Ok now try and keep up.
1.saudi arabia is currently the friendliest big oil nation we have.
2.their dynasty is changing and a new government may not be pro US.
3.Iraq has oil, lots and lots of oil.
4.Other big oil countries are not pro US.
5.We invade Iraq.
6.We set up pro US government in Iraq.
7.They sell us ungodly amounts of oil ensuring our oil gluttony never ends.
So currently we do not get out oil from Iraq, you are right about that, but in the future that is the plan.You get it? Otherwise they would sell the oil to other countries and their economies would flourish and ours go bye bye
2006-09-27 03:16:28 · 14 answers · asked by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
All these arguements are all the same. What really needs to happen is we need to completely cut off our dependence on foreign oil. Actually, WE are Saudi's biggest consumer as far as oil is concerned, they are also the biggest contributors to terrorists. So, a good portion of the oil we buy from Saudi funds terrorists. It is time to look into alternative fuels, and not coal, that is even worse on the environment. We need cleaner sources of energy, like hydrogen. Check out what Honda is doing with this technology.
http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/
2006-09-27 09:01:28 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
And here is your response:
"1.saudi arabia is currently the friendliest big oil nation we have."
Actually, no. The friendliest big oil nation we have is..(drum roll)...
The United States. Yes, thats right, we have and can produce more oil than any other nation on earth. We choose to buy it elsewhere in case of worldwide shortages, we'll still have our supplies.
"2.their dynasty is changing and a new government may not be pro US."
Doesn't matter if they are "pro-US". They WILL be "pro US-DOLLAR". They may not like us, but they'll sell to us. Because they need to, thats why.
"3.Iraq has oil, lots and lots of oil."
I don't think anyone is disputing that.
"4.Other big oil countries are not pro US."
But they sell to us anyway. Kinda ruins your arguement, doesn't it?
"5.We invade Iraq.
6.We set up pro US government in Iraq.
7.They sell us ungodly amounts of oil ensuring our oil gluttony never ends."
We don't need a pro-US government there. The Taliban hated us, but they sold to us. Hussein hated us, but they sold to us...Venezuala says Bush is the devil, complete with sulfur, but they sell to us...Are you seeing a pattern here?
2006-09-27 10:23:40 · answer #2 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Wrong on SO many counts....
1st... we DO get oil from Iraq now
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Jul-06
CANADA 1,624
MEXICO 1,561
SAUDI ARABIA 1,264
VENEZUELA 1,191
NIGERIA 1,014
ANGOLA 666
IRAQ 592
ALGERIA 413
UNITED KINGDOM 229
BRAZIL 187
ECUADOR 170
NORWAY 160
KUWAIT 155
COLOMBIA 144
RUSSIA 134
2nd.... Currently Canada, Mexico, and the UK are the 'friendliest' big oil nations we have
3rd... If their dynasty is changing (which it is not currently) it is unlikely, with their standard of living, that they will go anti-US
4th.... very few oil countries are 'anti-US'
5th... we set up the beginnings of a FREE government under self Iraqi rule in Iraq... not inherently 'pro-US'
6th... oil supply is mostly controlled by OPEC, not the individual countries...
get some facts before you spew
2006-09-27 10:22:18 · answer #3 · answered by DiamondDave 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Are you sure you are American? You seem almost jolly about America if she went(in your words) BYE-BYE?????? In most of your Q & A ,you seem to go against America, but lift up countries who have terrorist ! You can be left and love your own country,and also understand the dangers of terrorism! Most all left wingers at least believe Iran is a danger to us,and you say you don't even believe that(in another Q,that was your reply)! BTW/ Seems like these "right wing Bush supporters" kept up and ran past you pretty good ...with FACTS!
2006-09-29 08:21:13 · answer #4 · answered by taborfamily67 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sigh, ignorance is rampant.
1. Wrong. We got lots of oil from Canada, Mexico, UAE, Qatar, and last I checked, we are pretty friendly with them.
2. Wrong.
3. Correct, so do we, Canada, and Mexico.
4. Wrong. Again Canada, Mexico, UAE, etc., etc.
5. Yes, we did.
6. No we didn't. We removed a dictator. 12 million Iraqis voted in free elections for their own constitution and government. They CHOSE their government.
7. No, the don't sell us oil now. And who cares if the do in the future, they are a free nation, and can sell to whomever they wish.
If we wanted oil, it would be far easier to invade Canada or Mexico. They are far closer and have just as much oil (Mexico has more actually).
Please, get over your blind, irrational hatred of Bush. It is unhealthy for all of us.
2006-09-27 10:27:54 · answer #5 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
It would have been lots easier and cheaper just to kiss the @$$es of Iraq , Iran , the Saudies and anybody else who had more than 2 wells.
The democrats have stood in the way of drilling our own fields on or off shore , building new refineries . Making us more dependent on foreign oil .
So ,your arguement don't stand up >
2006-09-27 10:29:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I am so tired of the oil lies out there. Most of our imports come from Canada and Mexico, with South America not far behind. You can get this information damn near anywhere you want. Even from the notoriously liberal Washington Post and New York Times. Secondly we have HUGE oil fields here in the US and off the coast that havent even been tapped yet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/business/05cnd-oil.html?ex=1315108800&en=f225e42715a383ca&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/05/AR2006090500275.html
http://www.cis.state.mi.us/mpsc/reports/energy/02summer/oilimports.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
2006-09-27 10:29:27 · answer #7 · answered by John D 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Ah you almost had it. You actually think we'd sit idly by and watch our economie go "Bye Bye?" That's not realistic and you countered your argument that'st why we invaded Iraq. If that was true wouldn't we invade another country to keep our "oil gulttony never ending" You said it yourself and then set yourself up for a take down.
2006-09-27 10:24:53 · answer #8 · answered by b4_999 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I'm not completely on board with you, but....This much is true: Iran and North Korea were and are much greater threats than Iraq under Saddam ever was. They have very real and ongoing nuclear programs. (N. Korea even has missiles of significant range.) Both governments have a well-known history of actively supporting terrorists. We didn't invade them, however. Why? North Korea has no oil. Iran has oil, but wasn't as easy a target as Iraq. They're capable of putting up real resistance.
The Prez saw Iraq as low-risk, high-reward.
Does it look that way now?
2006-09-27 10:21:53 · answer #9 · answered by x 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
YOU are soooo full of it. Whether YOU believe it or not, the US, and her allies, are in Iraq to give those people a chance at a better life. MOST of them are already experiencing it. Now, if we could get YOUR friends, the terrorists, out of there, things would settle down in a hurry. The US did not stay in Germany, or Japan any longer than needed to give them the opportunity for reconstruction. We will NOT stay in Iraq any longer than needed either. WE are not the imperialists, the Islamists are the ones who want to rule the entire world. Besides, for a liberal to be able to enlighten anyone would be a work of fiction.
2006-09-27 10:23:33 · answer #10 · answered by Spirit Walker 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋