In Iraq is about oil? Opinions and slanderous lies don't count. Just solid proof?
2006-11-25 10:14:15 · 16 answers · asked by IMPEACHED! 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
LMAO dstr I said proof not a liberal college professor spewing lies and hate LMAO there is no proof Talk about sheep I here the liberal lies now BAA BAA BAA
2006-11-25 10:24:54 · update #1
There is no proof. If it was we would be using Iraqi oil and paying less!
2006-11-25 10:18:04 · answer #1 · answered by Bawney 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
!st let me state that I am a Conservative, Support The war and am reasonably informed.
You asked for proof all I can provide is logic and common sense.
Sever points I would make
-We went into Iraq for many reasons one being WMD which were found to a small degree by the way. Other reasons being it is strategic region to the west the same reason we went in the 1st time and Sadam was defying the world community's efforts to verify this in violation of the cease fire and lastly sadam had broken the embargo and was firing on us airplanes also in violation of the cease fire.
-The very reason the region is strategically important is oil both in Iraq and it's neighbors so threats to regional stability (which Sadam was) are strategically important. But why they are important is Oil.
That said do I believe all this nonsense about Bush , Cheney and Big oil? NO! The region was strategically important to every president since FDR. Firms Like halaberton would of made fare more money aiding Sadam smuggle Oil out over time than they will make from this venture so if dishonest business practices were the motivation the war is not the most profitable thing to do.
But Lets be honest you may not call it fact but most would acknowledge it as truth that the areas strategic importance motivated our action. and that those strategic interest were oil. The fact of the matter is sadam was a threat to the stability of the region.
2006-11-25 18:52:45 · answer #2 · answered by sooj 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
There is tons of proof. Everyone around Bush said that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. Osama Bin Laden is a major funder and leader of Al Qaeda, and it was known that he was hiding in Afghanistan. We put a few troops there to keep the people happy, and then just as we all forgot about it, sent troops to Iraq for oil. There isn't much solid proof because Bush's White House doesn't want us to know that we are just over there for oil, but now everyone is smart enough to figure it out.
2006-11-25 18:20:42 · answer #3 · answered by Noah 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I have never been under the impression that the war has anything to do with oil. We are in Iraq because Bush & his cronies made up a bunch of lies. This is Bushes war, not ours. All the research PROVES that Iraq has no link to Al queda; which is the basis of Bushes lies that took us to war. That isnt a slanderous lie, its a freaken fact pal.
2006-11-25 18:57:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anne A 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Vice President Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton was put in charge of almost all the oil drilling and reconstruction efforts in Iraq after the war. Currently it is unknown what his relationship is with Halliburton because the Supreme Court denied a freedom of information ruling to expose his current relationship with the company. I didn’t say the war was definitely for oil/reconstruction funds, but doesn’t it seem a bit fishy to you?
2006-11-25 18:21:42 · answer #5 · answered by Johnny L 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
What else could it be about?Apart maybe from getting the contracts to re-build after destroying Iraq.
Was Iraq a threat to the national security of the US? NO
Did Saddam have weapons of mass destruction? NO
The burden of proof is on the President to justify his actions.Not the other way around
2006-11-25 18:21:13 · answer #6 · answered by rosbif 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I read through all your answers and just as I thought no-one has any proof because there just isn't any. Most all these conspiracy theories center around Haliburton.(unfairly) Haliburton was a leftover from Clinton, M. Moore has stocks in it, too. It was a convenient way for the democrats to rile their base up. Check into who all did get appropriations from the war.
2006-11-25 18:50:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
... there doesn't seem to be any proof to any reason for the war...
there is no proof of WMD made post-gulf war...
very light links to terror... among the lightest in the middle east...
Saddam was a bad man... that's the only thing about the war that seems to be "provable"...
yet, the U.S. sits by and does nothing to hundreds of other "bad men" every year... it even offers free trade to some (China, I'm looking at you)... so that would not seem to be a motivation for the U.S. at any other time...
so... we're left with a war that seems to have no "provable" reason... and that's a problem...
2006-11-25 18:26:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
That is, of course, best answered by ASKING YOU to prove that it IS'NT. I have an aquaintence who is a Lt. Col. in the Air Force, reserve, who has worked as an analyst at the Pentagon for years. She works side by side with the Joint Chiefs of staff, four star generals, on a daily basis. In 2003, just before we went to Iraq, she told me it's ALL about the oil.
2006-11-25 18:36:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
OK smart guy do you remember the reason that that smart George W. Bush gave for going to war. as i remember it was about wmd"s which he admited in public that they did not have any in Iraq after the war was two years old. now how much more proof do you need or do you even recognize the truth when you see it
2006-11-25 18:29:24 · answer #10 · answered by roy40372 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋