English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I guess we attacked the wrong country. We import more oil from Canada.

2006-11-25 17:11:33 · 11 answers · asked by turkey 6 in Politics & Government Politics

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/saudigas.asp

2006-11-25 17:22:26 · update #1

11 answers

Because they heard somebody, who heard somebody else, who heard yet another say it. So, it must be true.

2006-11-25 19:24:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

If you think that the reason the Bush Regime does not just flat out admit that going to Iraq had oil interests in mind is because we import from Canada--your one naive s_ -__-_-_____!
Think of it this way. Why don't you hear news reports about what is going on with oil production in Iraq when part of the logic for going into this war was that the oil revenues would pay for everything?
Who profited from the lack of Oil production in Iraq?
Have you visited a gas station and payed for gas since March of 2003?
Hear about any new refinery's being built to compensate for the lack of production which causes short supply and increased demand/prices?
We won't know the truth until it's subpoenaed and testified out of a ton of selfish bastards but it doesn't take an Einstein to make the logical connections.

2006-11-25 17:27:37 · answer #2 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 3 0

It is therefore frequently possible to prove that in individual cases "economic" factors play a part in an aggressive foreign policy, when private groups understand how to make use of their national government for their own purposes, or the true economic interests of the nation as a whole are falsely depicted. It is shown over and over again, however, how little these examples go to prove that the prevailing economic system of necessity and by reason of its intrinsic structure results in an aggressive foreign policy.... The idea that the economic system which rests upon the regulating function of the market and the separation of political sovereignty from economic activity is that which compulsorily drives nations to war, must be completely rejected." (International Order and Economic Integration, 1959)

If Unocol believes it can make a buck delivering oil and natural gas through Afghanistan, let the company buy off local warlords to guard the pipelines. If that doesn’t work, the company bears the risk. But don’t send America's sons and daughters to do it, or, if you do, have the decency not to claim that they are doing their patriotic duty.

At first glance, this storyline seems plausible. Iraq has proven oil reserves of 112bn barrels and, since many analysts believe this figure could be doubled using new exploration technologies, its reserves might prove comparable to those of Saudi Arabia (245bn barrels). What allows the Saudis to play swing producer, adjusting output to help enforce Opec prices, is not their reserves but their 10+MBD (million barrels per day) production capacity. Iraq’s capacity today is barely 2.5MBD, and, even before the 1991 Gulf war and subsequent embargo crippled Iraqi facilities, it never produced more than 3.8MBD. But the US neo-conservative cabal believes that Baghdad could increase capacity by another 2MBD within three years, perhaps even reaching 6MBD by 2010, particularly if Iraq privatises its fields, turning them over to multinational companies with the technology and capital to expand production quickly.

2006-11-25 17:22:55 · answer #3 · answered by dstr 6 · 0 2

well... do you have a better reason why we went to war?

the simple fact is... all the reasons that are listed seem to be FULL of holes... on both sides...

the oil reason seems to have the fewest holes...

the simple fact is... wage war in a region that produces a product... the price of that product will go up due to the instability world wide... and those who trade that product will make billions...

it's not about our consumption... it's about the world market... and it's stabiltiy... and the billions that have been made...

2006-11-25 17:37:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because the people have very little facts. The media has been WIERD, the politicians tap dance, and who the hell can make heads or tails of what they see?

It looks like $

2006-11-25 17:24:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Because we did. George Bush finally admitted it on the Rush show.

2006-11-25 19:05:24 · answer #6 · answered by Carlos D 4 · 2 0

Because it`s obvious. What the hell is hypocrite americans interest in Iraq or Iragi ppl?? 0

U.S is not that humanitarian.

2006-11-25 20:16:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

well i don't know buddy.why don't we ask the vice president why he had to go to Saudi Arabia to discuss future plans in Iraq and Iran.i would love to hear why.and i guarantee that would answer your question.

2006-11-25 23:01:00 · answer #8 · answered by crazywildman1 3 · 0 0

Thos people who are the ones who probably voted against Bush and want him to fail miserably. If we wanted their oil why didn't we just sell it and use it to pay for the war? We have gone in the hole for this war. How has their oil benefited us?

2006-11-25 17:16:30 · answer #9 · answered by Paul S 2 · 2 3

Thank you and Amen. The war is about radical extremists wanting to kill anyone who do not believe as they do. Please send a link about the importation of oil from Canada. I'd like to use that the next time I argue with liberals.

2006-11-25 17:16:01 · answer #10 · answered by PDY 5 · 2 4

i like baby oil on a water bed, its schlick

2006-11-25 17:13:36 · answer #11 · answered by TARD 1 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers