English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

our interest in what happens there is more to do with oil supply, as the usa is the biggest oil guzzler on earth, is that the only reason we intervene over there

2006-08-04 09:45:00 · 35 answers · asked by pat o 2 in Politics & Government Politics

i take it from some of the replies,that we are over there to give these poor people democracy, total c..., we are there because if things go belly up it will affect our economy

2006-08-04 10:10:10 · update #1

35 answers

Bingo!!!!!

You are beginning to get it. I'm hoping others would too, but their sleeping pills are very powerful.

2006-08-04 09:48:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

THE IGNORANCE ON THIS SITE KILLS ME PEOPLE TALK WITH OUT KNOWING A DAM THING.

Top Suppliers of U.S. Crude Oil 2005
(Thousand barrels/day)
Rank Country of Origin Thousand Barrels/day
1 Canada 1,616
2 Mexico 1,598
3 Saudi Arabia 1,495
4 Venezuela 1,297
5 Nigeria 1,078
6 Iraq 655
7 Angola 306
8 Kuwait 241
9 United Kingdom 238
10 Ecuador 232
11 Algeria 215
12 Russia 158
13 Norway 143
14 Colombia 142
15 Gabon 142
16 Argentina 59
17 Brazil 51
18 Trinidad and Tobago 49
19 Indonesia 34
20 Australia 21
21 Libya 18
22 Cameroon 18
23 Guatemala 18
24 Malaysia 18
25 Brunei 15
26 China, People’s Republic of 14
27 Congo (Kinshasa) * 14
28 Oman 10
29 Congo (Brazzaville) 8
30 United Arab Emirates 5
31 Ivory Coast 5
32 Qatar 4
33 Yemen 4
34 Denmark 2
35 Peru 1
36 Syria 1
37 Thailand 1
Other 158
Total 10,088
Persian Gulf ** 2,400

2006-08-04 09:53:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No, The presence of OIL gives an underlying "acceptible" reason for war.

Wealth transfer: Wartime spending makes some of the world leaders extremely wealthy: Carlyle Group Private Equity investment holding company owned by John Majors, former British Prime Minister, Sr Bush and friends is a case in point. And the rest of the ordinary people are getting poorer and many are dying.

These wars are not being fought for humanitarian reasons.

2006-08-04 09:58:58 · answer #3 · answered by Lynda 7 · 0 0

Maybe you have not noticed that the cost per barrel of crude is at a record high price and will continue to rise. If we were at war for oil don't you think that we would have taken over the oil fields by now? Try getting educated on the situation before you continue to put your foot in your mouth.

Thinking the we went to war for oil is equal to thinking that we went to war for sand! Seeing as the USA has the more sandboxes than any other country.

2006-08-04 09:59:42 · answer #4 · answered by Matt Z 1 · 0 0

Oil could be a major interest for anyone at this time, not only US. But there are other reasons why US would care for the middle east or any other countries for that matter. US needs resources of other raw materials, good inexpensive labor, and market too for its products and technologies. I have faith in USA and I will continue to believe that one other reason that US would care for others is the preservation of freedom, justice, and whatever is good for all mankind. Amen

2006-08-04 09:56:11 · answer #5 · answered by BOBBY 2 · 0 0

NO, We are only there for two reasons, set up American bases to spread our influence and Oil. Other wise we would treat them just like we did Darfur Africa. There is genocide going on there right now and you don't see us invading the Sudan do you. Of course its oil. Anyone who thinks that oil doesn't play a part in this war is totally under the Governments Spell.

2006-08-04 09:52:53 · answer #6 · answered by DEEJay 4 · 0 0

Well, without oil money Saddam would never be able do do anything militarily, so there wouldn't be a need.

I don't think oil was the reason for this war like it was in Kuwait. This war in Iraq was from bad intelligence about nuclear weapons, and the Afghanistan war was in response to 9/11.

2006-08-04 09:51:57 · answer #7 · answered by JoeIQ 4 · 0 0

No we wouldn't. Not only that, our intervention in the region has caused more harm than good because it has been interpreted as one sided, particularly since this present administration has been in charge of Foreign policy. The Bush administration has been a force for bad, not only in the Middle East but also in the USA.

webbrowczar1, I don't doubt your figures but for it to have validity, you must quote a source. It seems highly dubious to me that Iran is not quoted there, because I know through other sources that the US buys some of it's oil from Iran directly.

2006-08-04 09:56:23 · answer #8 · answered by Blessed 1 · 0 0

Make everyone walk and we would need that stuff. Oil is hazardous to our health. People would be more fit and live longer. There would be no need for the USA to engage the Arabs in a war.

ONE problem tough! The Islam religion would still want to kill anyone that did not believe the way that they do. So there would still be terror in this world!

2006-08-04 09:50:13 · answer #9 · answered by Mikethegolfer 2 · 0 0

No, we wouldn't care. Just ask Sudan and Rwanda where countless have perished in brutal genocides. Or wait, ask Tibet, Croatia, Cambodia, China and other countries were millions die in conflicts. Why don't the U.S. come to rescue like it did for Iraq? No resource gain. (remember though, we still give humanitarian aide, I'm talking about military action here)

Of course this is a very cynical opinion. Maybe U.S. doesn't have the strength or the need to play global police. If you kill on dictator, doesn't one just pop up elsewhere?

2006-08-04 09:59:20 · answer #10 · answered by Philip K 3 · 0 0

War for oil????? If Iraq had pineapples then you’d be saying War for Pineapples???
`
Am I the only one that remembers 9/11?

Am I the only one that remembers that Bush said we are going over there to weaken terrorism in the Middle East so as to immobilize it where it originates to weaken the chance of them being able to strike the U.S like they did on 9/11?

Am I the only one that realizes that we haven’t been attacked since 9/11?

Am I the only one that sees the terrorists in action every day in Iraq????
Helloooooo!!!!!!! You think that may be why we are there?????????

Am I the only one that sees that terrorism most definantly originates in the Middle East?

Am I the only one that sees that terrorists are all over the Middle East not just Afghanistan???

SO THEN I ASK YOU FINALLY, AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT SEES THE CORRELATION BETWEEN STABILIZING THE MIDDLE EAST SO AS TO NIP IT IN THE BUD BEFORE IT REACHES ALL TIME HIGHS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
Every time Al-Qaeda claims an attack in Iraq they validate what Bush said "We have to crush the terrorists where they originate, so as to make American citizens safer."

And its not we shouldn’t be messing with them, its they shouldn’t have messed with us!!!!!!!!!!!!
And remember, it’s our soldiers putting they’re lives on the line everyday that you even have the right to whine about the war. Why don’t you thank Bush for another day that this war has brought you a step closer to long term safety and stability. Ensuring that you can go to Starbucks during your brunch everyday and whine about it for years and years to come without being interrupted by suicide bombers that claim to be peaceful right before press a button on there suicide vest.

2006-08-04 09:49:33 · answer #11 · answered by isaac a 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers