If you are one of the people who constantly refer to the main cause or reason for our Iraq invasion, as well as other military ventures in the recent past as OIL - please answer:
Why didn't we just keep Kuwait after we drove the Iraqis out?
Why did we make the Arabs so filthy rich over the years by PAYING for their oil?
Why did we not invade them in 1974 when they almost crippled our economy with their oil embargo?
And, finally, how do you explain Viet Nam, Korea, El Salvadore, Samolia, etc..etc...
There's no oil in those places, only repressed people.
Convince me that the United States' intentions in all of these examples was anything but for humanitarian or defensive purposes - and, therefore, justifiable. Try and rely on facts and not bogus websites and op-blogs.
For anyone tempted to bash Bush or Kerry or Clinton or whomever -
This is not a Republican vs. Democrat question.
It is a bipartison question concerning United States' foreign policies.
2006-10-31 16:18:42 · 17 answers · asked by LeAnne 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is an absurd charge. As you said, we would have kept Kuwait. We would not be bothering to build a stable govt, we would just rule as an occupying force. We would have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, they have a lot more oil. Once people make up their minds, there is no point in trying to refute them with facts.
2006-10-31 16:24:21 · answer #1 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 18⤊ 1⤋
Answer to question 1: Because the purpose of our invasion of Iraq in the 90's was to liberate Kuwait. After we liberated Kuwait we left in place our bases so in effect, we did keep it.
Answer to question 2: Because we had to pay them for their oil or we would be stealing it and it would have taken much time and heart-ache coming up with a reason to invade every country participating in OPEC.
Answer to question 3: As a Iraq being a member of OPEC in 1974 the oil embargo was the result of the decision of ALL OPEC nations, not just Iraq, so an invasion of Iraq would have been as unjustifiable as we would have equal incentive to invade any other OPEC nation. Plus, they were an enemy of Iran, who was our enemy at the time.
2006-11-01 00:33:23 · answer #2 · answered by C J 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
America's foreign policies are drafted and put in place by the executive branch of government, namely the President. AS FOR the oil issue; In the fifties middle east states nationalized their oil wells and sent American oil companies packing. Memories on both sides are not that short lived. Yes American Companies had a big investment in the Middle East, and American Presidents often state they are protecting American interests. in regards to Middle East relations. AS FOR VIET NAM and Korea, the US was out to stop the spread of Communism. And sometimes we mistakenly think we are helping people and make a mess of things. Americans are not a" know all," nor are they infallible.
2006-11-01 00:47:00 · answer #3 · answered by longroad 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Did Iraq harbor terrorists? Yes!
So why confuse the invasion of Iraq for oil benefits rather than war on terror?
It's hard to say- first there was no weapons of mass destruction, second, Cheney et all have interests in oil business, third Bin Laddin is running free while we finish up Saddam who happens to hate Bin Ladden even more; Fourth, we should be finishing the war in Afghanistan and seriously considering invading Iran, Korea etc, fifth there are other leaders in countries like Venezuela and Africa doing bad things????? So why Iraq? It's truly hard to tell- so you decide.
2006-11-01 00:35:12 · answer #4 · answered by BadAss 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, my naive point of view is that war was declared for the purpose of defending our country in case there were WMD. I can't say for sure whether oil was the motivation. I've heard there is plenty of oil right here in this country, even though the gas prices continue to escalate. I am totally against wars, especially those that do not directly concern us. The result of this war is mass destruction created by the weapons used to fight the probability of weapons of mass destruction. Oh, what a tangled web we weave when our troops are not allowed to leave.
2006-11-01 00:29:12 · answer #5 · answered by gldjns 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
FIRST off... different people have different ideas... and many leaders are different from the periods you mentioned...
so different leaders do things differently and have many different motivations...
so, talking about the past, in my opinion, doesn't really mean much... unless you're talking about the past of this administration...
second... I don't know why we are at war... I've heard about 4 different reasons... most sound like cr*p...
some talk about the UN... since when did this administration care about the UN at all?
some talk about WMD made since the first gulf war, yet none have been found...
some talk about planting a democracy, and that's all well and good, but I think we have other things we need to worry about first, namely Osama and also N. Korea, Iran and Darfur... all worse situations in my mind... and most need democracy too...
some talk about terror, yet there were very few terror links when we first invaded...
third, it wouldn't be so much about "oil" as much as it is driving up the oil prices by putting supplies in question... in case you haven't noticed, oil companies have made tens of billions in profit over the past few years... and demand hasn't increased enough to account for a 50 percent and over increase in prices...
so, is it about oil? I don't know... but it's as good of an excuse as any I've heard about why we are there...
2006-11-01 00:34:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's not all about oil. However ask yourself an essential question "would we have invaded iraq if it didn't have an ounce of oil?"
I don't think so. If Somalia was an oil rich nation we would be all over that place but we dont care. Why?
Because they have no oil or natural resources.
But the war isn't ALL about oil, but partly.
2006-11-01 00:28:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Middle East is a mess since the end of WWII and has nothing to do with oil. Russia screwed up Europe screwed up and now that Russia has freedom we have to clean up the mess.
2006-11-01 00:27:15 · answer #8 · answered by timex846 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There was no reason to invade Iraq. They were not a threat to us,there were no WMD's, There were no terrorist there, The Sadam dictatorship was no worse than in North Korea.
The wars in Korea, Viet Nam and El Salvador were to supress Communism.
2006-11-01 00:26:04 · answer #9 · answered by October 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because its largely not about oil. The war is a tool to expand the President's powers during an indefinite "time of war" and to distract and instill fear to Americans so they can retain power and do whatever they want, while they burden middle-class Americans with a huge national debt that will be forced on them down the road.
This war has very very little to do with Iraq.
2006-11-01 00:23:11 · answer #10 · answered by thehiddenangle 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋