No
2007-07-08 14:42:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by T T 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
North America {u included} will fight for oil because it is running out and our whole lifestyle is based on easy accessible oil. Everything you wear,eat,play,drive,light depends on oil.Everything you consider civilized is based on easy oil.The problem is the Arabs have forgotten what it was to like to live in a stinking hot desert and worry about water and how to get food. You and me gave them a good life and we payed well for what we got. Now they are starting to see what their future will be like when oil runs out and they gouge.
I'm afraid that us all driving a focus wont solve any long term problems.
Its oil and greed and don't forget religion.
2007-07-08 15:30:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by wayne 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is mostly, but not totally about oil. It is also about a PNAC pipe dream. It has absolutely nothing to do with oppression -- there are oppressive regimes in China, North Korea, Kazakstan, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. To think that Bush and Co, care about oppression is in my view quite naive.
PS I don't have a car so I don't buy gasoline.
PSS It's not about cheaper oil for the US Consumer (LOL) it's about control of the oil and insuring the profits of the Big oil companies.
2007-07-08 14:46:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
This proves the war is about oil!
http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=13701
READ THIS PLEASE!!
Our President is trying to pass legislation in regard to Iraqi benchmarks that include PRIVATIZING future oil development and drilling in Iraq to leave it open to the free markets so that Iraq has to bid for the rights and allow competition!?!?!?!
If Iraq wants to nationalize it's oil they should be able to do that!!
Saudi Arabia does!
Shouldn't Iraq and any other country be allowed to control their natural resources or any other part of their business as they see fit??????
EDIT: As to your question about our responsibility as individuals....yes you are right!
Not everyone is able to immediately find or frankly afford alternative transportation sources.
I know that's a pathetic arguement or reason but it is a major factor.
We as a society have been raised and geared toward fossil fuel consumption.
Just to use one example....a shallow comparison......lead paint was used for decades.....some probably still exists in some old buildings around our country but we have since the 70's been aware of the dangers of lead paint and finally legislation was created to ban the use of it in our homes.
Weaning our need for fossil fuels will take some time as well!
Sad but true nonetheless!
2007-07-08 14:50:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
No. i think of the conflict became a ability to sell the democratization of the international. there's a worldwide political ideology that promotes intervention into the affairs of different international locations so as to deliver stability, democracy and economic liberalism (to no longer be perplexed with left leaning liberal political ideologies) interior the hopes that freer commerce, greater freedom from democracy, and stability will sell peace international extensive. this is the commencing place of the UN and its predecessor the League of countries. The international political ideology is termed liberal international theory (lower back to no longer be perplexed with left leaning liberal political ideologies). this is the alternative of Realist international theory. Iraq additionally serves as a launching ingredient and base for our defense force. this permits for fast reaction to different areas of the international and is sturdy consistent with that comparable interventionist liberal distant places coverage suggestions-set. So, no. i do no longer think of the conflict became approximately oil, nor became it approximately WMD's. It became approximately spreading democracy and us of a development interior the hopes to sell worldwide peace. And it seems to be a failure. I ensue to desire Realist international theory. It makes lots greater sense.
2016-10-01 04:22:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No I don't. Not all oil that we have come from the Mideast. In fact, the United States gets the majority of it's oil from Canada.
2007-07-08 14:47:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by greencoke 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
not totally but mostly because of oil .... cause they sure didnt find those weapons of mass destruction, and it aint because of saving the people from a tyrant cause there are many tyrants out there committing genocide. so why else? and it wasnt because of terrorism cause it isnt the main source of terrorists in the world so if not for oil .. then why??
2007-07-08 18:21:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by smansier 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No!! It also has to do with saving face!! If the troops were to leave it would mean they won!! Bush won't give up even though people are starting to see that the war will not stop as long as Bush is in power!
2007-07-08 14:51:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by Polar Molar 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
No, because if this was just about oil. We would have kept Kurwait after the 91 war.
2007-07-08 14:43:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by smsmith500 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Only about 15% of the oil we use as a nation even comes from the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST; but, hey, if people would give up their gas guzzlers, quit driving just for the thrill of it, quit using their snowmobiles, ATV's, golf carts, etc.; if people would quit driving a hundred feet to put their garbage out, or to get their morning paper or to get their mail AND WALK! we could quit importing oil from the Middle East.
But, hey, it isn't entirely about oil; it is about getting rid of a mass murderer and a violent criminal govenment.
2007-07-08 14:43:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
It is about Dick Cheney's investments in Halliburton, and George W. Bush's investments in drilling in Yemen and his refinery off of the coast. It is about avarice, vice, and greed.
2007-07-12 14:25:41
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋