Why does the media keep saying this is a war about oil when we've not purchased oil from Iraq in decades?

Answer 1

Never take the media seriously. We should be able to but we can't. They put twists and turns on things and lie ALOT. I think weathermen predict the weather better than they tell the news.

Answer 2

The media has gone from simply reporting the news to a ratings game and if they have to slant the news to get better ratings, they do it.

Compare the reporting of the some of the greats (Huntley, Brinkley, Cronkite, Swayze,) who did everything they could to present the news "as it happened" without letting their own personal or network agendas influence their reporting to Dan Rather who totally ignored the fact the "Bush memos" were so clearly fakes, but it made a good story and got great ratings.

Today the media is nothing but some guys saying what you want to hear and because of that, almost everyone has an opinion that the various networks are biased one way or the other. And it is all about ratings.

The news programs are big money makers for the networks. CNN makes its money off nothing but news programs. And if the news programs keep telling people things they do not want to hear, the people change channels, ratings go down and the networks lose money. So they tell us what they think we want to hear rather than what we need to hear.

Now to your question, the war is unpopular but people want to support the troops. The USA has national guilt over the way it treated the returning Vietnam vets so does not want to do the same to the troops who serve today. So they say they support the troops but condemn the war by coming up with all kinds of reasons why we should not be in Iraq. They question the motives of the President and condemn him, putting him at the focus of their anger. Saying the war is all about oil is just one of the things they say because that is the kind of thing the American public wants to hear.

The American public does not want to be reminded about Iraq invading Kuwait for the oil. Does not want to be reminded Iraq surrendered yet did not live up to the truce agreement. Does not want to be reminded Iraq kept shooting at US and British planes enforcing the no fly zone. Does not want to be reminded that Iraq kicked out all the weapons inspectors in 1998 and from that time on, we had no way of knowing what they were doing. Does not want to be reminded that during the Clinton administration, we had repeated terrorist attacks on US interests, each worse than the previous and we did nothing to stop future attacks.

Lastly, the American public does NOT want to be told that "cutting and running" is a bad plan if the enemy can follow you home. We were lucky in Korea and Vietnam because neither enemy nation had the ability to bring the battle to the USA.

But the Muslim fundamentalist terrorists have proven they are more than willing to fight the USA even within the USA. In my opinion, having them fight the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq is far better than the USA leaving and having them follow us home to fight them here.

Just ask France what fun it is to fight in your own streets.

Answer 3

The media is very liberal. Liberals would rather have the US fail under Republican rule just so they can "be right". They are ignorant and really should do some research about the war and oil. After all, Saudi Arabia has the worlds largest oil supply...if this war were over oil, then why aren't we fighting them? It doesn't matter if they are our "allies", if Bush was as oil hungry as the media portrays him to be then he should just go in and take their oil----according to liberals.

I am just thankful that I am smart enough to see through this media bull!

Answer 4

Because loudmouths do not engage brains easily. They're more like parroting lies other parrots parrot.

That said, middle east crude goes into a pool by grade to be sold and each would have an identifying sort of "DNA" so yes some small amount of the crude bought in the 80s and 90s would have been Iraqi crude.

**edit to add historical tidbits - For a time Saddam refused to sell any legal oil (he kept up bootleg oil though to the end) because after the (apparently one-sided) ceasefire he signed he was only to sell oil to benefit Iraqis' needs until the ceasefire disarmament requirements had been met. So the bugger starved shiite Iraqis instead until Kofi Annan publicly shamed him for that before the world, which led to the Oil For Food Fiascos (plural - don't get me started). Forced to sell oil on the legal market at OPEC prices, Saddam dealt through ahem middlemen to cause buyers to fork over a shall we call it illegal surcharge to Saddam, Tribute. Kickback.**

But there is more to the oil story. Not all crude bought in the middle east by a US-name oil company is necessarily purchased for shipping to the US. It might for instance be headed to Japan for resale. They like the more modern, cleaner tankers we sail.

The whole oil thang is not so simplistic as folks generally think. I haven't looked it up but tend to think that China may be buying the preponderance of middle eastern crude these days. So no, US in not in Iraq for some notion of securing middle eastern crude for US SUVs.

Answer 5

I was in Iraq, I have been there 3 times, I was also there for the war when it broke out. We spent 10 long years trying to keep Saddam from crossing the no fly zone, and shot down many planes that tried to test us, his whole purpose was to invade Kuwait and take over the oil facilities in the region. Had we not been patrolling the no fly zone I have no doubt Saddam would have enough money to do way worse than he had succeeded in doing. Patrolling the gulf you can see dozens of stacks coming out of the water burning off excess gas from the oil fields under the ocean. The money Saddam would have made from taking over Kuwait's oil supply would have been devastating to the world to say the least.....So could all the other excuses to invade Iraq have been a plot to get us out of this situation, theres many other questions to be answered other than was it for oil.

Answer 6

Because the media is functioning as the propoganda arm of the people we're fighting. They consistantly ignore facts, good news, and in fact, anything that will help our cause and instead publish anything that will harm it.

The left eagerly laps it up - You'll note the idiotic slogans: "No Blood For Oil!" "Bush=Hitler!" and the like - Utterly devoid of reality, just like the Left.

And, as another commenter has pointed out, simplistic slogans and bloody photos are much easier to sell to the fools than going into the complex issues surrounding the Iraq war, the situation in the Middle East and the people wer're fighting. To date, I've not yet found a single liberal who can tell me the difference between Shiite and Sunni, Persian, Arab and Kurd, or Hezbollah and Hamas and get it right. Says a lot about their level of knowledge.

Orion

Answer 7

because its the only thing they can think of.

By the way, are we to assume that no member of the media drives a vehicle or buys any gas or oil or cares about oil supplies in the future?

Answer 8

When you point out the fact there is no oil leaving Iraq, especially to the U.S. their argument then becomes " Bush and the like are making money off it, and the people will never see it", for that one I ask them to show me proof, I am so sick of people not being able to form their own opinion so they just jump on the first anti Bush wagon that comes along.

Answer 9

Fighting For Oil isnt just about immediately pumping as much out of a country as soon as it is 'freed' by the US. Once the US has its claws into Iraq it will hang on until oil runs out elsewhere and then use it as reserves. Moving oil around is also important.

Answer 10

We must be watching different news...because I have yet to hear the "media" characterize the war that way. Individuals maybe...but the "media" as a whole hasn't from what I have seen.