Why is President Bush trying to get oil from the Middle East? Why not somewhere else like Alaska for example.?

Question

Bush is causing too much drama.

Answer 1

Simple answer:  Because that's where the oil is.  (The amount in ANWR is comparatively trivial, and couldn't come on-line for years anyway.)

Complex answer:  Because Bush's cronies get their money from oil, not from conservation or alternatives.  This is why we're seeing most of our research money being directed to dead-end "alternatives" like hydrogen and corn ethanol, so the oil companies and farm lobby can get every last dollar from us before we figure out they're just scamming us.

Answer 2

The Democrats effectively block every effort to develop any new oil resouces here or in Alaska. This compels us to get our fuel from foreign sources. The war in Iraq is not about oil. If it was, why were oil prices sky high before and during the elections which hurt Bush and his party, and why are they dropping now that the elections are over which will help make the democrats look good.? Your illogical allegation makes no sense.

Answer 3

First off, I don't think drilling for oil in Alaska is a good idea. Alaska is the last piece of untouched landscape in the U.S. Second, the U.S has a long history with the middle east. Most of our upper level politicians are friends with their people so, we are locked in for quite some time. The best answer I can give with my personal biases is reduce our dependence on oil and look for alternative fuel sources.

Answer 4

this is politics and foreign places kinfolk. Intervening in a case that seems to be a human rights violation, which includes imprisoning a female who grew to become into raped, is sending a message that our united states does not approve of those practices. this is a similar reason American has positioned stress on China with reference to Tibet and Taiwan and Russia over the Balkin states. The case of the yankee female is gloomy, inspite of the incontrovertible fact that this isn't any longer likely the President's place to get entangled in man or woman situations. For that be counted, this isn't any longer likely the placement of the federal government to intrude in man or woman situations*. it is between the justifications many people have been disappointed correct to the President and Congress even discussing the Terri Schiavo case some years in the past. *this does not observe to the federal government turning out to be regulations that observe to convey subject concerns. whether it is frequently left to the states. the only time the federal government ought to get entangled in a man or woman case is the final courtroom (and decrease appellate courts). inspite of the incontrovertible fact that, the purpose of the courts involvement is to no longer hear the guy case, yet fairly to attempt the constitutionality of a regulation.

Answer 5

I too favor getting oil from Alaska, but the environmentalist do not see that way. The environmentalist are opposed to the idea of getting oil from Alaska or off the coast of California.

Answer 6

I don't agree with either of the above options, I would rather see us develop alternative sources of energy, and make greater use of the green energy that is already available to us.

That said, the oil in the Middle East is already accessible. The pumps are there, the pipelines are there, it is being sucked out of the ground as we speak. Our own natural oil sources, for the most part, are untapped. It would require tons of time and $$$ to put the infrastructure in place to harvest the oil and pump it to where it needs to go. Not to mention the damage to the environment.

In either of the above scenarios, what is lacking more than anything is refining capacity. You can't just pull oil out of the ground and put it in your car. It has to be refined. This is why it does us no good to release oil from our strategic reserve when the prices are high. The oil is not stored as gasoline.

Answer 7

i don't think thats why hes sending soildiers there. it all started with them supposedly having weapons of mass destruction.which are no where to be found.anyways my theory is the big shots who make bombs guns and ammo helped pay for bush to get elected and the reasons why were there are false , its just a big front so they can make money with all the weapons that are being used.

Answer 8

President Bush makes is a big question mark to me!!

Answer 9

Well he isn't in Iraq for oil, and not a good place to bicycle, or vacation or look for weapons of mass destruction, so I really don't know why he is there...

Answer 10

He's not. The Middle East situation does NOT boil down to the U.S. trying to get cheap oil.

Don't repeat things you hear without doing your own research. Please. I'm not going to do your research for you. Besides, it sounds like you've already made up your mind.