Does it matter if we supported it/agreed with it/made our minds up about it anyway? We were going to war anyway for exactly the reasons you have outlined. Public outcry didn't work at the time and we have now changed the reasons for our invasion to being "for the good of the Iraqi people". Constantly changing messages - and messages on a mass scale - is something we should be getting used to by now as it will continue. As Marshall said " the media is the message".
2006-08-31 03:56:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by kenfitameen 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Geez, how many false statements did you make here?
- The US didn't go to war against the Taliban because some deal fell through. They went to war because the Taliban was assisting the guys who blew up the WTC two weeks beforehand.
- Saudi Arabia isn't in any danger of running out of oil. While all countries would run out of oil eventually, it's unlikely SA would run out even before Iraq, who's oil fields are already tapped thank you very much.
- You are correct in that Hussein was dealing with Russia, China, and France, and in fact he owed those three countries big-time. By the US invading they wouldn't get their money back. And, wouldn't you know it, all three opposed the war... hmmm.
- Hussein selling oil rights to Russia, China, and France wouldn't cripple any economy and wouldn't make any currency worthless, let alone the US's.
2006-08-31 04:02:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by Kyrix 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Do I think that oil has something to do with why we went to war, absolutely. Do I think it was the main reason? Not at all. WMD's aside, which we know for a fact were there, and mostly because we sold them to Iraq, Saddam was in breach of at least 12 U.N. sanctioned articles. The only real sham is that the U.N. is truely a worthless entity. I also know that while it's fun to sit back in coffee shops and blame Bush, who is not our shining moment in leadership, terrorism is happening whether you believe it or not. If we lived in a world where negotiations and hugs and good "vibes" worked, that would be awesome. But we don't. We live in a world where Isamic fundalmentalism is engaging in world war, the rest of the world just hasn't had the testicular fortitude to face the fact. Bush isn't the biggest problem we have in this country, it's idiots.
2006-08-31 04:00:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by infiniteentropickey 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
No question, but an answer anyway. In the mid 70s we got a look at oil and its impact on our country. We built small cars and talked of solar and wind energy for a little while. Then big business and politics decided there was no money to be made. We forgot about it and bought an over sized SUV and drove off into the sunset. As Americans we allow politics and capitalism to overshadow our common sense. Both of these things made us a great nation and I hope we are not on the down hill side of the equation.
2006-08-31 04:03:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by curious mindless 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
I have a plan. It has two points. First we consume oil even faster, in fact let's just waste it, bath in it, whatever. The faster we use it up, the faster the price of it can rise. The only real way for us in America to commit to alternative fuels is to hit us in the pocket book, let's face it no-one wants to give up their car.
Once the oil price has risen so high that we don't want to buy it, the second side of the plan will kick in, because all along alternative fuels have been researched and perfected. All of it funded by the taxes on fuel that the government already takes, which is twice the profit of the oil companies by the way.
Make the switch and leave the Middle East out in the cold and they can suck it!
2006-08-31 04:01:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by jasonzbtzl 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
U.S. oil organizations produce little or no of the international's oil, on the order of three-6%. We devour on the order of 25% of the international's oil. which means, even with drilling in ANWR and the outer-continental shelf, we are going to nevertheless be importing numerous multiples of what we produce. meaning the international oil expenses will nevertheless ensure what we pay. So why is this example being pushed so not ordinary through oil lobbyists? because what constitutes an extremely small improve of resources contained in the international marketplace (and therefore an extremely small impact on the U.S. gas pump), constitutes an excellent outcome on U.S. oil organization asset valuation. this is their motivation. If this is any convenience, transportation will slowly develop into electric powered, and power elements turns into decentralized sufficient so as that we are charging our automobiles at living house, off the grid. we are going to be in a position to do this with our own windmills and image voltaic panels on our own resources. even as wind power received't drop in cost a lot, image voltaic panels will, because this is at present a primitive technologies with little advice, yet that advice density is growing exponentially. in this sense, this is like the semconductor organization contained in the early days: few human beings could % that there became a revolution of exponential improve happening, not even bill Gates. I also understand of yet another power source contained in the pipeline this is extremely promising this is not contained in the click, and which could meet the country's desires for centralized power elements (with out burning biofuels or amassing poisonous waste), yet, not being contained in the mainstream press, it really is a touch not ordinary to grant links to back up what's going to look like ambitious claims.
2016-12-06 01:07:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are making sweeping assumptions with no basis in fact.
Have you read the resolution in Congress that was approved by 98% on September 14, 2001? Have you read the resolution that was approved by the majority of Congress for the action in Iraq? I doubt it or you would have presented your argument differently.
It appears that you need to get some education on foreign policy and Islamofascism. Try reading something that does not fit exactly into your world view. It might amaze you and you might learn something. Isolationism and the lack of tolerance leads to ignorance, dissenting views, knowing them and understanding them leads to knowledge.
2006-08-31 04:15:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by rmagedon 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
so your saying we are at war beacuse of oil? her is some advice- go back to underneath the rock that you have been under for the last 10 yrs - the carbon dioxide your putting off is ruining my clean air
2006-08-31 04:03:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Actually I would support the war if that was the stated reason. I don't believe it was the whole reason. Money and power preserve our freedom. We need to be rich and powerful and we need to fight in order to stay rich, powerful and free.
2006-08-31 03:56:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
i understand your point and i do agree with what you are saying but nothing is going to change until we can get someone that really cares about us . unstead we have a president who is only out for himself all he sees us as is a $ sign he took our jobs he gets us at the pumps he doesnt care about the millions of poeple who have lost everything because of him ,he doesnt care about the homeless that he helped get to that point he doesnt think about the everyday people who make this country what it is who fight for it who pay ther taxes we are supposed to be the best country but yet we have this leader that feeds us these lines of bull crap hes suppose to be with us and for us unstead hes against us
2006-08-31 04:39:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by steph 1
·
1⤊
1⤋