2006-08-10 09:04:30 · 15 answers · asked by david c 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm just curioius: If we went to war for oil, where'e the oil? Why didn't we take any?
2006-08-10 09:07:24 · answer #1 · answered by dizneeland 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
First of all, it wasn't for BOOsh to absorb all the oil, but to control the production of it. Where's all the oil gone? Well, that's the thing, instead of increasing the production of oil (which would drop the price of gas), the Occupational Forces have actually cut it severely, thus causing the price of oil to rise.
If there was no resources in the middle east of value, then any situation in that region would be ignored by the Neo-Cons in government just like the Sudanese Humanitarian Crisis.
Furthermore, a lot of other factors would come into play if there were no valuable resources in the mideast to absorb. Western World governments would no longer have any military or diplomatic interest in the region. Therefore, no financial/political backing of Arab Dictators, no western world drilling and western troops on Muslim Holy Soil. That's approximately 2/3rds of Terrorist Organizations' recruiting argument.
The only thing left would be western support of Israel, which would probably be weakened by a lack of drive to use Israel as a scapegoat for invading Oil-Rich Arab Nations. It would merely become leverage to get fundamentalists elected to office for their support of an "Israeli State".
2006-08-10 16:23:48 · answer #2 · answered by Daniel C 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
When will you silly fools recognize that this war is not about oil? I guess it will take several more terrorist acts before you decide that defending the world against these violent extremists is a priority. Would YOU care about the Middle East if it didn't have oil? It is not exactly the beauty capital of the planet - or a pleasant place to visit. If we didn't buy oil from them, they would still be running around in the desert. Hello??!!?!?!
2006-08-10 16:18:22 · answer #3 · answered by Fortune Favors the Brave 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
To answer that question, look at how many times in the past 6 years, or 20 years, that large forces of American troops have been deployed to places other than the Middle East.
2006-08-10 16:26:11 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
What's with you weirdos and "Bush & oil"? Bush isn't in the oil business, having left it years ago. If he WAS interested in "Oil" he would be drilling in his own country. You haven't heard about Islamic Facism yet? Hint: It's located in the Middle East.
2006-08-10 16:13:03 · answer #5 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
no he wouldnt be there.. funny thing is.. we have pleanty of oil here.. but we're just too damn lazy. not only that.. but there is a new type of oil that doesnt harm the atmosphere or cause health problems.. yet nothing is being done to expand it. could it be the fatc that George OWNS AN OIL COMPANY!? what a cowincidence
2006-08-10 18:35:26 · answer #6 · answered by kangaroo 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Dictator Dumbya must have some/a lot? of Ferengi blood with some crude oil mixed in. Greed and oil is what motivates him.
2006-08-10 16:11:58 · answer #7 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Of course not. You don't see Bush supporting wars in Somalia do you?
2006-08-10 16:10:07 · answer #8 · answered by Larry 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
As much as he cares for Africa. (which is more than the rest of the world but really not all that much.)
2006-08-10 16:09:29 · answer #9 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Change the word "oil" to "terrorism" and the answer would be no.
2006-08-10 16:08:34 · answer #10 · answered by Chris S 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋