Why do people say the US attacked Iraq for oil when that is a completly idiotic claim?

Question

1. There has never been a war over resources in the history of the planet.
2. To say there is techinically makes you a Marxist
3. The majority of Iraq's oil is being sold to Asia and not the US
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

I know liberals tend to be crazy, but you might do yourselves a favor by not saying idiotic things that aren't plausible. So why do people make such claims if its only going to make them sound stupid and discredit them?

If you want to discredit what i say, prove it!!! Just dont say your wrong Bush blah blah, use facts it helps win arguments!!!

I'm not naive im just educated.

Answer 1

They are looking for a reason for their false claims & unsubstaniated hatred of the President. Add the fact we get most of our oil eith from ourselves or from Canada. Pre-war or during war we get almost no oil from Iraq. We import from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, are the top 5 importers according to all goverment energy records & has not changed in awhile. There paperwork is audited & reviewed by Congress. This is why the media never reports on it - NO proof of claim on oil attack.

Answer 2

that's humorous in a hack variety of way, yet in answer on your question, no. A good center east could have been a extra powerful oil procurement coverage as a results of fact it could save possibility to the provision strains down, save hypothesis down, and not fee the U. S. this sort of dramatic volume of funds, time, and political clout. US efforts in Iraq have truly served to destabilize the middle East often, a minimum of in the intervening time, inflicting the rises in oil fees that we've been seeing for numerous years. that's via the fact the political subject is uncertain, the provision strains may be endangered at any time, and hypothesis, hence, went during the roof. The "war for oil" prospect does not make lots financial experience, finally; the quantity of funds placed into the war attempt and the area effects it created do no longer sq. with a source war concept. there is one extra clarification that US leaders have been utilising the war in a conspiratorial way, to generate revenue for their ex-corporation companions interior the oil industry. That clarification demands one to pass to truly extreme allegations on spurious data. whilst it squares properly with a traditionally Radical attitude, there is not any longer probable adequate data to assist that end very solidly. that's totally probable that there have been motives, or a reason, different than oil revenue that led to the U. S. to pass to war with Iraq.

Answer 3

It's a false claim they use to help promote their anti-american ideals. These people also make the same statements the islamo-fascists make. These people also claim our government caused 9/11. These are that same people that believe the terrorists will not attack us, if we pull out of Iraq.

We have millions of Muslims in the US, preaching every day to kill Americans and take over the world. This is in our own country. It is well documented. However, the left in our country believe we are the cause for their hatered. Not so. Read the Karan and how it states muslims should kill and terrorize all non-muslims. This is a war fighting islamic jihad.

The people that believe this is about oil also hate their own country. They will do, say, and believe anything that fits their 'beliefs' or ideology. As long as we continue to hide from the fact islamo-fascists are the cause of this war out of fear of being politicaly incorrect, this war will last a very very long time.

Answer 4

I don't think saying that the US attacked Iraq for oil is idiotic. It's just a naive, simple answer. A lot of people on both sides of the fence can't think beyond what they see. Many of us who supported going to war regardless of whether WMD existed or not realize that the reason our troops are still there isn't about the "war on terror", it's about GREED.

Yeah, that's right. A lot of Republican campaign contributors are making a lot of money at our expense as taxpayers funding this war. More importantly, too many brave American troops are losing lives & limbs so rich greedy bastards can buy a bigger boat this year, etc...

Anyone who believes Iraq is the front lines for the "war on terror" needs to open their eyes.

Chicagolove...? Not too many people are thinking the way you are here in Chicago buddy.

Answer 5

It has partially to do with oil. Oil is a commodity that our economy can not do without. Oil isn't the main reason however and the people who claim that are idiots. Also there have been many wars over resources. For instance, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, one of the main reasons was that he wanted to secure their oil fields for himself. That is one example of many throughout world history. When the Carthaginians were fighting the Romans, that was mainly over resources as well.

Answer 6

Utter nonsense, of course there have been wars over natural resources. That's why empires are established.
The search for gold was the main impetus for the Spanish Empire.
For the modern world substitute energy for gold.

Answer 7

If there was no oil there, and we still went to war, they would blame it on something else to be against the President. It always happens, because one side will always disagree and will want to start controversy.

Because people want to give a simple black and white reason for something complicated they do not understand.
People do not want to know the truth, because they want to continue to sip lattes and watch primetime t.v. and stay in their own safe little worlds. Claiming a war is based on a resource that costs a lot of money to the consumer, is just an easy way for people to point the finger at the government, and continue consuming everything in sight. Especially gas, no one is going to care where it comes from or who died for it, they want to use it to drive and buy more stuff at Wal-mart, one word: Hypocrites

Answer 8

In my opinion George W is more than lies he's dangerous... at the rate he's going you'll know what it's like to be ruled by Hitler...

Look at your borders don't you see them closing...

Look at your freedoms don't you see them shrinking.. example persecution for speaking your mind against war? limiting your rights to travel where you want.. aren't Americans fined for going to Cuba... At this rate you'll have less rights than East Germany or Russia! think about it... it's not that far off....

Ok so chicagolove sent me an e-mail complaining that I didn't answer his question well here's my e-mailed response to him.,,,
You said ". There has never been a war over resources in the history of the planet."

Do you know how many wars were fought over gold alone? gold is a resource. right there you have no idea of what you are talking about.. when the first time the Bush senior bitched about Iraq Bush's then administration claimed that the war was over oil... The point is not that I don't like Bush ... the point is not why we say he has no right to make war... the point is simply he has no right to make war.
And you in your little closed mind can't see that WAR is never an answer.. people like you and Bush seem to think any excuse even a lie makes a war worth while... You can call me a liberal,, you can me a Marxist... but in the end people like you and bush will be called murderers...

If we who are seeking peace are called idiots of the world then let us idiots run the place... peace is better no matter who makes it... in that end Sadam Hussein is a better man that George W Bush.

Answer 9

World War II - Hitler's goal was to expand the borders of the country to grow food for the growing population and for them to have land on which to live.

That is a war for resources.

I suggest you study the the new Hydrocarbon Law in Iraq. It opens up 'untapped' reserves for Western Oil Companies.

Yes, China did sign an agreement recently. But it is a very small percentage of Iraq's oil.

I'd say you have your facts completely wrong.

Where do you get your information?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/88023/New_Oil_Law_Means_Victory_in_Iraq_for_Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Cause_of_war_in_Europe

Did you read your own reference????

"Aljibury said the Chinese agreement is to produce about 70,000 barrels of oil a day, while the Vietnamese one is for about 60,000.

It's hard to put a dollar amount on what those contracts might be worth, as security costs, drilling conditions and the exact terms to be offered by Baghdad are unknown, said Christopher Ruppel, a senior geopolitical analyst with the consulting firm John S. Herold.

But the barrel amount is tiny even by Iraq's depressed post-war production of around 2 million barrels a day."

Sorry, but you are ill-informed

Answer 10

When that rumor started it was early in the war, widely known that Iraq is a major producer of oil, and our president isnt terribly popular. The thing is, if we were there for the oil, we could've stomped in there taken their oil and left without worrying about what the Iraqi people would do. Who the hell would stop us if that was the plan from the outset? Noone thats who.