English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Those ruthless greedy politicians and their quest through greed for control of the Worlds natural resources.

How sick man has become - when fuel is worth more than a million human lives!

The future is dead in their hands

2007-07-12 11:27:37 · 16 answers · asked by scottanthonydavis 4 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

Wolf - come on

You know

You know everything, you are on board

2007-07-12 11:36:49 · update #1

Oh, don't worry! They are taking all the oil they need from those sea bed pipe lines.

2007-07-12 11:38:30 · update #2

16 answers

Oil production in Iraq is only 1/3 of what it used to be. Good point.

If we were there for oil, why aren't we only in Kirkuk where all the oil is? Why police the whole area? According to you its obvious that we are there for oil, so why then has our President kept up the illusion of policing the whole state

2007-07-12 11:31:13 · answer #1 · answered by Serpico7 5 · 0 0

Since no Iraqi oil was aquired today, none, I suppose.

Y'know, in the first Gulf War, the anit-war screed was that we were fighting the war for oil - to get /lower/ oil prices, as Bush I said "Free flow of oil at reasonable prices." Now, we're fighting the same country for oil again, but, according to the same folks, it's to make the prices /higher/.

Well, at least you've figured out some basic economics. A war-torn country can't produce much oil, and decreased supply leads to higher prices. Though, really, it's the uncertainty in the middle east - and rising demand from rapidly growing developing nations - that's really pushing up prices much more so than the war.

Ultimately, though, the interest in oil isn't purely one of short term proffits to be made off that commodity. The problem is that oil is a strategic resource - you can't opperate a modern military without it. Thus, nations with a strong military must gaurantee thier supply of oil, and doing that means 'projecting influence' (having strong allies and/or military bases) in the areas where it's produced. When you hear someone who knows what they're talking about say the war is 'over oil,' that's what they're talking about: Maintaining a presence in the middle east, to gaurantee strategic oil supplies, to maintain military strength, to protect the nation.


Man hasn't become any more sick, really, even if you take what you say at face value. Economic interests have often trumped human life. In the 16th century, the shift in agricultural activity in England caused by the successful export of wool lead to the slogan that "sheep eat men," because food-producing farmlands were being turned into wool-producing pastures. I'm sure one could go a lot farther back and still find examples.

2007-07-12 11:44:01 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0 0

5

2007-07-12 11:35:28 · answer #3 · answered by Austin 2 · 0 1

To all those who say "oil production is 1/3rd what it was" and that proves that bush isnt there for oil.

Take this into consideration: Bush took Iraq over for his own personal reasons no one will know about, considering Al qaeda did not flee to Iraq, but to Pakistan. That fact alone has to lead you to the knowledge that Bush did not go to war in Iraq because of terrorists, which makes it impossible for this to be the war on terror. Now add the fact that Bush produced paperwork to congress knowing his advisers were telling him the intelligence of WMD was not credible, and mislead congress into believing it was, Thus starting the war. Since the war started Oil production everywhere seems to be down due to reasons no one can understand, while prices of a barrel of oil are now about 50 dollars higher. Oil companies have been supporting many republicans with money for many years giving several millions of dollars in contributions.

So this is the scheme of things. Bush got paid by exxon mobile and friends with expectations to get reimbursed by favors. The favor is to allow Exxon mobile to make billions in profits, raise prices, and lower productivity (1/3rd less oil from iraq, means someone isnt getting their oil from their supplier, and therefore have to take oil from our suppliers, making our costs go up), They then lower productivity of their oil refineries saying the shortage of oil is the reason for costs going up. The war in the middle east, hurricane katrina, low productivity, and shortage of supply with increased demand have all been excuses for oil prices rising. The only problem is, if that really is the case, how can exxon mobile make record profit a quarter, if they are not raising prices to gain the profit.

Think about that!

2007-07-12 12:18:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Now what Iraqi oil are you talking about because as far as I know we aren't getting any of it and if we are it certainly isn't doing anything to bring down the price of gas. This is an old argument that doesn't make a whole lot of sense with gas over 3.00 dollars a gallon. Maybe its time for you to change your mantra. And where are you coming up with your figures, they are way off.

2007-07-12 11:32:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

I am glad that there are Americans willing to stand up and fight against the terrorists in Iraq. Thank you very much to the American military, keep up the good work. Thank you to President Bush for choosing to attack the terrorists and standing up for our rights. Unfortunately, some are content to cower in their own homes with all of the freedoms that our military has fought to uphold and complain about people being too rich.

2007-07-12 11:34:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I don't know, but how much money did Halliburton and Co. and their subsidiaries make off of the war today? Cheney must be giddy. People who say we're fighting terrorists forget that there were no terrorists there before we invaded Iraq. We're there because of the ignorance, stupidity and arrogance of George W. Bush, the worst president in modern history.

2007-07-12 12:05:10 · answer #7 · answered by Baysoc23 5 · 0 1

If it's for oil or not is up for debate. No, I don't want to debate it. I do know nearly every person that is or was in the military that I have talked to disagrees with it completely.

The last number I knew as of 6/26/2007 is 3,563

2007-07-12 11:41:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Apparantly not enough for Bush to want to bring them home. With a little luck maybe a big bomb will kill a couple of thousand at one time and the rest can come home, I mean, isn't that what is pretty much going to happen in the long run, many more of ours killed?

2007-07-12 11:52:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I don't know how many died today but Bush's oil is stained with blood. If anybody actually "thinks" that we are in Iraq for ANY other reason other than oil they are ignorant and need to educate themselves. If we are not getting any oil out of Iraq then then I have one word for you. Halliburton! Look it up.

Ron Paul 2008

2007-07-12 11:36:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers