2007-04-19 21:42:31 · 16 answers · asked by Frank 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because contrary to popular distorted thought, we didn't go to Iraq to steal the oil.
2007-04-19 21:46:20 · answer #1 · answered by Sam 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Control of the oil is the important factor. Saddam had signed contracts with non-US and non-UK companies. Control of Iraq’s vast oil reserves allows control over supply and therefore prices, i.e., less supply, higher prices. I think you’re working under the erroneous assumption that oil companies want lower prices for consumers. It takes the same amount of effort to get a cheap barrel to market that is does for an expensive barrel. The difference is profits.
Meanwhile, the oil companies will not run out of oil for a long time if they have access to Iraqi oil fields and they can thereby preserve their future.
2007-04-21 14:14:57 · answer #2 · answered by relevant inquiry 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well... first off... let's say we ARE THERE FOR OIL... hypothetically, I'm not sure if I believe it... but let's walk down that road for just a minute...
would we be there to "steal it"? probably not...
see, I'm sure your familiar with supply and demand... and if you put the supply in question, for a major oil supplier, then all of a sudden... the market is worried about stable supply and the price goes up, on speculation alone often times, even if no actual disruption is had... of course a war will cause worries and maybe even a stoppage of production of any number of goods a country may produce... especially oil when insurgents are running around blowing up pipelines...
in other words... if you start a war in a MAJOR banana producing country... to the point where they may not be able to harvest, ship and package the bananas... then guess what... the price of bananas are going up...
mess with the stable supply in any way, war is one, price goes up... price goes up... people make more money... ESPECIALLY if the actual supply isn't that effected.. NOTICE THAT iraq wasn't one of our major suppliers before the war, so it doesn't really affect our supply if the oil stops flowing in Iraq very much...
but as it is a world market... it would naturally effect the price, as we have to pay what the market sets the price at...
granted... it's a theory... but it's about as good as any reason Bush has gave why we're there...
2007-04-20 05:00:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The war was never about oil, only the weak minded fell for that lie. Oil prices are not controlled by the White House but by the speculators on Wall Street, many of whom are democrats. Kerry owns a couple million in oil company and Haliburton stocks, as well as Pelosi and Reid. This war has never been to control the Iraq oil since we do not receive Iraqi oil. And if Bush were such an oil man, he would be guarding the oil companies not the streets of Baghdad.
2007-04-20 05:05:41 · answer #4 · answered by great_american2006 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
It's not about oil, but world stability.
I was raised as a child to believe that starting a fight was wrong, but finishing one was okay. We Americans didn't high-jack airplanes and fly them into buildings.
2007-04-20 05:38:01 · answer #5 · answered by George 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Gas prices are regulated by the owners of fossil fuel monopolies regardless to abundance. Also, supply and demand.
2007-04-20 04:46:02 · answer #6 · answered by Hieroglyphic Graffitti! 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
If you wanted to control a natural resource where would you want to be involved?
The answer is in the distribution.
You, as a consumer, will NEVER see the difference at the pump. Paul Wolfowitz said that Iraqi oil would pay for this war. But, as you can see, it isn't. Wonder why.
9/11 has been played as the scapegoat for this bogus war. In America, you can't get people to get behind a war unless they see a common threat. That common threat was presented to us on 9/11. To convenient if you ask me.
2007-04-20 04:51:02 · answer #7 · answered by trevor22in 4 · 1⤊ 5⤋
This is the liberal nitwit manifesto on Iraq and of course they have no answer to your question.
2007-04-20 06:27:26 · answer #8 · answered by dr_methanegasman 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
George Bush is a oilman
2007-04-20 05:36:05 · answer #9 · answered by robert l 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush's cronies are laughing all the way to the bank. That oil executive who got over 1 million dollars a day last year loves this war.
2007-04-20 04:47:58 · answer #10 · answered by apple juice 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋