Alaska could have more oil than Iraq.
STUPID LIBERALS!
2006-11-16 13:04:56 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yeah, we should attack off our shores too! Even Demon-rats can't argue about killing fish for oil!
2006-11-17 12:52:52 · answer #1 · answered by Bawney 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That really is the stupidest question that I have ever heard. Alaska is part of the US. Iraq is not. Iraq was not attacked for oil. It could not have been about the oil, since it had no effects on gas prices.
2006-11-16 13:17:31 · answer #2 · answered by utopian.outcast 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
bear in techniques that we've been already in contact in a conflict with terrorism and we were attack with practically 3,000 civilians killed. That the terrorists have been persevering with to attack others all over the realm and have been persevering with to declare they could returned attack our place of commencing place. Making bumper sticky label statements does no longer something to verify the area and locate new the right thank you to tackle the area. Michael Moore is only a propagandist who makes use of something (which includes lies) to spin a narrative to income his political ends. in this u . s . a . he can do this sort of misdirection. At one element even right here he could desire to no longer have issued his well-known form of propaganda. President Lincoln place such people in reformatory and under President John Adams he probable could have been deported without due technique. under our cutting-edge government he themes opinions sans info and wreck out with it. In that context the united states turn into the recipient faulty intelligence (as many different international places have been) that Iraq had (or could quickly have) weapons of Mass Destruction. besides, the chief of Iraq turn into between the greater serious dictators interior the international having killed and tortured hundreds of civilians (adult men, women, babies). In that context, a stable case turn into made to attack Iraq. Congress concurred. Now looking back many are coming up with each form of the rationalization why the attack turn into made, maximum of that are only based on the glaring certainty that they hate President Bush. Many make the declare that it turn into for oil, yet while that have been real it didn’t artwork alright because of the fact little of the Iraqi oil is making it to the united states. the traditional certainty that no possible get far flung from is that the President is in charge to guard the united states and he's doing that. .
2016-12-29 03:25:14 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought he did attack Alaska.
As of Aug. 17 the Department of Interior started selling North Slope oil production leases.
Go big Red Go
2006-11-16 13:32:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush probably explored the idea, but even Rove couldn't come up with enough evidence to pull that one off...
and he's not attacking for the oil exactly, only to drive up the price of oil...
2006-11-16 13:08:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes and no. Alaska is a state so that would be like cutting off your pinky toe. Dumb, but not really that bad.
2006-11-16 13:07:19 · answer #6 · answered by Harushnakarvikonivonich Hakopyan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we attacked for the oil, we should be getting the oil and we are not. They still own thier own oil, it was never about the oil,
2006-11-16 13:07:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
NO that would be stupid thats our state. Now its good we attacked,
Venezuala
Chad
Russia
Norway
Saudi Arabia
Nigeria
Canada
UAE
Mexico and
UK
wait we didnt invade them either
2006-11-16 13:13:23 · answer #8 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey, you forgot about the other powering issues:
Greed
Killing satisfaction (what a sick guy)
"Liberating" Iraq
See? It all makes sence.
2006-11-16 13:07:23 · answer #9 · answered by Harsh Noise Wall 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
We invaded Iraq because Saddam put a hit out on W's daddy, duh!
2006-11-16 13:11:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋