Why is it that 6 yrs later, some of you still think that this War is about OIL ?

Question

I still read so many ignorant statements saying G. W. Bush was behind 9/11 for the purpose of attacking Iraq for oil, will you please listen to yourselves and get a clue?

Answer 1

Don't you mean, "Why is it that decades later...?"
The war in Iraq was in full swing long before Bush came into power, his biggest contribution in the beginning was giving it the name "War".
I lost three friends to the war in Iraq while I was serving in the Navy during the Clinton administration, Slick Willy only decided to call it less noticeable words than a war, using politics to keep the public eye from seeing our actions for what they were. I don't get mad easily, but it's hard to keep from calling people out who ignorantly make statements like Bush started a war and sent all the soldiers there. If it wasn't for a rate change to a position that tied me in the US for an extra two years, I would have been there myself in 2000.
That said, control of oil is a reason for many actions we're participating in there, but it has very little to do with the actions you read about in the news right now. It's also just one reason for over a dozen or so other countries we've been in for several years, if not decades. Securing lines and refineries is an important process, it's about protecting the oil, not stealing it, a process we cannot simply ignore. However, our oil assets and line/refinery protection units haven't even made it into the news, mostly because very few of them are dying and they're involved in the least amount of violence. The actions everyone is reading about right now and acusing Bush of creating (even though we were already there doing the exact same thing before him) are wholly separate from what the other groups are participating in. All the while people cry that it is all about oil, just look at the news, the news in fact has only shown us in areas that have absolutely zilch to do with oil. So the accusation holds no water, it's just something being repeated by people because someone else said it.
Saddest part in all this though, everyone thinks the President knows every single action and sets it all in motion, like the myriad of other political and military groups have no authority to initiate actions unless he creates the idea personally or signs off on it. We're in dozens of countries, with actions being controlled by dozens of individuals and high ranking officials, the President is more of a figurehead who reaches for approval than a person who initiates actual actions. Most of what we did out there has been something that was done first, and then details provided to the administration afterwards.

Answer 2

It's a good question. I hope I can do a good job at answering it. First off, there is not a war going on in Iraq. The war was over in a very short time. However, there are many people in and around Iraq that are not happy about it. The only fighting going on is that every week or so, someone (a terrorist group, a group of locals who don't like America, etc.) will attack either soldiers, civilians, or someone in the new Iraqi government. It is not an ongoing battle, but a series of many different little incidents. Before the invasion, we had satellite images of Weapons of Mass Destruction being moved around within Iraq. Saddam refused to let us in to find (and remove them). Back in 1990, Saddam had conquered a small neighboring country (Kuwait). So, it was quite likely that he would use those weapons. Several months after threatening to invade Iraq, we finally went in. We found very little in the way of the weapons. We found at least one biological weapons lab. There have also been many reports of weapons being moved into Jordan. Currently, the number of incidents in Iraq has been gone down dramatically since the recent troop surge. If it continues to go down, it's likely that we will start removing some troops, but it's hard to say for certain. Just under 4,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq in about 5 years. This year alone about 2.5 million Americans will die of natural causes. About 1 million American babies will be aborted. The Vietnam war claimed about 60,000 American lives. The Korean war claimed about 54,000 American lives. The Iraq war has been better fought and better planned than almost any other war in American history. It is as necessary (if not more necessary) than our involvement in World War II. You are being lied to by your television and by your teachers about why we are there and what is going on. I hope that you'll be smart enough to see past it.

Answer 3

There are ignorant people on both sides of the spectrum. For instance, some conservatives still think this war is about WMDs, or was it links with Al Quaida, or was it freeing the Iraqi people? I get so confused, the story changed so many times. Those of us who are intelligent know that 9/11 was an act performed by fanatical Muslim terrorists, that they were being guided and funded by Osama Bin Laden and his supporters in the Taliban, that going into Afghanistan should have been done with the same amount of effort we've put into Iraq, that Pakistan isn't doing enough to assist us in capturing Bin Laden, and that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. It DID have to do with OIL. But I don't think Bush caused 9/11 to get us to Iraq. It was sure a convenient excuse for him though.

Answer me this: what WAS the war about? Saddam, for all that he was a sociopath and a mass murderer, was not a Muslim fanatic. And while one of his sons was a nut job who raped women with impunity, women are now being raped by fundamentalists in the street because they don't cover their heads. There's no evidence linking Saddam with Al Quaida. No WMDs have been found. Not a single one. And don't tell me they've all been shipped over into Syria, because there's no proof of that either. And if you call the current state of Iraq free, then you're a crack head. Furthermore, there are sociopathic dictators doing horrible things all over the world. Why do we pick only one of them to invade?

So rather than call people like me ignorant, give me one good reason why we went to Iraq if not for control of the oil fields. I'm all ears. Go ahead. But be prepared to offer real proof, not some rehashing of the same old lies.

EDIT: BoRemmington-- The word you want is you're, not your, speaking of ignorance. You're is a contraction of "you" and "are" while your is a second person possessive pronoun. Thank you for playing.

Answer 4

Petey V3.3.... it sounds as though you are speaking as if you have been there and seen all this first hand. Have you? Before you go and tell someone to fly to Iraq to support YOUR unfounded claims perhaps you should try it yourself. I notice you offer no link are hard eveidence to your claims.

You also act as if all of Iraq's resource revenue just gets evenly spread throughout the country. Do we do that? Do you get a check in the mail for the oil we pump out of Texas? Do other people from other countries in fact own property here in the US for business purposes? Interesting how you people love to paint the picture that America is so bad and that we are tyrants. If this were the case we would be like Hitler.... marching our troops through our neighboring countries which are rich in resources for our own gain. Just to clue you in... the US isn't any bigger. And why hae we not "invaded" Canada? We get a majority of our oil from them. It would be easy... we are right next door and they hardly have an army.

We are building schools and infastructure in Iraq, for these people... we should actually be demmanding that we get cheap oil from them to help offset the costs. Instead, we pay OPEC's price and get a very small percentage of our oil from Iraq.

Enjoy living in this country that keeps you safe and allows you your opinion. You will never know what sacrifices are made by people to keep it this way nor will you ever understand it.


EDIT... FED UP.... apply common sense here -> Do you think maybe we protect those oil fields and pipelines because oh... I don't know... IT IS IRAQ'S MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME? When trying to help get a country on their feet... yes... you do protect their most valuable resources... no rocket scientist required for that thought either.

Answer 5

Hey Freethinker

1 16 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi.
2 The only airplane allowed to leave American air space after 9/11 was a Saudi airliner
3 The Saudi government sponsers radical Madrassas used for recruiting Al Quida members all over the middle east without one complaint from our government.
4 Saddam Hussain was never a threat to the US, but the Saudi's were scared to death of him.
5 The Bush's and Cheney's both have long political and financial ties to the Saudi royal family.
6 Osama Bin Lauden is Saudi. When we were about to capture him in 2003, Donald Rumsfield pulled the troops out "to prepare them for combat in Iraq.

Freethink about that a little

Answer 6

Bush didn't have anything to do with 9/11 but he sure has done all that he can to try and somehow blame the Iraqis for 9/11 even though his own people say that Saddam hated OBL and had nothing to do with the attacks.
Must be some reason to be there. Maybe because of the promise that Iraqi oil would pay for the cost of the war.

Answer 7

No it is not about oil because that means we would be stabbing Saudi Arabia in the back since they provide quite a bit of oil to us. The Saudis control a great deal of our stock (sadly), they could call back for payment for the money they gave us leaving us in a real mess, or other economical disasters they could pull if we were to go behind their back and steal oil like that.

And honestly, Bush behind 9/11? What about all the other attacks that were done by the terrorists? 1993 WTC Bombing, Yemen Marine Base Bombing, 2 U.S. Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, USS Cole Bombing. Not to mention the suicide bombings, car bombings, beheadings, hangings, and slitting of throats the terrorists do. Are people to say he is behind all of those too? Is he behind the 1970s U.N. Hostage Crisis too? So Ronald Reagan would get in after only one term of President Carter (Speaking of Carter, was Bush behind it when Carter got rid of the Iranian leader making Iran a terrorist nation it is today?) and lead the way to Republican Presidency, giving Clinton two terms to make it look not so obvious his intents for the future of oil? Wow, President Bush been planning for almost 40 years to obtain oil in the Middle East, when it would have just been easier to steal it from Mexico since they are the third largest oil land in the world. Dastardly!

When are people going to get a brain and commonsense and see the enemy is Islamic Terrorists!?

Answer 8

If we're not there for oil, why aren't we raging in Darfur? That's one of the worst humanitaritan crises to happen during Bush's administration, but he's barely said two words about it. That tells me there's another reason we're in Iraq. Too bad Bush can't give a straight answer about anything, maybe if we had a good reason we wouldn't be supposing it's about oil.

BUT, I really don't think Bush was behind 9/11. To think that would say that our government has stooped to the level of a sociopathic serial killer. I pray to God that isn't the case. Though I know they keep secrets, they do their shady deals and everything, if they were behind 9/11 then God help us all.

Answer 9

Maybe because it IS about oil. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the only thing that Bush has been protecting in Iraq is the oil fields. And Afghanistan's oil pipe line.

If the "War on Terror" was right, they should have attack Saudi Arabia and Yeman. Did they? No. They still don't have OBL, but they have the $3 gas that they wanted. Enough said.

Answer 10

I think the war is about a son trying to support his father. I don't think Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks because they had nothing to do with Iraq. His ultimate goal was to get rid of Saddam and he did it. Now he just doesn't know how to get out of it. Then again, he still can't pronounce nuclear.