I agree. The excuse for invasion changes as soon as the one before it has been proven to be illogical. The problem here is that the Bush administration is extremely powerful. I don't even know why they bother providing any justification at all. They simply don't have to. Nobody yet has had the strength to stop them. But still, even if they cannot be stopped from making illogical policy decisions, it is the duty of citizens to question authority and at least try to make an effort to hold their leaders accountable.
2006-11-07 08:34:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by cannonball 1
·
9⤊
1⤋
It was always about the oil. Unfortunately there are many people out there who find it difficult to understand that the entire Western economy is built on black gold. If the West fails to control its fossil fuel supply then all of us will suffer: economic chaos, social upheaval and political instability (look at Britain in 1973 for proof). Yet many on the left and right find it unappealing to try to prevent this, and so politicians have learnt to dress up the economic and political necessity of dominating the Middle East as something else - with bad consequences for everyone.
2006-11-07 16:36:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by Samuel O 2
·
3⤊
1⤋
I'm pretty sure oil always played a small role, but i understand the point your trying to make.. They will keep pulling excuses out their asses into they find a cause that people will get behind and support it. If it was all about the oil though (which i don't think it is) why not hit Syria and Iran as well.
2006-11-07 16:37:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by ☼Divine Wind☼ 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
Yes. It's now about the OIL because GW is of no more use to the Republican party. Now that the elections' over, they can come out with it!
2006-11-07 17:02:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by Cool-K 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is not about oil, it was never about oil.
If you liberal tree huggers would let us drill up in Alaska than we wouldn't be so dependant upon foriegn oil.
Don't you realize that Kerry and other Democrats originally supported the War in Iraq because they thought there was WMD's just like the Republicans?
At least we have gotten rid of Saddam, and we can see the very fragile beginings of a Democracy.
But you Democrats don't care about Iraq, your "new direction" is basically withdrawing from Iraq too soon. This allows Terrorist to re-breed... our troops sacrifices in vain. Basically you end up with another Vietnam, except this time it is a terrorist haven. Terrorist are like a cancer, they grow back.
It is the wrong decision to leave now, we must finish what we started, it will be worth it in the long run.
Do me a favor and please stop repeating Liberal bias from Nancy and Kerry and others, it may be what you believe, But it contradicts the facts.
At least you can admit that the Republicans have made a great economy and lower gas prices.
It has nothing to do with Iraq.
2006-11-07 16:40:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by Mr. Agappae 5
·
1⤊
5⤋
It's really about power, international and domestic.
International -- scoring a convincing win (which the administration expected) would solidify U.S. dominance in global politics and enable the president to pursue his foreign policy agenda with less international opposition, inspiring fear in those who would act against us. (Of course, the progress of the war has actually emboldened the likes of Iran and North Korea, who know that we are now in no position to act against them militarily.)
Domestic -- using their astonishingly broad interpretation of presidential authority in time of war, this administration has begun turning back the clock to the days of COINTELPRO and the "Enemies List." As always, those in power insist that their intentions are simply to protect the nation, but they get to decide who is a threat, and it inevitably includes law-abiding citizens whose only crime is daring to question authority.
And, of course, they make sure to wrap it all up in the flag, because they know that people's patriotic instincts will predispose them to go along.
2006-11-07 16:43:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by x 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Yeah, didn't you know that, secretly, it's always been about the oil? Democrats have been saying that all along. Of course, Iraq is in too bad a shape to produce any of it and most, if not all of the refineries are either too old or damaged by the "insurgents," to do anything with oil, but of course it's all about the oil....or Halliburton....or a number of other ridiculous conspiracies.
2006-11-07 16:33:14
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
6⤋
I've always felt/known it's been about oil...but, lay it all out on the table...oil= money= power= influence=....? Greed makes people kill each other... lust for power, lust for money... people are nuts.
Want a good antidote to the whole mess? Buy a good pair of shoes. I want one of those fancy green cars....better yet, a green motorcycle...
2006-11-07 16:33:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by gokart121 6
·
3⤊
3⤋
Hey, C=JD: What would a sane economist say about a couple billion dollars a week going to Iraq when the debt and deficit are sky high and we don't have enough $ for Katrina recovery.
2006-11-07 16:39:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by socrates 6
·
2⤊
3⤋
It was always about all those things, including the oil.
2006-11-07 16:33:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by robertspraguejr 4
·
1⤊
4⤋