Why didn't we just go invade Canada or Mexico? The access is so much easier. We get a majority of our oil from those countries, they hardly have a military to stop us... and really, who is going to defend Canada... that is our job.
2007-09-13 09:31:42 · 26 answers · asked by Mr. Perfect 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Fedrick... if we take over Canada we no longer need to "trade" with them... we can just take it at that point right?
And edge... If libs won't pee in their back yard.. why do they feel so contempt to do it in the living room?
2007-09-13 09:57:57 · update #1
Awe.... Nemesis... who told you? We got a rat in the rupubs.... darn it!
2007-09-13 09:59:45 · update #2
All we really have to do is to tell Mexico that we want one barrel of oil per month for each of their illegal citizens that are in the US.
Note to Chi Guy,
Invading nations that never attacked us is a neo-con thing?
Hmm, when was it that Germany attacked the US ?
When did N. Korea attack the US
When did Vietnam attack the US
Wasn't it Bill Clinton that bombed Iraq in December of 1998?
did Iraq attack us then.
Now lets see, Roosevelt was President when we attacked Germany, Truman when we attacked N.Korea and Kennedy / Johnson when the Vietnam war was escalated.
Darn, I think those blame democrats out number us 4 to 1 so one must conclude that it is a democrat thing to do.
Doesn't this just make you want to say Oh SH*T
2007-09-13 12:02:27 · answer #1 · answered by justgetitright 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If we go to war for oil, then there is no reason given our military strength that we shouldnt own 90% of the worlds oil reserves by now. Either we're not really on an oil conquest, or we are inept and not the power we thought we were.
These "blood for oil" liberals just dont have a inteligent thought in their heads. They act and react and thats about it.
2007-09-14 03:12:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The USA does not have to worry about getting a steady supply of oil from Canada and Mexico.
Most of America's oil comes from the Middle East, and that is a potentially unstable and unfriendly part of the world for the good ol USA.
2007-09-13 09:37:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i presumed Nancy Piglousy and her cronies interior the hot congress the place going to diminish gas costs? I even have yet to verify it. All that oil we are battling for over in Iraq hasn't finished me any solid. And so a strategies as Halliburton is going, and that i understand that Dems won't admit to it, yet Halliburton become employed to artwork in Bosnia too. decrease than guess who???? The Clinton administration. 650,000 Iraqis killed is a bumper decal for Hillary and Obama to make the Reps. seem undesirable. seeing it fairly is all they have been given! Hillary and Obama do no longer stand for a darn factor. Obama needs to pass our troops into Pakistan? Gawd, he's an fool! Does he even understand the place Pakistan is? great question by way of the way.
2016-10-20 00:37:01 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Easy.
Canada and Mexico are huge trading partners with the US. In fact Canada is the largest single foreign customer fro US goods and services.
Attacking either of those countries and making them belligerents means corporate American can no longer sell to them.
And the obvious reason, the oil that comes out of Iraq and into halliburton will not be sold to US customers, it will go to Japan where it will fetch a higher price.
2007-09-13 09:39:43 · answer #5 · answered by fredrick z 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No one thinks that . . . It's part of the reason. We don't need the oil - we need to control it. There's a difference. Should we just hand it over to China? Most economists agree that the only reason China is not growing at a rate of 20% per year is . . . lack of oil. Think of the economic consequences of having oil traded in the Euro . . . would it stop there or would gold and wheat be next?
2007-09-13 09:35:43 · answer #6 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Truth be told, if oil was the primary objective, we would surly have crushed the OPEC nations in 1974 when their embargo pretty much crippled our economy. And, again, if oil was the objective, why didn't we just keep Kuwait after we drove the Iraqis out?
This argument has no valid premise or historical support - it's just more rhetoric from the far left lunatics.
2007-09-13 09:40:43 · answer #7 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Have you not heard of the NAU- North American Union?
Another of the little political acts implemented to piss the US off. It unifies Canada, US and Mexico
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965
2007-09-13 09:39:40 · answer #8 · answered by Dionannan 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
we don't have to invade mexico they have invaded us with our leaders blessings, Canada we dare not for they have a backer that we are allies with and as far as tyrants goes the rest of the world sees us this way
2007-09-13 09:35:49 · answer #9 · answered by billc4u 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Come, come. We liberals know that it isn't just about oil. That's just a happy fringe benefit, ain't it?
Cheers.
2007-09-13 09:37:32 · answer #10 · answered by blueevent47 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋