A lot of anti-war people on here make the arguement that Bush is going into Iraq to steal thier oil. But in other questions, I noticed these were the same people who said "USA had secret oil deals with saddam".
soooo.. if Bush was having secret oil deals with saddam, then why would he have needed to invade Iraq for the oil?
doesnn't really make sense. And I am sure if this was a war for oil, then the news medias like CNN would be all over it trying to prove we are stealing oil from Iraq.
2006-08-31 09:57:27 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Typical liberal propaganda,that's all it is.Sadly so many people buy it.
2006-08-31 10:07:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The basic answer is because I am free and democracy allows that. In other words I can think what I want whether wrong or right. The war is about the oil not stealing it. The fine difference being = CONTROLLING ITS PRICE. The CNN and all types of media from virtually all countries follow it up. I just remembered,
it is not Sadam, it is apparently worse, it is Osama Bin Laden and young Bush when he was still a young man forming an oil company and having partners in Saudi Arabia. Don't forget his dad was there (Iraq) in the first Gulf war, not in person, but ideology. Do you really think people are wrong when they criticize such practices!? However I must say the whole blame is not to go to the US. We should mention OPEC. By now America is sadly a clerk of OPEC and has to do the show in the gulf and is an open target for criticism and more.
2006-08-31 10:37:02 · answer #2 · answered by KCD 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because Bush was justifying different reasons to invade due to Saddam's phantom WMDs (which, have yet to be found), liberating the Iraqi people (seriously, who would really dump money on a war to liberate a country without some kind of hidden agenda?) and capturing Saddam for war crimes (even though he did the crimes against his own people, so I don't see how it can be "war" crimes). He didn't stick to one specific reason with hard evidence to haul the US into a war that they are now losing.
Since Bush used to have an interest in running an oil business in Texas (several of which crashed and burned...figuratively speaking), people theorized that that's what he's going for because he was getting money straight into his pockets from other oil tycoons. Also, Cheney owns a company called Hailburton, and guess who first got the contract to rebuild Iraq? Hmmm...Haliburton, maybe? All those lives lost just to make some rich bastards richer.
2006-08-31 17:24:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why would news medias go out of their way to prove anything, all that will cause is a backlash for the right wing about how they are trying to take down our president, and aiding the terrorist. less veiwers equal less money. what we have is news that dosen't want to offend anyone. If our president were a democrat imagine how hard they would be working at FOX news.
If saddam decided he was tired of honoring bush's "deal" would that have given them a reason to invade.
If they did it for the iraqi people, there are some people in the sudan who could use a drink of freedom, whats the problem.
If I can justify the Iraq war by saying "The world is better off without Saddam." Then by our inaction in Sudan would be saying, "Who cares about the genocide in the Sudan, it's only Africa." I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that we would get $0 from a war in sudan. No no-bid rebuilding contracts, thay don't care about skyscrapers. No grand openings for mcdonalds, kfc, or starbucks, they have no market for that crap. In other words no reason for us to be involved. Its funny how evil people get when they effect pockets.
2006-08-31 10:22:03 · answer #4 · answered by therealmikebrown 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Those dealings weren't secret... It sounds more incriminating when say they are though... What was a little less obvious but not secret or classified is that we paid Saddam to sit on our assets in the Middle East so we didn't have to guard them ourselves.
Another less obvious fact is that Iraq did and does have WMD's. We developed them and handed them over to him, the big guns in case anyone decided to overthrow Saddam, or take over our business ventures in that region of the world.
This is now about colonizing Iraq so that we don't have to occupy it to ensure that no one tries anything funny in our absence we are not at war. They resent us now because their lives were crappy enough before we came in and made it worse.
One fascist tyrant ten thousand miles away who is already a racist that doesn't speak their language and is only protecting his pocket book sending troops to do what he doesn't have the guts to do himself is far worse than one fascist tyrant at home with them who knows their language and their agenda is straight forward with his own however cold-blooded it may be, and doesn't try to hide behind a false front for a war...
it doesn't make it any better that now Saddam's employers are firing him to do the job themselves. Our purpose is to kick the Iraqi's while their down... The last thing we need is for them to take back the country we spent so long trying to steal from them...
2006-08-31 10:24:07 · answer #5 · answered by Rick R 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gee who could believe he took the whole thing. A secret oil deal is not like having it all. You know how many oil contracts the USA had before the war. Yeah "0". The French, Germans, and Russians had them all. Now they have none and we have them all. Yeah it cost a lot of tax money and lives to get there but no price is too high if you don't have to pay it. Rich people don't pay taxes and their kids don't go to war.
2006-08-31 10:11:42 · answer #6 · answered by Billy M 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are right that the oil argument does not make sense if one is saying that Bush had deals with Saddam. But why are we really there? Many other countries have governments which are committing mass genocides yet we are not invading them. So what is the real reason we are there, because the pro-war argument of to free the people does not make sense either.
2006-08-31 10:03:20 · answer #7 · answered by badgoodgirl06 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Invading Iraq for oil is a little simplistic. We're there to make money, and to give our military a jumping-off point in the region.
2006-08-31 10:07:40 · answer #8 · answered by yossarius 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
we no longer want an oil deal, because that would leave saddam incharge, the USA wants total control over the oil. not just a "say so" in it. do you really depend on the news to get your info. the media is just there to curve your attention from the truth. just like WMD's that were never found.
2006-08-31 10:04:31 · answer #9 · answered by Han_dang 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
the war on iraq was actually a "war on those who sell oil in euros and not dollars"..... iraq is one of the major producer of oil for OPEC... and before the war on iraq, the iraqi govt were about to switch selling the oil to euros instead of dollars.... this was bad news for america who for a Long time reigned the world financially and economically........ so in order to keep their egos and pride intact... they striked a war on iraq.....
2006-08-31 10:17:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is about getting into the middle east, for oil,and profit,and The New World Order.
2006-08-31 10:25:40 · answer #11 · answered by theforce51 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋