What proof does anybody have - anything at all, just one little piece, that the war was for oil? Have you seen the price of gas? Where are the tankers lining up at the ports with full loads of free oil? Some one tell me please!!!!!
2006-11-30 13:27:32 · 14 answers · asked by Jim C 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
DSTR - you quoted Berkley. You just made my case for me. Thanks. Maybe I'll give you the 10 pts.!!
2006-11-30 13:33:47 · update #1
SugamM - it was Operation Iragi FREEDOM, in short O.I.F, whatever the heck that means. Get it straight before you jump in.
2006-11-30 13:40:22 · update #2
Loop Hole - thanks for the help!! Keep the barrage coming!!
2006-11-30 13:47:43 · update #3
Geopolitically the industrialized world is totally dependant on oil from the Middle East. There is no industrialized nation that does not have in their national interest the seeking of a guarantee that there must be an uninterrupted flow of oil into their nation. They all hover around the Middle East like moths to a light, ever manipulating, bribing, arming, trading, selling technology, whatever it takes, to buddy up with the Sheiks. Use simple "rule out" and you find there are many countries with worse dictators and political systems around the world that we have not, or would ever consider invading to "set those people free." It is only because there is oil in Iraq that we even know where they are on the map! It is hard, but it is true.
2006-11-30 13:34:20 · answer #1 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The war for Oil has been going on at least since the days of the movie 3 days of the Condor.
In reality IF anyone captured ALL of the oil in the planet, they'd have to share it. Not only does oil enable us to be more productive, but to sell our toys requires the consumer to have energy to use them.
Countries are just like individuals, some one else has to buy their products for them to get any wealth. Most 1st world products are at the later stages of Maslow's higher Archy of needs!
If it is true that we have already use over 1/2 the planets' supply of fossil fuel, we will use the 2nd 1/2 faster than we consumed the previous one. What is the 1st world doing to change the economics of renewable energy. If energy to make it & the price of land the infrastructure will be installed on are the main cost, what are we doing to keep the cost of energy from skyrocketing?
2006-11-30 21:52:00 · answer #2 · answered by viablerenewables 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is simply the way anti war pacifists work to drum up support for their fantasy agenda of peace and harmony without sacrifice.
Viet Nam and Korea both would have been wars for oil - except they don't have any so that excuse wouldn't have garnered much support.
Ever wonder, if oil is the objective, why we simply didn't keep Kuwait after we drove the Iraqis out?
Or why we didn't go to war in 1974 when OPEC shut our economy down with their embargo?
Get real, people.
2006-11-30 21:51:35 · answer #3 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is none
The only sort of proof, is michael moore proof, the same michael moore who says haliburton is evil and the same michael moore who owns stock in that very company
EDIT: dstr, the first two links don't work, and the 3rd one says there is an error with the article
EDIT2: dstr, the 4th one has ross perot saying that the first gulf war was about oil. he would have said anything to get elected, like John Kerry tried to do. Also, a report came out before this last election, saying that the govt. was releasing too much info online, about the nukes they found in Iraq in the first gulf war.
2006-11-30 21:30:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
An artificial supply shock could cause the price of oil to quadruple increasing the profits of oil companies by 200%. The artificial shock, a war, profits at EXXON, the largest ever for a corporation on earth. Is this an incentive for a president and vice president who came from the oil industry? The incentive for war was not to benefit Americans but to benefit the owners of oil.
2006-11-30 21:33:12 · answer #5 · answered by in2320 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Americans in general have not profited from Iraq, but General Electric and other defense contractors as well as Haliburton have made a heck of a lot of money...they wanted access to the economy of Iraq, but things have soured on that...but they still make a lot of money from the taxpayers
2006-11-30 21:34:38 · answer #6 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your right, no one has any proof that this war's about oil. We haven't gotten any oil from Iraq and even if we were going to get some of it, Iraq's oil refineries are way behind ours technologically and most of them have been destroyed by "insurgents." So, it's impossible to get the oil. Believing that this war is about oil makes it easier for the liberals to oppose it.
2006-11-30 21:31:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Lol there is no proof. If we went to war for oil, our gas would be 30 cents a gallon. That argument is ridiculous. Bush is not drilling over there. Hell no! Anyone that says so obviously doesn't understand what they are talking about
By the way, I dont think they went to war for oil. My last Q about it was a joke, making fun of people who say he did.
2006-11-30 21:35:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
There is plenty of proof, if you read the answers i posted before for some questions, you'll see me rambling on and on about oil, well here's the proof: Bush called the iraqi war Operation Iraqi Liberation, or in short O.I.L he claims he did this "unknowingly" but in thruth he went for oil, but when OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) told him to get his hands off of Iraqi oil, if you have any more questions about this e-mail me at yopeopleshowrya@aol.com NOT this email adress
2006-11-30 21:34:19 · answer #9 · answered by Blarhbhb 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I disagree with rukking that making this war about oil is a way to make liberals against it. I think having almost 3,000 troops die so that we could remove a threat that hadn't previously existed, but that we have now created, is the best reason why liberals oppose the war.
2006-11-30 21:34:00 · answer #10 · answered by John S 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋