It doesn't make much sense to me. Besides, lately Bush has been pushing for less dependence on foreign oil and encouraging development of ethanol and electric powered cars. Even furthering our nuclear resources has become an issue. Are the people that started that little nickname just trying to discredit his leadership? I can't wait until the next election though, I'll be old enough to vote. Hopefully Colin Powel or Condoleezza Rice will be running. Powel sounds cool enough, he coordinated the fighting during the Gulf War.
http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=news&referrer=welcome&id=20060904/44fba4c0_3ca6_1552620060904-205680274
2006-09-04 07:58:31 · 19 answers · asked by Cyrus 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because it's the worst thing they can think to say about Bush. I mean, he's not having Monica suck his you-know-what & all that Clinton clowning around, now is he? So naturally, Bill's old cronies gotta think up something nasty to say, like he's having our little boys killed for oil. But you know what? I couldn't give a crap less what they say, just like what Devious says about me & Iris, cuz whoever's saying it can't be too credible or else THEY'D have a solution for the problems in Iraq. Remember, talk is cheap. And since my parents never saw anything wrong w/our president, I voted for him twice, once in 2000 when I was 18 & again in 2004 when I was 22. Iris voted for him that year, she was 21, so we'll vote Republican again in 2008 no matter who it is.
2006-09-04 20:50:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bush's efforts to decrease dependence on foreign oil are a fraud... they deliberately leave out appropriations for necessary technology which makes the research come to a standstill before becoming reality. This is done to achieve his stated goal, to come up with new technology in, what did he say in the state of the union? 10 years or 20?
a real, well-funded project could produce results next year. also, with republicans in power, don't expect to see a replacement for oil, just more advanced additives... this will slow down its use but still split the same profits among oil companies and corporate farming (ethanol) or other corporations
also, I wouldn't call it a war for oil.. it's more a war to raise oil prices.
powell lied to the UN (and to us). Bush used him to do this because unlike Bush, Powell had the credibility to make the UN and the American people believe Iraq was developing nuclear and biological weapons. He lost his credibility and my vote.
2006-09-04 08:06:01 · answer #2 · answered by Aleksandr 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
At least indirectly, it is a war for oil - and I will explain.
*
Saddam initially became a target because he invaded Kuwait. Saddam invaded Kuwait because of its oil wealth. Saddam then threatened Saudi Arabia to gain control of its oil supply.
*
The magnitude of world interest in this conflict was then directly related to the oil supply, and what Saddam might do if he was allowed to gain control of it.
*
The above represents the genesis of what's happening now. Without the threat to the oil supply that Saddam created, the current conflict would not be occuring. That's why it could be called a war for oil.
*
If the region had no oil, Saddam never would have been powerful. He would not have the wealth to create a threat out of himself. Oil wealth is intimately tied up in all the problems of the middle east.
*
One correction - Bush has been pushing for hydrogen and fuel cell development, not electric cars. His administration in fact worked to kill California's electric car program.
*
Hydrogen and fuel cells are no threat to oil, as the hydrogen can be made and distributed by existing petroleum companies. Electric cars are a threat, which is why that program was killed.
*
A typical driver, who burns $150 to $200 worth of gasoline per month, would only use $10-20 of electricity in an electric car. Existing powerplants make less than 3% of their electricity from petroleum. You'd better believe the oil companies see this as a threat.
2006-09-05 15:16:28 · answer #3 · answered by apeweek 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because that's what the Left's been shouting since it started, in order to discredit the Republicans, and excuse their own reluctance to defend this country. It's a ploy that has worked fairly well for them over the years--focuses everybody on the ridiculous while keeping the public eye from their own performance and veracity shortfalls.
Notice, however, that as much as they decry this 'war for oil,' they aren't at all reluctant to own and fuel gas-guzzling SUV's. Wonder what that says about them?
Let me inject a note of reason, if I may. Whatever the Left may say about the Mid-east war, the simple fact of the matter is--and it's public record--over 60 % of the oil this country uses comes from South America, most notably Argentina and Brazil.
You go, Girl! But a word of advice. Don't just vote for them and forget it. Watch them--one of the primary reasons I am no longer a Democrat.
2006-09-04 08:22:42 · answer #4 · answered by kaththea s 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because if they don't call it a war for oil, they will have to tell the truth. It's a war to finally try to stomp out terrorist from attacking the United States. Bush is only doing what others have either tried and failed at (like his Father, but at least George the 1st tried), or just didn't have the intestinal fortitude (like Clinton, who had Bin Laden on a hill top, chose not to blow him away when he had the chance for fear of accidentally killing some oil monger Bin Laden was meeting with).
But I'm sure an aussie, or a brit will be able to tell you. They seem to have the anwers for everything here when it concerns the U.S., or the war in Iraq.
2006-09-04 08:11:01 · answer #5 · answered by detecting_it 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
As to the question as stated, the answer is: Because our people do not know enough about how oil is found, by whom and to what government owns the found product.
Our government tried the government ownship and it was such a farcical failure, that the only successful discovery of our country, that of petrolem became the enterprise entity.
No government will advance a million dollars to search for a quantity of oil which is not known in advance. Just think of the Congressional investigations after the first dry hole is drilled.
Also, the Iraq war is NOT a war for oil. It is not the property of ANY other nation than IRAQ and their people.
The war is one of survival of the Western civilization as compared to the Eastern historical tribal and sectarian way of life.
We MUST win it. Not for oil...but for our very way of life!
2006-09-04 08:10:51 · answer #6 · answered by Charles D 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your statements shows how naive you are!
What do you think the war was over, terrorism, as Saddam had none and had nothing to do with 9/11 while 5 years later Osama bin Laden is as free as a bird! Can you give me another valid reason why we attacked Iraq?
We get 2/3 of of oil from Mexico and Canada! Nice soundbite, and good rationale for maximizing the profits of oil companies who pay no Taxes!
Powell quit because he couldn't stand Bush's policy, and he couldn't stand Rice, who is at best incompetant!
"Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations."
—Bush, during the final presidential debate, attempting to refute Kerry’s claim that the president boasted he was not concerned about Osama bin Laden.
"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... We haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
—Bush, answering a question about Osama bin Laden at a March 13, 2002 news conference.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/
My raised eyebrows made him shake his head, and he went on: "I don't know what's worse. Killing people over political philosophy, like in my time, or for oil. Hey, at least this time we might get something for our blood. Like ol' Tecumseh Sherman said, 'Nations go to war when there is something to be got by it'. Now oil can be got by it. After a great start, we're gonna be no different than any other empire that came down the historical pike.
"And I know what you're gonna say next. 'He sponsors terrorism'. Where's the proof? I thought we were going after bin Laden for that. But wait, Afghanistan ain't got any oil. So we need another monster, who's got something worth taking. And Saddam is so damn convenient. Yeah, he's an evil sonovabitch who deserves to be taken out, but are we the ones who should do it? Are our kids the ones who should die for it? Is he worth another Wall like this?
"And what the hell is terrorism, anyway? It's not a thing; it's not a place; it's not a person. It is a political and military strategy, that's all. Having a 'War On Terrorism' is as ridiculous as having a 'War on Flanking Maneuvers'. You'll end terrorism when there's no longer anything for anybody to get pissed off about."
Hack, col, US Army 5 Purple Hearts , 6 Silver Stars 2 DSC's, nominated for the Medal of Honor twice!
Do me a favor kid, either go back to school, or go kiss an IED in Iraq!
2006-09-04 08:13:29 · answer #7 · answered by cantcu 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because they foolishly believe his family's ties to the oil industry has some relevance to why we go to war anywhere in the world. They fail to realize that if oil was the only thing anybody was concerned about there wouldn't be any war to begin with, and the oil companies would simply conduct business as usual.
Oh, I wouldn't mind voting for either Rice or Powell in '08 either.
2006-09-04 08:09:53 · answer #8 · answered by ddey65 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is not a war for more oil, it is to control the market price of oil, to ensure that the Middle East oil production agrees with OPEC standards. The reason to remove Saddam was because one month he was fanatical about solidarity with the Palestinians and he shut off all supply causing the market to fluctuate. The next month he was shaking hands with Rummie and fighting a proxy-war against Iran for the US and opened the spigots wide and flooded the market.
The neo-cons like Bremmer took us into Iraq. Around the time Bremmer was basically fired out of that proconsul posotion he held marks the time when Big Oil basically stomped out the neo-con vision of total reconfiguring of the Middle East. Big Oil said no no no kiddies, we can't have this irratic oil market it will crush the country and the economy.
We are seeking to stabilize the market, nothing more. This is geo-politics. All these lives have been spent on this very basic thing. We invaded with two different influences driving the bus. With the neo-con plan out of the way, we are stuck there now in limbo and basically waiting for the Civil War there to cool off and then we will keep a presence there, back our puppet regime we installed, and secure the market.
All this BS about freedom, rights, democracy, all that... sorry to tell you was propaganda to generate support for the plans that our leaders think the average person can not understand and do not have the right to be clued in to the details.
Read the scholarly literature on these matters if you do not believe me.
Richard Perle for the neo-con vision
Read Business Week for the Big Oil perspective, they do not even try to hide it...
2006-09-04 08:06:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Just open your eyes!!! Iraq is in the middle of the desert, there is nothing else but oil and Muslims, what do you think? we are there for democracy??? Ha.ha.ha.ha.ha. at this very moment Bush is opposing bills that ask for more efficients cars. Why do you think that Powell is not in the administration any more??, My friend... you are being kept out of the loop
2006-09-04 08:07:35 · answer #10 · answered by class4 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋