Suppose we are only fighting in Iraq for the oil......?

Question

Oil is a limited resource. Suppose in 30 years from now, China is primary end user of oil and can't hardly get enough, yet we (the US) have a steady flow from Iraq, because of the oil leases that American companies have secured during this war. If in 30 year's time, we will have run out of sources for oil, and thereby collapsed as a society, will this war have been worth it.

I am not stating that it is, I am just asking a question.

Answer 1

I've actually thought about something down these lines myself.

What if it was to get their oil because we are trying to save our country? Or save our superpower status, etc..?

I think actually a lot of ppl wouldn't have objected if that was the reason. The problem is that was not the reason we were told and now we all feel like fools, lied to, and that our intelligence has been insulted.

Also, if the government would have just came out and said that then a lot of us would have probably woken up to the crisis and begun to take it a lot more serious; thereby, a lot more research and development on other options.

EDIT ADDED: can you believe some ppl (zharatan's answer down a few) still believe Iraq had something to do with 911? No wonder our country is losing all over the world. We are full of morons.

Answer 2

I don't think that it is worth it at all, illegally invading a sovereign nation for its resources (even if they are limited worldwide) is wrong, period. Even if we did have some steady flow from Iraq in the future the oil would still run out someday. The expense of human life and dollars on this war would of been better spent finding alternative methods of energy.

Answer 3

First, the war is about terrorism. They struck us first. Second, 80% of our oil supply comes from Canada. The rest comes from the US, Venezuela and the Far East. We get next to nothing from the Middle East. If the opposite were the case, then the war would be stupid because we should be spending time looking for renewable alternatives to fossil fuels (which we should be doing anyway).

Besides, if you remember your history, Iraq attacked Kuwait to get their oil and ports because Iraq has little oil and no ports. If we wanted oil, we should take on Kuwait, not Iraq.

Answer 4

That’s a hypothetical question, it insinuate the war is justified by means of a survival of the fittest theory. I think your real question is “Is war ever justified?” but since we all enjoy suppositions, lets suppose we don’t go war, we spend the current cost of the war 300,000,000,000.00 on alternative fuels: research; development; manufacturing; transition; implementation, who gets all that money, plus future revenues as the new energy providers. Big winners are solar, wind, water ect. All new alternative fuel companies, Big losers are foreign and American Oil companies. Now that’s big redistribution of wealth, I guess what I’m really trying to say Does protection of wealth/interest/property justify violence?
Or maybe I’m just trying to insinuate something.

Answer 5

I believe it is about 70-90% of America's oil comes from Albeta, Canada most of Iraq's oil goes to Europe

Answer 6

An American global monetary empire. "because the 20 th century attracts to a special, usa of america stands because the international's preeminent potential. Having led the West to victory contained in the chilly conflict, usa of america faces an threat and a project: Does usa of america have the ingenious and prescient to construct upon the achievements of previous a lengthy time period? Does usa of america have the be sure to structure a clean century favorable to American concepts and interests?" PNAC truth of concepts, 1997, signed by employing Abrams, Jeb Bush, Cheney, Kagan, Podhoretz, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz... "It no longer many times needs to be extra that if Saddam does acquire the aptitude to provide guns of mass destruction, as he's purely about certain to do if we proceed alongside the hot route, the safe practices of yankee troops contained in the area, of our friends and allies like Israel and the lifelike Arab states, and an significant part of the international’s grant of oil will all be placed at possibility." -PNAC Letter to Clinton, 1998, signed by employing Armitage, Kagan, Kristol, Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz... ***EDIT*** Oooh... look at all those thumbs down. Is that information that cockroaches don't love it once you shine the mild on them?

Answer 7

Hopefully by 30 years from now our dependence on oil will be much more diminished. I think there is finally an impetus in America to get off the black stuff... at least from the corporations and that's where it really matters.

Answer 8

Do you really think we will still be using oil in 30 years
use your head

Answer 9

Yeppers! Makes ya wonder doesn't it? Why the F we elect these dumb *** into office? But then again we're only picking the lesser of two evils....the politicians all say the same thing just in a different way. *sigh* it's sad to be in the declining years of the US.

Answer 10

That's a good question. It's exactly why more serious research
should be done to find alternate energy sources. No,the war will
not have been worth it.