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

Now, more than 3 1/2 years later, someone else is asserting that the war is about oil -- President Bush.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110401025.html

Did the U.S. invade Iraq to tap its oil reserves or to make sure they stayed under the sand?
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/37371/

Subject: GREENSPAN: "The Iraq War Is Largely About Oil" ... inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/browse_thread/thread/73f9e16db5964eef ~

2007-09-16 08:36:09 · 7 answers · asked by Pey 7 in News & Events Current Events

In 1965, I saw our new military vehicle that used water for fuel. It was a sure thing ... wonder what happened?
http://www.waterforfuel.com/index.html
Search for "Water for fuel." There are lots of people trying to replace oil with water for fuel.

2007-09-16 08:47:02 · update #1

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

2007-09-16 09:02:48 · update #2

7 answers

Greenspan clearly indicates it's largely about oil, however, oil is just one of many industries profiting from the conflict (attack and occupation).

The federal governement was irresponsible for awarding no-bid contracts to many multinational corporations. Spending is out of control and unneccesary.

I believe that many criminal acts have been covered up.

2007-09-16 09:10:38 · answer #1 · answered by Skeptic 7 · 3 1

Should not all Americans be looking at Bush a little different now. The rest of the world was saying that from the day of the invasion. I am glad that someone has told the Americans what every one else knew. should Enron not be investigated further.(could be under correction but i am talking about the oil company that took a dive just before in invasion. )

2007-09-16 15:47:55 · answer #2 · answered by chersgaz 4 · 1 0

THE MONEY THAT HAS BEEN GENERATED FROM THE OIL IS BEING DISTRIBUTED IN IRAQ.

YES IT SHOULD PAY THE EXPENSE OF THE WAR.

OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE BORROWED MONEY FROM THE US AND THE US OWES MONEY TO OTHER COUNTRIES....

ALAN GREENSPAN IS NOT A POLITICIAN, HE HAS BEEN GREAT IN ECONOMICS BUT THAT IS JUST A PART IF THE PICTURE.

ARE YOU PAYING 10- 20 BUCKS A GALLON FOR GAS?

WELL, PRESIDENT BUSH DOESN'T WANT YOU TO EITHER.
THANK GOD HE HAS KEPT YOU AND I SAFE SINCE 9-11,

HE HAS NOT RAISED TAXES AND GOD HELP US IF HILLARY OR A DEMO GETS IN....YOU WILL BE WEARING A BARREL FOR CLOTHES....THEY WANT TO RAISE TAXES, INSTITUTE A DRAFT,

2007-09-16 15:51:12 · answer #3 · answered by mary 6 · 0 1

Ever since they were invented, the oil co's have never paid a dime of their expenses.
We do!
When you go to a gas station do you want them to have gas for sale or not? Then we will continue to pay their expenses.

2007-09-16 15:43:58 · answer #4 · answered by Barry auh2o 7 · 0 1

H3ll yes

2007-09-16 15:39:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I think you have taken Bush's comments out of context.

2007-09-16 15:55:05 · answer #6 · answered by dave b 6 · 2 2

you bet ye.

2007-09-16 23:10:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers