If the war's "all about oil" tell us how much GWB has stolen from Iraq?

Answer 1

LEFT WING LIBERALS AND DESTROYERS OF THIS COUNTRY SPIN IT THIS WAY - PRESIDENT BUSH WANTED MORE MONEY IN HIS POCKET FOR OIL - SO HE AND MANY OTHER BIG BUSINESS MEN AND OUR OWN MILITARY DESIGENED A PLAN TO HELP HIM GET MORE MONEY - WE WILL FAKE AN ATTACK IN THE UNITED STATES - WE WILL THEN BLAME THE MIDDLE EAST AND THEN WE WILL INVADE IRAQ AND STEAL THEIR OIL. NO FACTS, NO EVIDENCE, JUST SOME MIND BRAINWASHING LIBERAL AGENDA TO MAKE UP ANYTHING TO DESTROY THE COUNTRY

Answer 2

This is just another example of people taking observation and drawing their own conclusions.

Before the war the chants of "no blood for oil" stated that the Americans wanted to go to war to steal the oil from Iraq. Now that it has been proven that is not the case, these people not wanting to admit they were wrong, look at the profits of the oil companies and say "I told you so".

Financial analyst say the profits are due to the high price of oil. The high price of oil is caused by an increase in demand from China. The way you discount the argument is by proving the financial analysts wrong. There has not been an increase in demand from China. But you do not see that. All you see is people making blanket accusations without backing it up by facts.

Then they also claim look at the contract Dick Cheney's firm got. Those were One billion dollar contracts in revenue, after taking out the expenses they are left with a smaller amount. Look at the costs of the Iraq war, if the United States made these kinds of foolish decisions they would not be the economic power they are now.

Answer 3

that's not obtainable to appropriately answer a question it quite is so politically loaded and which assumes failure in both situations. Comparisons at the instantaneous are not obtainable to make with any accuracy between 2 efforts that are being fought in thoroughly diverse procedures, yet in case you want to verify the tiers of failure by technique of the numbers of deaths of human beings, on my own, the conflict on drugs has been the more effective burden. in basic terms in the course of the time of the Clinton administration, a modern-day 8 three hundred and sixty 5 days era, over one hundred,000 human beings died because of drug-suitable deaths. in the course of the six years of the conflict in Iraq, 4000 human beings died. i imagine a case may be made that it really is amazingly perplexing for the authorities to salary conflict adversarial to drugs because drug consumers at the instantaneous are not the enemy of the persons. they are the persons. I also imagine a case is also made that the conflict in Iraq is assembly expectancies, that is genuinely not a definition of failure.

Answer 4

Both sides are speaking nonsense. Of course it was about oil. It was also about a lot of things.

When did it become a bad thing to protect our national interests? When did our economic interests become something we should sacrifice to protect a dictator (Saddam) who attacked one of our allies (Kuwait), and continued to attack us, even to the extent of trying to assassinate one of our Presidents (President Bush, the elder)?

Why must we, if we admit that oil was a factor, that protecting our national interests was a factor, ignore the fact that Islam has repeatedly and unabashedly proclaimed their goal of destroying the United States and has consistantly tried to do so, just as they have done with multiple countries all through their existance?

Why is everyone arguing as if these are one-dimensional issues. For those of us who have had family in government, and have heard a bit more than most, it all seems rather silly and easily manipulated.

Educated yourselves, people. Right now you are fodder for political purposes because you don't WANT to understand all sides.

Answer 5

It is not about oil, it is about the price of oil, early in Bush's first term he held a secret meeting with the big oil company's that was held as secret with all minutes sealed "in the national interest" This is when the Iraqi war was first discussed. If you interrupt the supply of oil, or threat the supply of oil the price of oil goes up, and so do the profits. that is why oil went from $35 a barrel (35 gallons) to over $60 at one time. it is staying right about $60 at the moment. But when we attack Iran you can count on paying $4.00 a gallon for one of its refined products, gasoline, other things made from oil will also rise. You can count on it was all about oil, just not the oil itself. So will be Iran. They are providing the vehicle for this because of their move into nukes, but it won't be about the nuke's as they are years away from actually getting some and having a means of getting them here.

Answer 6

The war is not about oil at all. It's about GWB having to "prove" to the American people that he was going to "do something" in response to 9/11. It was a stupid, ill-considered, hair-trigger reaction to a completely irrelevant situation. Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia, since ALL of the 9/11 bombers were Saudis? That's because of OIL! Not this stupid quagmire Dubya has mired us in for who knows how many years? Hillary, where are you? Get us out of Iraq!

Answer 7

Yes, If it was about terrorism, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia, one of the biggest state supporters of terrorism and the home of the Wahabbist movement of radical Islam.

Answer 8

the number one largest producer or oil in the world is saudi arabia.

the number two reserves is iraq.

the saudis have paid the bush family over on billion dollars over the course of the past 15 years.

you make the connection...

Answer 9

Don't believe every lie you hear dude!!!
If you wants some truth,try this one,Clinton is not
Bill's rightful last name,he was adopted after his
really daddy got his Momma pregnant & left her
unmarried!

Answer 10

wake up do you live in a fantasy world .....you can go on defending bush if you like but the man is a snake who served in the reserves (altho no one saw him) yet he is the most warmongering president in history also the dumbest and least i forget the most unpopular president in history ....so go ahead and defend him...but it makes you look like a nincompoop