Hey we could have went to alot of other places(lot of dictators around)-but ya know this war was a complete lie and maybe that is why it is back firing on us-Bush and his neo-cons have blood on their hands. They had everything planned out.......go to the chickenhawk website most of the repubs behind this war NEVER served...I mean like how can a coward conduct a war???
2007-01-29 01:18:18 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
actually sway, we took over the fields in Iraq and the countries sharing a border. Look up the halliburton pipeline. The only other country that produces that much oil is saudi arabia. But, they happen to have a lot of political friends and oil deals with the US already. So, yeah, what a coincidence. Have you noticed that we have more oil then prior, and yet it's more expensive? And that oil companies have set record breaking profits by the billions? That's why we can't pull out now, Bush is afraid we'll lose the oil fields to insurgents. He wants to protect his investment. Which is also why he tried to veto the Hydrogen production. (hydrogen cars are actually safer.)
2007-01-29 01:27:57 · answer #1 · answered by jpferrierjr 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because, its proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks Iraq second in the world behind Saudi Arabia. However the United States Department of Energy estimates that up to 90 percent of the country remains unexplored. Unexplored regions of Iraq could yield an additional 100 billion barrels. Iraq's oil production costs are among the lowest in the world. However, only about 2,000 oil wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared to about 1 million wells in Texas alone. It's fairly obvious isn't it?
2007-01-29 09:31:16 · answer #2 · answered by pol_douglas 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Guess what? If you are an American citizen this is also your war, like it or not. Think a insurgent gives a rats @ss if you voted Democratic? Since we are in this war for oil, where is it? The Iraqi's have already stated that the Americans will not get preferential treatment on oil.
Most of the Democrats that voted for this war never served either. Guess what? A ton of them voted for it.
As a matter of fact your Speaker of the House was on the intelligence committee 8 years before Bush became President.
“I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. … Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.”
Nancy Pelosi
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
They are just as much a coward as anyone. They voted for the war, and then changed their mind when the poll #'s changed. Now they use it for political grandstanding!
2007-01-29 09:29:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Well considering this is a UN engagement and we as members are compelled to "attend" you may want to blame the UN and the 146 nations that voted in favor of the action on the resolution and the 25 nations that are here in Iraq. You May also want to consider that if oil went to $300 a barrel the first people affected would be the POOR of the world. Remember cultivating crops, processing food , shipping food and medicines all take fuel. You can complain about the OIL question all you want but as long as it is a KEY component of Life on earth nations will fight over it.
2007-01-29 09:25:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Well, if you want to get technical, they were originally planning to call it Operation Iraqi Liberty but changed their minds when they realized the acronym it spelled. Dodged that bullet, whew!
(I kind of think the original name had a nicer ring to it than OIF.)
2007-01-29 09:31:06 · answer #5 · answered by na n 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
if we did not have freedom, you could not be here now inferring that the President is a coward and has blood on his hands,
if you only elect presidents that have served in wars and you do away with all wars , you will run out of presidents,
do you really want that to happen,,,we would have to find another like slick
2007-01-29 09:29:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
it coincides with the fact we have an ally in the ME that has very little oil
edit. a member state taking it upon itself to militarily enforce a UN resolution,without UN approval,is not a UN operation.
2007-01-29 09:27:00 · answer #7 · answered by J Q Public 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Again what was the first thing george bush said we we invaded. Don't touch those oil resourses. Oh ya there are diffrent MOS's in the military now. Oil management.
2007-01-29 09:23:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
I learned a long time ago, you can't do something for the wrong reason and expect it to turn out right. It never does.
2007-01-29 09:29:19 · answer #9 · answered by blackdahiliamurder 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
oh please, oil is NOT the reason. They bombed us, remember 911? We are defending ourselves and keeping the terrorists busy in there own part of the world.
If you saying that it is because we have business people who want control of the mideast oil, it will never happen. And would we be willing to allow so many to die, just to make oil companies richer? NO! They don't have to kill people to make money, if their only concern is money, they can make money selling smut magazines or booz.
2007-01-29 09:26:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋