If Iraq didn't have an ounce of oil, would President Bush continue his Iraq invasion?

Question

If Iraq had ONLY desert and beautiful palm trees would Bush care about Iraqis?

OK Ken, if Iraq didn't have an ounce of oil would Bush continue this LIBERATION?

it is a rhetorical question. there is little objectivity on this forum

Answer 1

No. He would focus on another country.

Answer 2

The strategic position would be the same. If there were no oil anywhere in the Mideast, and we were pumping all that oil from offshore Alaska and California, the situation would be different, I'm sure. But the conservative, isolationist view, has caused problems in the past.
I'd like to add here that liberal Democrats have very little room for criticizing liberal Republican messes. Either we have a leading role in international relations or we don't, and Monday morning quarterbacking is most unseemly, especially when it puts our troops in increased danger.

Answer 3

Oil was one of the reasons we hired Saddam and installed him in Iraq. But it wasn't the only reason. Saddam was making business ventures independently of us, and that's what we didn't like. Our other employee, Ossama bin Laden was the scapegoat for our f*ck-ups, and when we cut him off payroll we declared our own little private war on him. After 9/11 it became a little more public, and a lot less obvious. Saddam's job was a little more high profile than Ossama's, and could potentially be a lot more damaging, so finding Hussein was a little bit higher on our 'priority list'. We won't find Ossama, even though we have the means and power to do it, because he could still be of further use to us, and if we found him, then the government would have to put on another puppet show and bogus trial like we did with Hussein to pretend we had nothing to do with it, so that it could appease the American masses.

Answer 4

Kind of a rhetorical question, but what the heck . . .

No. He has ties and loyalties to the oil industry. I think the war is another extension of their "energy policy," in that it benefits their friends and cronies. There's talk of Iran and Syria now, why not North Korea or Darfur? Aren't there more horrific things happening in these countries than Iran and Syria?

Answer 5

Of course.

If Iraq is all about oil, then why isn't oil cheap here in America, if Bush stole it all? Why is oil cheap in Iraq, if they don't have any left because Bush stole it all? That is the dumbest question ever. It has never been about oil. If it was about oil, why not knock off Saudi Arabia, they have a lot more oil than Iraq.

Answer 6

Probably not. Saddam Hussein was considered to be dangerous because he had oil, and would trade for nuclear or chemical weapon capability. I personally didn't think he was as dangerous as Iran or North Korea, but you're not asking what I think, you're asking what I think Bush thinks. I don't think either he or his father would have given a rat's tail about Saddam if he didn't have oil. Look at all the genocidal despots in other countries we let stay in power because their danger is mainly to their own countries and not to us.

Answer 7

If we are going to play the if game then IF Daddy Bush had let Storming Norman finish the job he wanted to do we would have never know.

Was it oil, did he need to finish daddy's job or did he just want to take the American people eyes off of BEN LADIN????

Answer 8

Such a huge supply of oil in the hands of terrorists would be a catastrophic thing...so, I think that if he IS continuing the fight on the basis of oil, then it could be justified.

Answer 9

No.
If the Taliban had allowed Unical to build an oil pipeline through the country would we have invaded?

Answer 10

It is not an invasion, it is a liberation, haven't you noticed all the people celebrating in the streets? It's like the Fourth of July every day there, explosions everywhere.