I hate to say it but, If the majority wants war for oil that is exactly what they will get. If more than half of the population that votes for presidential elections went and protested, they would have to do something. I don't see that happening anytime soon since half of those voters probably think that foreign death is a fine price to pay for gas that is 5 cents cheaper per gallon. Democracy is awesome when you are the majority, and it sucks when you are not. And if we all die because terrorists don't like the actions of America, then I die too, its not even for my own beliefs......but that's democracy.
2007-07-05 04:07:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
First, the utter lack of America making money or receiving oil from Iraq should be a moon-sized tip that the war is NOT over oil or money.
Actually, there is a theory among historians that claims that it was the Vietnam was that prevented the Cold War between the U.S. and the USSR from turning into a hot war (in which undoubtedly more people would have died). Comparitively, Vietnam was a good thing; the problem came from the fact that there was no real goal (how would we know when the Communists were defeated, for example?)
In Iraq, we have a goal (remain there until the Iraqi government is ready to stand on its own).
Though I will admit, it would be nice if some of the money going to fund the war would be directed to teach some people basic critical reasoning skills.
2007-07-05 10:55:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by Thought 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think you're right. One of the things that really troubles me is that in talking to people about it, many seem to feel that protecting our oil supply is a perfectly legitimate reason to invade another country. Bush and his cronies clearly have a long-term strategy that goes well beyond Iraq. They see Iraq as just a staging area for trying to dominate the whole Middle East. It's not surprising at all that the people there are aware of this and doing everything they can to drive the Americans out.
2007-07-05 03:30:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Hey Late 60s and early 70s we tried to get people to Research the power of the Sun. They went Nuclear and Oil. Now is the time to Get off our Asses and find a way to harness the sun
2007-07-05 03:40:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by Zippy 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
The problem with your question is encapsulated in the word, "We".
I don't believe any US citizen has a lot of choice in whether to 'support' the war, or the troops. They're supported by tax dollars collected before the paycheck is printed.
Whether US citizens agree, or disagree, whether they 'realize', or don't realize what you assert, they will support the war until those who decide how taxes are to be spent choose to spend them another way.
2007-07-05 03:52:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jack P 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
almost immediately after lifeless night on the morning of April 19, 1775, the Lexington protection rigidity decrease than the command of Capt. John Parker met on the Lexington city trouble-free in anticipation of British troops, owing to reviews from Paul Revere and William Dawes. After some hours, the protection rigidity grew to become into brushed off on the topic they return on the sound of a drum.
2017-01-23 12:56:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by tetro 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
At least in the 60s students were prepared to protest on the streets about government policy. Now they just seem dumb.
2007-07-05 18:02:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by brainstorm 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Maybe you should move this question to the "Government and Politics" page.
2007-07-05 04:12:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by Cookie Girl 3
·
1⤊
0⤋