is about oil and the Idiot Son proving himself to his father.

Afghanistan was an angry and well placed strike at the organization that dropped the World Trade center buildings.

Oh, wait the WTC towers were dropped by Cheney/Bush. Or the Jews. Or extra-terrestrials. I forget which one.