Because the Iraqi people need to have control over the oil industry which feeds most of the Iraqi people instead of having a dictator like Saddam use that oil money for evil terrorist purposes.
We freed Iraq so the people can use the oil money to improve their lives instead of the oil money being spent to oppress them.
Oil money in the right hands expands freedom and prosperity. In the wrong hands, it expands tyranny.
2007-02-20 03:09:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
UN had a program called: Oil-For-Food. This program meant that while the nations under the UN took Iraq's oils for themselves, they would supply the people with food. Thanks to Bush, US cut of that deal with Iraq right before the invasion in 2003. USA is currently secured with oil for the next 30 years.
2007-02-19 09:01:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
The intent is to withhold oil, thus driving up the price, so the Oil Company's can continue to make record profits.
2007-02-19 09:03:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by blackdahiliamurder 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Its pretty simple. We didn't technically get oil from Iraq, but before Saddam wouldn't sell oil, so now there is more supply and Iraq is a friendly oil supplier, unlike Iran or Venezuela. Iraq will never cut us off from there oil and they won't raise prices on us.
2007-02-19 08:58:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by DSL questionaire 1
·
0⤊
3⤋
This is not a war for oil, as the liberals claim, because we haven't gotten any oil. If it was a war for oil, why am I paying about $2.65 per gallon of gas?
2007-02-19 09:09:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dizney 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Anyone and everyone can argue if this war is about oil or not. But really is there any denying,that the world will one day run out of cheap and abundant energy?
2007-02-19 09:34:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by lalalalaconnectthedots 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
you are able to no longer, a minimum of no longer via militarily would on my own. i'm no longer a pacifist, yet you are able to no longer win a conflict on what a guy or woman makes a decision to do at any any given 2d in time. The term "conflict on Terror" is purely basic stupid. i understand the form to have a conflict on a rustic, yet how are you able to've a conflict on an action? The "conflict on drugs" is yet another stupid term. The "conflict on XYZ" is in basic terms a slogan you are able to sell to simpletons who have no severe questioning skills. that's purely an excuse for GW to get the great budget $ he needs to maintain our military and private contractors over there. via the way, I artwork with a girl who has a son there as a contractor that works alongside the warriors networking desktops. She mentioned he makes over 150K for doing the wonderful comparable element through fact the warriors who make approximately 25K. plenty for that LIE that particular human beings make on the subject of the internal maximum sector consistently being so plenty greater useful and on your budget than the government. yet, I digress. yet, there is the thank you to get the better hand in this. yet, that's no longer relatively politically superb. and that's via infiltarating the mosques with spies and insect the crap out of all the places the place the inciters assemble. locate out who they're and then 86 'em. additionally, make it so the family individuals of the guy who blew themselves up has to reimburse the sufferers. And in the event that they are in a position to't, they unfastened each thing. Their domicile, automobiles, $, their little ones are taken away to be "re-knowledgeable". additionally, they ought to take the maintains to be of the bomber or terrorist and place them interior the sewer equipment, so they are in a position to no longer get a "appropriate" burial. finally, they ought to make it a death sentance crime to sell or glorify the terrorists interior the country of Iraq. do no longer you purely love the crap that GW placed us in. What a moron. I particular desire the Republican party grants us a greater powerful candidate next time. I undergo in strategies Hanity saying how undesirable it may be to get Kerry. nicely, i do no longer see how he would have performed any worse. Infact, I possibly would vote for him if I knew what I do now. All that $ spent would have bailed out social protection possibly many situations over.
2016-10-16 01:04:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It didn't, Bush and his Saudi masters only want to keep it off the world market to inflate the price of the oil they do control. Future development in the Afghan theater of operations has the potential to surpass the Saudi oil reserves. Denial of Iraqi oil to the rest of the world is as good as outright ownership at this point to Bush and his masters.
2007-02-19 08:57:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by blogbaba 6
·
3⤊
4⤋
It has not happened yet because George W. Bush did not foresee the eventual civil/sectarian war, so his and Cheney's blood of others investment has not materialized yet.
2007-02-19 08:58:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by furrryyy 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
It is detailed. I recommend you read the following book available at Amazon and BN.
"You're Not Stupid! Get The Truth" by William John Cox
You will get the answer to your question.
2007-02-19 08:56:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋