do that to every country that has a brutal dictator or does saving people only count when they live on top of the worlds largest mostly untapped oil field??
2006-11-01 05:22:04 · 18 answers · asked by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'd love to see detailed reports on how Bush is "profiting" from the oil. 6 Years later and your still clinging to your catchy bumper sticker slogans...
2006-11-01 05:24:30 · answer #1 · answered by John 3 · 5⤊ 7⤋
It counts when said dictator makes it quite clear that they intend to use their influence of the world oil supply in a direct attempt to harm the economy of the entire western industrialized world.
The first gulf war was about Saddam attempting to take over control of Kuwait, not only a major oil producer, but a country that sits directly on the gulf.
In case you haven't noticed, oil prices have been sky high lately, partially as a result of the current conflict (although the overall cause is quite a bit more complex). Can you imagine how not only the US economy would be effected, not to mention the rest of the western world if an unfriendly dictator gained control of the lions share of middle eastern production capabilities and decided to sell it all cheaply to, say, China and not allow western countries to purchase a single drop?
In short, it is about oil. However, it's not about profits. It is about national security.
2006-11-01 13:33:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Ask Dick Cheney. We didn't go to war, we went to liberate, remember? The foul taste of the cost of this oil will last as long as the wounds to the American psyche that Viet Nam inflicted on America. Cheney and Rice are both oil people as is Bush, and Bush is bankrupting America just like he bankrupted Arbusto Energy, Inc. (Arbusto is Spanish for bush) The investors got back twenty cents on each dollar invested.
2006-11-01 13:48:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It wasn't the basis. The basis was the under Saddam, Iraq was a breading ground for terrorist activities, some funded by the government, and that Saddam himself violated several UN resolutions on almost every matter imaginable, from WMD to Genocide.
As for oil, I couldn't say. Since the US has not benefited from Iraq's oil after 6 years, I think it is reasonable to assume that oil was not the reason for an invassion.
2006-11-01 13:25:52 · answer #4 · answered by Thought 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Good question. Of course, that hypothetical reason for the U.S. invasion doesn't stand up to scrutiny any better than W.M.D.s or any of the other publicly stated reasons. It's understandable, however that G.W. wouldn't care to address the press with "We went to Iraq to increase world terrorism and thus justify our outrageous defense budget." or "...to make my buddy, Dick richer."
2006-11-01 13:36:05 · answer #5 · answered by socrates 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
IRAQ HAD weapons of mass destruction. Russia flew them out to Syria just days before the Coalition moved in. Getting rid of Sodamn Insane was just an added benefit. Now, getting the country free of Islamist terrorists is the next step. I have spoke to men and women who were over in Iraq. The Iraqi people actually love Americans and ARE grateful for being rid of Sodamn Insane, except for the Soonies who lost power.
2006-11-01 13:28:14 · answer #6 · answered by Spirit Walker 5 · 3⤊ 5⤋
It only counts if you stand to gain from it!! If ousting Saddam was the reason, why couldn't he just say that? Slick Willy lied about head, this dude lied about WMD's? What is worse? The time to impeach is now. But then we would be stuck with Dick "Shotgun" Chaney!! We should just dump all of the politicos in Washington and start all over again.
2006-11-01 13:27:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Because that was NOT the basis for the war with Iraq. Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction, which he had already used against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, and was making overtures about using them against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (and all the U.S. military members there). He was also providing a safe-haven for al-Qaeda terrorists and may have also been supplying them with weapons and munitions.
I feel sorry for you because it sounds like you're a brainwashed liberal who has been programmed to regurgitate whatever your liberal cohorts or the mainstream liberal media tells you. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again: I believe the words of my brothers and sisters in uniform who have actually been to Iraq and have actually seen the WMD stockpiles and the captured or killed al-Qaeda terrorists WITH THEIR OWN EYES over the words of some reporter who is part of an establishment with a decidedly anti-War, anti-Bush, and anti-Republican agenda.
2006-11-01 13:29:20 · answer #8 · answered by sarge927 7 · 4⤊ 5⤋
Because the country would not have been as instantly familiar enough with the subject enough to immediately justify the confrontation? Because it was merely a political ploy to depose one despot? Because someone wanted to try it, but ran out of soldiers? Who can answer these questions?
2006-11-01 13:26:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Not every brutal dictator...
just the ones that have killed more of his own people than Hitler killed Jews.
Those tend to be not so good.
The Oil is just a bonus!
2006-11-01 13:34:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
Yeah, and dont forget, the CIA put him there in the first place, why do you think he was around so long? If the CIA really wanted him dead, they could've killed him off 20 years ago... he was OK with the US until he p*****d off the CIA, then it was time for him to go.
2006-11-01 13:25:41 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋