Not a chance!!! Therefore we need to use other types of sustainable fuels so that we can get our troops out of there as soon as possible why do our family members have to sacrifice their lives just so we can continue to damage the planet with fossil fuels and also give the islamic nutcases creadance to justify their hate campain against the west.
2006-12-21 22:40:56 · 25 answers · asked by mrhoppy22 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
People on here bitching about terrorism,what did 9/11 have to do
with Iraq(nothing that's what).
People on here saying we already have oil(yes you do).You have
oil now,this war is about controlling peak oil in the years when
your oil runs out.
Iraq and Iran will be the last two countries on earth to run out of
oil.Iraq will run out of oil in around 116 years time,making it the
last place on earth producing oil(this is a fact,British petroleum
oil survey figures.not mine)
This war is also about Saddam changing from selling oil for
dollars to selling oil for euros FACT.when USA invaded Iraq
the first thing they did after putting a new regime in charge
was to change the oil sales back to dollars FACT.
Wake up people the petrowars have begun.
2006-12-21 23:56:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Tell me about it!! Same answer. Sad thing is alternative fuel is so much in the hands of human technology it is unbeleiveably pathetic & sad that it is not used! So much money can still be made by oil gaints in this side field why it hasn't happened really cannot understand why? The whole irony of it all, it is a classic parent (West / USA) child (Islamic Nutters) sceanaro, which America was founded on with the English. Both need each other. As history repeats itself this time the freedom from tax / tea is the identity of a religion / oil.
2006-12-21 23:20:14 · answer #2 · answered by A . Z . 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the americans were not so selfish, ambitious, gourmands in their futile needs, then, they would not need so much oil.
If they were to think a bit further than the bottom of their pockets and plan some real future, they would spend their current monies to prepare a good future for all mankind, in which they would, certainly, realise that oil is not going to last forever and renewable energies are the way forward.
In doing so, they would put the military to good use, such as helping countries in need instead of stealing other people's oil and fighting lost battles.
Surely, they would not be in Iraq, but in Africa, giving food and clear water, while the scientists would have the necessary funding to do the research on new energies.
But american government don't think, don't plan. How do you expect, then, that the people who elected that government be wiser???
2006-12-21 22:52:12 · answer #3 · answered by just "JR" 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Oil has no part in it. It is all about the saving of lives from evil Despots like Saddam, and making the world a safer place for everyone. The world can merrily go on without Iraq's oil. Iraq was also shelter to terrorists. Remember 9/11? You people read this stuff in the paper or see it on TV and you think you know what is going on out there. You condemn the leaders who are trying to do something about it, and all you care about is you and yours. Nobody forced anybody to join the security forces that are stationed out there.
2006-12-21 22:58:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
In the First Gulf war Saddam was an ally to the US, In the second one we were fighting against him but after the war we never dsposed his leadership and in the current war we fought based on the supposed fact that "He had weapons of Mass destruction which he could launch against the west within 45 minutes"
The reasoning behind this war has changed, initially to irradicat the risk of WMD's, then to depose his leadership and now to promote a healthy democracy!
We even liberated Kuwait in the Second Gulf War and now it looks like they are going to be th enext target!
It's obvious that it's all based on oil prices and having a lose cannon like Saddam around all that oil was something the US didn't want.
2006-12-21 22:56:29 · answer #5 · answered by Alan B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So are you suggesting that by moving to other fuels Saddam would have stopped massacring Kurds? Would his sons stop kidnapping school girls of the street and gang raping them? Would Saddam have given up his WMD programs (remember the gas attacks?)? I do understand where you are coming from and also believe we need alternative fuels, but oil was not why we went to war. Because if the government went to war over oil (and it was the main reason) some government employee disgruntled over the war would have leaked it, and it would be all over the news. And also, just because we stop "taking their oil" doesn't mean a troop with drawl. Our mission is to set up a competent Iraqi Security force to assume the responsibilities US troops currently hold. Until that happens, we truly can't leave.
2006-12-22 02:17:02 · answer #6 · answered by militaryboy211 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Of course we wouldn't be there. We never would've been in that part of the world at all if it wasn't for oil. Our entire economy is based on petroleum. It's really very simple, they have oil and we need to have some sort of strategic presence there. No oil, no western involvement...simple. All of you that don't understand that, YOU need to read up on your history. There are despots all over the world and we aren't doing a damn thing about them. Why, BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE OIL!
2006-12-21 23:07:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Whatever the propaganda, all wars are about the control of natural resources. Whether the west intervenes in a third wold incident, or not. You can be sure that there will be some political pressure group complaining about it.
2006-12-21 22:54:50 · answer #8 · answered by mick t 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Contrair to popular believe we only get 10% of our oil from over there the rest we get from home, but when you put a money hungry man like Bush who by the way whole family owns oil over there as well as here, well you can figure out the rest, yahoo won't let me say what i really want to say on this veined so and so!
2006-12-21 22:54:01 · answer #9 · answered by apache672004 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It does no sturdy to ask inner maximum voters this question. Liberals and democrats will say carry them homestead and conservatives and republicans will say end the activity so as that they do no longer shop on with us right here. the individuals you somewhat would desire to ask are the ladies and adult adult males individuals in uniform that are there and battling. some got here homestead and volunteered to return returned because of the fact they suspect in what they are doing. undergo in ideas that that's an all volunteer military. the ladies and adult adult males individuals battling over there would desire to be attentive to that we help them extremely for morale reasons. It irritates me whilst somebody says they have not got faith interior the war yet in no way served an afternoon interior the army, so what provides them the main surprising? You somewhat would desire to ask them in the event that they suspect in what they are doing and % to end the activity. in case you deliver them homestead now, will they be seen by ability of out enemies as being vulnerable? Will that's seen as a loss for u.s. by ability of the terroists? i in my opinion have faith that over ninety% of the troops have faith of their project and in what they are doing and % to win. they % to return homestead to their acquaintances and relatives with their heads held intense with people happy with them and u.s.. there's a reason they are observed as our battling women and adult adult males individuals and quitting or giving up won't be an selection with them.
2016-12-11 14:12:36 · answer #10 · answered by chaplean 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋