Do you really think the Iraq war is for oil?

Question

If you do and you don't think we should be fighting for it, then answer these 2 questions

1. Have you sold you car/van/SUV etc yet to not use oil.

2. Would you be willing to give up all things made with or by oil?

If you are willing to revert back to colonial days, then lets stop drilling, and fighting, and buying oil.

Answer 1

Bush invaded Iraq to impress Jodie Foster.

Answer 2

As incompetent (and untruthful) as Bush has been, the Iraq war is not, nor has it ever been about oil.

For one thing, we were getting most of the Iraqi oil all along...through the "Oil for Food" program, it was always the US oil companies who got the great majority of it.
For another, we're not getting it for free now. The US oil companies are still having to pay for the oil they get from Iraq (which is going into a trust account for the Iraqi government if it ever gets stabilized)....with the added expense that now the US taxpayers are having to pick up a large part of the tab for pumping, shipping, and PROTECTING it.
And for another reason, it we were willing to just go in and take the oil...we'd have done so during the first Gulf War.

Like I say, Bush has been pretty damn incompetent...and you can certainly argue that we never should have gone into Iraq in the first place. But we DIDN'T go in just for the oil...no matter how much the little liberal giggle-sissies like to squeal about it.

Answer 3

You have to quit respecting the answers any professional opinionator gives you, no matter where he is on the political spectrum. Exxon created OPEC in order to gouge us and blame it on foreigners. Exxon also owns the geology professors and the environmentalists. Oil is cheap and abundant. It costs the Saudis a penny a gallon to get crude oil out of the ground; The rest of the world's oil isn't much more costly, nor is transportation or refining.

OPEC gouges us by controlling supply through quotas. Saddam produced more than OPEC allowed, ever since 1980, including producing more than the Gulf War's sanctions allowed. President Reagan allowed this, but the BushReich family values only high oil prices. That's why they had two wars to stop Saddam.

Answer 4

First, I'll say I do not believe the war in Iraq was fought for oil.

But I have to say:

We should be focusing our energy on developing alternative fuel sources. Our reliance on ME oil is extremely dangerous. It is NOT in our self interest to keep ignoring the problem of our depending on nations that aren't exactly friendly towards us for our energy sources. I'm sure some of the money that is buying arms to kill our soldiers and innocent Iraqis came from oil money.

And who on Earth says we have to revert back to colonial days? Did you know there are cars that run on electricity? They are fast and can go up to 300 miles on a single charge. There is also wind power, solar power, hydropower. I have a friend who doesn't pay an electric bill because she installed solar panels on her roof. Not to mention bio fuels that are currently being developed. We have MANY options. The problem is these options would force companies to adapt or suffer the consequences. Let's face it with the power of lobbyists our government is manily run by corporations and those powerful corporations in this country make a killing off of keeping us dependent on oil.

And I do not own a car. I commute by bicycle, foot, or I use public transportation.

Answer 5

The War was About Oil



There are two flavors to this argument. The first was popular before the war, and held that the United States would invade Iraq and take the oil. Given that this didn't happen, and that the Americans are helping to rebuild Iraq (against “insurgent” attempts to thwart the process by destroying pipelines and terrorizing the population), this is no longer believed by anyone except the most hopeless anti-American conspiracy nuts.



The more reasonable version of the argument is that America’s only interest in Iraq is to see that the country’s oil reaches the international market. The problem with this theory is that the only thing keeping Iraqi oil off the market prior to the war was American-supported sanctions.



The sanctions wouldn’t have been there in the first place if Americans were only interested in oil. Nor would America have gone to war over oil, since it would have been far easier to simply drop the sanctions… if oil was really the issue.



As it turns out, the only people selling their souls for oil were the European opportunists, such as George Galloway, who were paid millions in oil allotments by Saddam to moralize against the war. Fortunately for them, they aren't American, therefore no one in Europe really cares.

Answer 6

A: Oil and Military Bases that are closer to Iran and Syria
B: To cut Iraq into smaller parts and keep em under the US's control through FAKE democracy like the one in the US.
C: To give Iraq later to Israel

Answer 7

I don't think it is about only Oil but I think Oil is definetly a major contributing factor to this.No I wouldn't give up the oil based products I use anyway most of the ones I purchase are made from Oil refined here in Canada anyway.

Answer 8

Not about oil, Iraq doesnt produce enough oil to even do a penny's worth of damage to the cost of crude. To the US, we purchase approximately 85% of our crude from other markets outside the middle-east. That, and we are sitting atop the worlds largest deposits of oil ourselves. If you took 1/1000th the cost of the war, and invested in well technology, we would be refining for the rest of the world ourselves. It does have bearing indirectly, in that the one nation causes regional instability, and thusly causing other OPEC nations to produce at a premium, but directly, no, Iraq isn't even a concern about oil alone..

Answer 9

Of course it is about oil. It is the way the US exerts control over one of the oil richest areas of the world.

Personally I don't own a car, much less an SUV and I have limited my use of plastics for over 30 years. This is the way we can reserve oil for future use.

There are technologies that can do what we have traditionally used oil products for.

The issue is not as black and white as you seem to think it is. There are lots of ways to conserve oil without having to revert to life before we had oil.

Answer 10

1 and 2: both no

I don't think the Iraq war is for oil. Worldwide oil supply and demand numbers don't show that either (citation needed). If it was, don't you think it would be cheaper to buy in the U.S. so we'd be less likely to complain about it?

And are you ready to give up your car and all plastics and revert to the good ol' days?

Answer 11

I can safely say yes this is a war over oil. Who ever has the most rules the world. For your idiotic question regarding giving up your automobile. Let me ask you, why should we? The U.S.A. already has enough reserve oil to last many generations.