2007-02-18 02:20:09 · 18 answers · asked by trumps 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Of course it was about oil and not just Iraqi oil. They just made a complete mess of implementing the strategy. American energy consumption requires massive imports. For strategic reasons, the more control they can exercise on the supply chain, the less risk there is of interruptions to it. For all the champions of freedom and democracy, why do the US support the Saudis in their repression and sexism? Principles don't apply when you need other peoples oil.
2007-02-18 02:30:47 · answer #1 · answered by Finbarr D 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is amazing that this and other anti Bush question seem to come up week after week. No matter what the facts are and no matter how one tries to answer it. It will be re asked next week again.
Go back a few years and read history. The peace agreement of the Gulf War was violated by Saddam. The UN posted over a dozen resolutions against Iraq, and all were ignored. The UN lacked the balls to enforce its own resolutions so we did it for them. The killer dictator is gone , now the sectarian violence and Al Queda has put the country of Iraq in a turmoil. We are there to help the Iraqi people and government take control of their country and then we will leave. Oh, by the way, all the oil in Iraq is owned and controlled by the Iraqi's.
2007-02-18 10:33:00 · answer #2 · answered by meathead 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Meathead is just that - a meathead.
He plays the UN card. So, when is the USA gonna pay the billions they owe to the UN?
The American people are now showing that they have had enough of Bush. He is gung-ho. He wants his own Vietnam. He will pour troops into Iraq - and just like Vietnam, he will lose it.
But the US economy is completely dependant on oil, so the theory that America needs to protect it's oils supplies has a basic grounding in truth. But then, can you blame them for looking after their national interests?
Isn't it time this topic died a natural death?
2007-02-18 10:53:14 · answer #3 · answered by Bunts 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Oil played a large role in the decision to go to war, not only to secure the Iraqi reserves but to ensure supply from the whole region
2007-02-19 14:16:45 · answer #4 · answered by Bossie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would anyone need to invade Iraq to get to the oil? The USA could have cut a deal at any time to get to it. The war was about one thing and one thing only. To make the middle-east safr for Israel. Nothing more.
2007-02-18 12:04:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, it's just about oil. That is why Iran and many other Middle-eastern countries want Nukes. To stop the Americans invading their countries and nicking oil, just because Americans can continue destroying the planet driving large v8,v10,and v12's down the Mall to get their shopping.
2007-02-18 10:34:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No it was not justified.
The war isn't about oil. The war is about using Iraq as a staging point for future invasions against Syria and Iran.
2007-02-18 10:24:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sadam was evil but no there was no justification to go to war. Bush states Iraq was a threat but Iran was always a bigger threat.
I think its a chance for Bush to pick off a weaker target and get his hand on oil.
2007-02-18 10:24:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Control the oil!
2007-02-18 10:58:58 · answer #9 · answered by MaryAnn K 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
what a lot of anti war people dont realise is that reaources are getting scarce and our goverments are making decisions on who is going to control them. just look at russia and what they have been doing regarding Gas supplies; things are going to get worse until we have viable alternative fuels. and we will have to decide weather we these resources in our control and this is going to create more wars.
2007-02-18 13:58:55 · answer #10 · answered by mowhokman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋