2007-01-03 18:56:46 · 13 answers · asked by Aragon 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes because the war has never been about oil.
2007-01-03 20:33:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think a better question is: "Would be in Iraq if anyone besides George W. Bush were president." My answer to that question is no.
As for oil, I don't think many Americans could find Iraq on a map if it weren't a major oil producer. So, directly or indirectly, my answer to your question is no.
2007-01-04 03:55:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not! If there were no oil in Iraq, we would have left them alone to fight each other. There will always be conflict between people and we don't need to police the world.
2007-01-04 03:01:07 · answer #3 · answered by Tenn Gal 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Ok we've been there over 3 years and haven't taken a drop yet. Or did Bush secretly run a pipeline from Iraq to his ranch? that could account for that gas station he's got running there/ slap I never thought of that! Bush stealing oil from Iraq is getting old kiddies time to make up a new one. You are starting to bore me.
2007-01-04 03:07:56 · answer #4 · answered by crusinthru 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes. It's the liberal's way of thinking that we're over there because of the oil and that's a bunch of hogwash - liberal brainwashing tactics to turn people against our president. Unfortunately, their run-of-the-mouth BS lines are working to do just that. Saddam was a threat to his own people - a merciless, ruthless, brutal killer and had to be dealt with sooner or later. If he was left in power to continue his reign of terror on his country, chances are, he would have had an opportunity to commit another 9/11 as Bin Laden did. I don't believe that another 2,000 lives is worth taking that chance, though the liberals would have left him there, of course. Oil or no oil, Saddam was an evil tyrant and was a threat. He had to be dealt with - wouldn't have mattered if there was oil or not over there - he would have still been in power and threatened many nations and killed many more people, regardless!
2007-01-04 03:04:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Definitely no...Iraq was attacked under the pretext of WMD,which were never found,and probably never will...While there was no proof that Iraq has any of those weapons,North Korea was proudly spreading the news that they have nuclear weapons and that they could use them anytime...With all this US chose to attack Iraq ,not North Korea,where there is no oil...
2007-01-04 03:02:26 · answer #6 · answered by Tinkerbell05 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
maybe yes and maybe not,there is another reason to make a war in Iraq America wants to control more and more in the Arabs nations...so i think oil or not there's going to be war but not as much as this
2007-01-04 03:00:11 · answer #7 · answered by someone 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
I don't think it's really about oil since it seems that oil prices' are still high here.
2007-01-04 02:59:47 · answer #8 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Nope.
2007-01-04 03:13:26 · answer #9 · answered by rosey 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, ask yourself this...is there a genocide going on in Darfur? Do we have a responsibility to help them?
Now.. is there oil in Darfur?
There you go.
2007-01-04 03:01:04 · answer #10 · answered by brian fantana 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋