President Bush?

Question

do you think President Bush wants to keep the war going in Iraq to gain control of their oil and to detract from our domestic problems?

Answer 1

He has to. He's too stupid to find oil on his own. He probably has to use a flashlight to find his butt when he goes to the bathroom.
I see all his sheep are starting to respond with the usual Republican tripe. I bet you all rode the short yellow bus to school.
And wore helmets.

Answer 2

While Bush had personal reasons for wanting to go to war with Iraq, namely the criticism of his father’s prudence in the first Gulf war, IMO he accomplished all his personal goals a very long time ago. He is now confronted with a quagmire he created and can’t easily end. On the one hand he can’t leave an unstable Iraq to become fertile ground for terrorism or another fanatical Islamic state, and on the other the continued occupation of Iraq is proving (the war in Iraq was over years ago, the US presence there has been an occupation since the Baath government fell) extremely costly to him on a political level and to the United Statesian nation on both financial and human levels. So president Bush would like nothing more than to be able to withdraw our troops from Iraq but doing so prematurely would mean making a mistake on top of two prior huge mistakes. And so, the US will remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

For US companies to continue profiting from Iraqi oil, United Statesian military presence is not required.

Answer 3

No. We have other places to be fighting after this one, and staying there is only delaying us committing resources elsewhere. If his administration is doing a poor job with Iraq that is one thing. His "wanting" to keep it going is another.

We do not get much oil from there at any rate. I believe that the first Arab country is #6 or 7 on the list of our largest suppliers.

One of our domestic problems IS oil, or energy in general. Some of the same Americans who do not want to fight a war for oil, will be the first to hit the panic button if our energy problems get out of hand. There will be a demand to "just take it" from whoever has it if their lives become seriously disrupted.

Answer 4

I think that in order for any of us to answer that question, we (myself included) need to educate ourselves more on our involvement with the Middle East over the past 50+ years.

I've recently been trying to do some more reading on this subject and so far, I have learned a great deal but I have a ways to go yet.

It is appearing from what historical knowledge that I have gained so far that we have been trying to greatly influence that part of the world for a long long time. Well I should rephrase that, everytime the Republicans are in office, we have been trying to gain more imperalistic control of that region.

Now as for the reason, I haven't quite figured that one out yet unless it is the obvious one ... oil. That just seems too simple so I'm still 'looking into' it.

Answer 5

Yes. I think that america will maintain a military presence in Iraq for years to come. It has NOTHING to do with terrorism. I think it is to control Iraq's oil, but not for ourselves, rather for the Saudis and OPEC. Sadam was destablizing the oil market and forcing the price to jump all over the place. Sadam was also about to switch his oil from being traded in dollars to euros. Iran is about to switch to eros as well.

America will always have domestic problems. Using the veil of terrorism and ati-patriotism keeps people in fear and complacent allowing other agendas to get pushed through i.e. the patriot act.

Answer 6

I think whatever his hidden agenda was regarding Iraq has been completed, though we probably won't know for years exactly what that was. I think what he will do is stay in there until next election when a Dem is president and let him figure it out. Then it will be just like always, the whole thing will be the fault of the democrats.

Answer 7

No - I think that he was the victim of bad intelligence from our so called Intelligence Services or bad interpretation of the intelligence information they had in their possession. No WMD in Iraq. I also believe that the problem of Saddam supporting terrorist movements could have been handled in a different manner than removing Saddam by going to war in Iraq.

Answer 8

yes as did his father 15 years ago. Its a misunderstanding that this has to do with terrorism. Osama and his crew were not linked to Saddam at the time - if they have ever been? The fake evidence did not support the terrorist idea either because many countries has a nuclear program without the U.S going to war. Korea, Iran, China... Take a pick.

Answer 9

Of course. Why do you think the immigration debate is so well-publicized after being ignored for all of his first term and most of the second (not to mention the Gay Marriage Amendment)?

President Bush is the biggest weapon of mass distraction.

Answer 10

No Bush isnt that smart we are investing trillions in Iraq...hell were borrowing money to invest in Iraq........nope he is determend to find himself a terrorist and he doesnt care what it cost us...We can pay in money we can sacrifice civil liberties we can walk on human rights whatever it takes we gonna git ourselves some terrorist.....