George Bush started a war for oil, where exactly is this oil?

Question

Gas 3.39 here.

Wouldn't it be nice if George Bush did go to war for oil, but gave us some of the oil?

Answer 1

The oil is being used by the 7 dwarfs in Fairyland. You know, where Shrek lives. There is no oil here.

Answer 2

“If you [worry about] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.” Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002 -- Rumsfeld

“I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense…[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03 --Rumsfeld

“This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.” House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03 -- Richard Armitage


There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03 -- Wolfowitz

Yes, where is that oil that the CONS promised???

Answer 3

Lol because your gas is 3.39 a gallon where you are that means that the war was not for oil? Weak argument. Try the war costs a lot of money to wage and there you have your answer for why your gas prices are higher. Where do you think the money comes from to wage 2 draining wars simultaneously? You're an absolute dumbass.

Answer 4

It all depends on how you look at this. If Saddam would have gone unchecked he would have taken over and manipulated the price of oil to $300 a barrel. Since our economy is so dependent on foreign oil it would have been devastating to the Western Industrialized nations. So if you look at it from that point of view, yes. Now with the Radical Islamist trying to gain control of Iraq, this again creates this danger. That is why it is so important to stabilize the region. Leaving right now is not an option. I wouldn't be able to stand the whining of the democrats if this happened. Especially since they are also the ones who are standing in the way of our new refineries and new oil explorations.

Answer 5

Yeah, the cost of gas has gone up because of Bush. That's right. Maybe you should ask why the Democratic controlled Congress hasn't lowered the price for you.
You probably don't realize that Europe has had gas prices in this range for years! That includes the countries who haven't supported the war - like France. We've just been spoiled.

Answer 6

If he wanted to start a war for oil, he would have inveded Saudi Arabiam because they have the most, Kuwait because they have virtually no army, Mexico or Canada because they are closer. Since he chose not to invade any of them, I can only conclude that this war is not & never has been about oil.

Answer 7

War for Oil, Bush Lied People Died, Freedom Fighters, where are WMD's etc. etc.

These are tag lines that buffoons repeat at nauseoum when they don't have enough of a brain to understand and argue the true facts. You can typically throw anyone reciting all of these idiot lines in a tailspin with three questions.

1. Name the current Secretary of State.
2. Name the the current Secretary of Defense.

When both of these are met with deer in the headlights blank stares ask:

3. What is your name?

They are completely baffled in a corner rocking back and forth whining for a new tag line.

BTW Sway might now be the hottest and smartest woman on yahoo!

Answer 8

okay, now i'm starting to get really annoyed at this. If we just wanted to go to war for oil, we would have just invaded Iraq, put in a Shia-run dictator who would have had the majority of Iraqi's under his influence. Then, we could easily make deals for oil. Then we could send in our oil rigs. and start sucking the country dry. I'm actually starting to think that would have been a better idea than spreading democracy. To hell with their democracy, i just want cheap gas.

I would like everyone to see to see this link. I posted it earlier this year, but if comments like this still come up, I don't think enough people read it.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

Answer 9

Funny you should ask this...
Bush didn't start the war for oil...
remember 911
i do!
now if he is getting oil
apparently we arent seeing it

but then again maybe we are
the democrats raise EVERYTHING
here in the sad and Blue state of Ohio
they voted us in a almost $2 minimum wage increase...

Everyone that was making minimum wage got a raise...
Since i made more i didn't see a raise...

the price of gas is up
the price of food is up
welfare went up
property tax went up
social security is up!
Taxes at a record high,.,

its only fitting that gas be sky high too
just to please the Democrats,.,
we all knew they would cry about this all later though
didn't we
you cannot please a democrat!

they think that this helps the enconomy!
when it does just the opposite..
when you raise the wage of a 14 year old
the employers are going to raise the price of everything to compensate for the raise...

Answer 10

He didn't go to war to give us oil. He went to war to control Iraq's oil. Now with Saddam gone oil outputs have been reduced causing the run up in gas prices.