http://www.huffingtonpost.com/antonia-juhasz/are-us-oil-companies-go_b_42426.html
Is the reason we're still in Iraq because we don't have signed agreements from the Iraqi government giving us the rights to their oil?
2007-08-07 23:43:40 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Evidently, not many Americans are allergic to wool. As the wool thrown over their eyes doesn't seem to bother them much.
2007-08-07 23:49:56 · answer #1 · answered by Perplexed Bob 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Actually, it's not, Ken. War for Oil is part of Bush's disinformation campaign. His Family owns so much stock in ARAMCO,(the Arab-American Oil company,) and so many oil wells in the US,(Although the ones The Beloved leader himelf drilled are all dry,) that they are practically an OPEC country all by themselves.
Iraq wasn't invaded to control more oil. It was invaded to drive oil prices up to $100 dollars a barrel. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Bush doesn't need Iraqi oil to make himself and his Oil sheikh pals richer. He just needs to control how much they sell.
As far as the pious mouthings of those who say we should stay until Iraq becomes a Democracy that treats its people well, that just don't happen in that part of the world. In fact, that's exactly what the Romans set out to do in Judaea. That blunder not only helped to destroy Democracy in Rome, it ended up destroying Civilization throughout the Western World and bringing about a thousand years of Darkness and Religious Terror. Sure. some Romans got rich, but the price was too high. America needs to learn from the Romans mistake, because anyone who follows Christian Broadcasting knows that the terror from that one isn't over yet.
2007-08-08 10:52:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If we wanted oil we could have invaded Canada, Mexico, or Venezuela since they are the top importers, in that order, of oil to this country. And remember one thing, big oil and the defense induistries aren't the only ones profiting from the war. The media all but promoted the war up to and shortly after the invasion because war maks good news. The only thing that makes better news, and more money, than a war is a scandalous war. Keep that in mind when you're watching CNN.
2007-08-08 07:01:13 · answer #3 · answered by joeybagofdonnuts 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Winning in Iraq means when Bush, Cheney, et al feel they have made enough money and will continue to make enough money off the deal. Why should they care about all the lives being wasted?
2007-08-08 06:47:27 · answer #4 · answered by patriotgal27 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If you don't understand it is because you don't want to. You know what we are after it is a stable country that treats its people well and does not sponsor terrorism. If we only wanted oil we would have been done by now and I can guaranty that their is no, NO opposition that could keep us from conquering the country.
Now if you are intent on being obtuse then keep on defining the war as for oil and I assure you it will be a failure because that is not what it is about.
2007-08-08 06:58:36 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I've heard many rumors about just that. And I wouldn't put it past Bush or Cheney for a minute.
2007-08-08 12:11:39 · answer #6 · answered by Lily Iris 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Please don't ask stupid questions...no that's not why we are there...when the country can protect itself and al qaeada has been diminished then we can begin looking at an exit startegy. At that point I'd liek to see us pull back to the borders of saudi, iran and syria and keep the insurgents out. FROM THERE WE CAN BEGIN PULLING THE TROOPIES OUT.
2007-08-08 06:52:09 · answer #7 · answered by Steelhead 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
You must be in extremely good physical shape simply from jumping to conclusions.
2007-08-08 07:06:34 · answer #8 · answered by The prophet of DOOM 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
If you would put down the joint, you might be able to figure it out for yourself.
2007-08-08 07:25:24 · answer #9 · answered by Jam_Til_Impact 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋