We had a major fuel crisis back in the 70's and were warned of what was ahead if we didn't conserve and find alternatives to oil. Do you think we would be concerned with the Middle East if we didn't need their oil at this point?
2007-03-30 15:00:54 · 9 answers · asked by BekindtoAnimals22 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We have known about alternative fuels for many years and could have been moving toward that technology all this time.
2007-03-30 15:16:56 · update #1
Yes, 30 years ago the original neocons around Richard Nixon collaborated on war plans. The need for an off the shelf Mossad false flag operation planned for a convenient propaganda tool that is now recognized by its media mantra "War on Terror" The US strategic interests to create the 'peace' that allows exploitation by private cronies like Haliburton, Exxon / Mobil / Texaco / etc,etc. Peace in the Middle East was to consolidate remaining oil fields of the Middle East, tap them out as well as there wealth generating capacities thus allowing expansion of another Mid East objective, the Greater Israel concept.
These constants are always promoted by campaign donation, lobbyists and now a flaccid US Media owned by 4 Corporations, broadcasting NeoCon disciples and talking points of the American Enterprise Institute. This was all predicted in the 70's if you weren't stoned.
2007-03-30 15:23:54 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Perhaps not in Iraq but the problem of radical Islam clashing with the west was still inevitable.
Theirs is a culture way out of phase with the rest of the world. Many experts figure it is approximately a 7th century mentality in regards to human and especially female rights.
Sooner or later a correction had to happen. In this instance oil was part of the equation but if there were none in the whole Middle East there would still be conflict.
The problem is not oil. The problem is fundamentalist Muslim zealotry and western culture. They cannot exist together. Something has to give.
.
2007-03-30 15:12:46 · answer #2 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You make it sound as if alternative fuel technology is hiding under a rock to be found like Easter eggs. If it were that easy, we WOULD have hover craft powered by garbage. We'd be able to go back in time and stop those planes from crashing into the WTC/Pentagon. Hey, we've "known" about time travel for over a century now....
" Time circuits on... Flux Capacitor... fluxing... Engine running... All right!"
2007-03-30 15:11:07 · answer #3 · answered by Michael E 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Most of our oil comes from Mexico and Canada, not the Middle East. Many people are unaware of this and just assume the war is about oil, when in fact it is not.
2007-03-30 15:07:44 · answer #4 · answered by TE 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
ethanol now
let the mid east feed the world
shale oil now
Let Asia feed the world
nitrogen fuel now
let Venezuela feed the world
2007-03-30 15:05:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Good question. Had we developed alternative energy sources, Saddam would not have had as much money to cause so much trouble.
2007-03-30 15:05:05 · answer #6 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, because the Bush Family wouldn't have had the Oil money to make their bids, thus, No GHB or GWB
2007-03-30 15:04:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
No.............
there were no WMD's
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11
Iraq was NOT a threat to the U.S.
The only reason we are there is the OIL....
2007-03-30 15:04:28 · answer #8 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
OIL=MONEY,
MONEY + WACKO RELIGIOUS FANATICS = TERRORISM
No, I think not.
2007-03-30 15:04:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋