Who else thinks like me that Bush and Blair did not go to war over oil.?

Question

It really annoys me when idiots say they only went to war over the oil. Do these people really think that Bush and Blair really care if fuel was 100 times the price. They would still be driving around in big cars, with the old central heating going full pelt The only people who would suffer would be the rest of us, so even if the war was fought for, or over oil supply then it is US who benefit as a society not them and them alone. Wake up England and realise it is in our best interest to keep the worlds oil coming this way. You lot all want the luxuries in life but dont understand just how they are so easily available. I know innocent people have died but we all are going to one day. I wants a big telly and the electric to keep it going, and so I believe do YOU.

Answer 1

reasons for CONTINUING the war(the reasons for starting it have long been disproven):

TO BRING DEMOCRACY TO IRAQ?
With all due sympathy for the suffering of the Iraquis as a result of the war and for their plight under SH, shouldn't Democracy, civil liberties and freedom be won by those societies which want them badly enough to fight for them themselves? What is the value of democracy if imposed upon or given to a people by an alien society using armed force?

Where does it say in our U.S.constitution that we have a mandate to use military force to spread democracy-or peanut butter for that matter - in the world? Isn't our government only supposed to use the military to defend OUR borders and OUR society?

TO ESTABLISH A DEMOCRACY IN A REGION WHERE THERE ARE NO OTHER DEMOCRACIES EXCEPT ISRAEL IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE OTHER ARAB STATES TO ADOPT THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT?
A complete falacy! There is a democracy already in place in Palestine (no thanks to us) that we turn our back on and whose existence is threatened by our closest ally while we applaud. We have supported the Israeli attacks on the democracy in Lebanon. We don't like Turkey's democratically elected government either because it's Islamic and therefore supposedly poses a threat..to us? No,to Israel.

Why aren't we supporting the democracies that actually do exist in the region (if ,indeed, we love other people's democracies so much that we want to die for them)? Why are we losing lives in a country (Iraq) still in the throes of lethal squabbling between tribal ,ethnic and racial war-lords with no real commitment to democracy but every commitment to getting their hands on our handouts and arms? Wouldn't it make more sense to stand by the countries that have won democracy for themselves? Or even simply remain neutral in a quarrel that isn't ours instead of always taking Israel's side?

Guess again. Because these are Israel's enemies apparently they have to be our enemies too.

FOR OIL?
Actually there are very lucrative and prolific oil wells in all of the Muslim areas that used to be a part of the Soviet Union and which are now ferocious little dictatorships. We,the U.S., have done everything possible to back these tyrants and nothing to dissuade them from their undemocratic ways. Their adherence to Islam and the exercise of political tyranny do not bother our governments one little bit as long as we have unlimited access to their oil. We can be seen as being nice to Muslims in this part of the world because Israel is not directly involved.

Although Russia(NOT the USSR) has been battling Islamic terrorists and terrorism on a scale unheard of in the U.S.(including 9/11), we have given them very little moral support. Why? Because we do not want to alienate the oil rich Muslims in that region. We literally let these terrorists get away with murder ( it's ok if it happens in Russia) with hardly a condemnatory peep out of us.

This policy has gone a long way to alienating a very dangerous country we should have been drawing into our sphere of influence and which still has nuclear weapons,Russia! By rights,after the fall of the Soviet Union, we should have been making a powerful ally of Russia, just as we did out of Germany and Japan after the 2nd WW, a brilliant self serving policy which gave us two staunch allies.

Instead, Russia no longer trusts us and is showing signs of wanting to go its own way,angered at our tacit support of Muslim terrorism and lukewarm response to their problems with it.

As for oil in Iraq? Immediately after the invasion was completed, an oil pipeline was set up going from Iraq to Israel. A lot of oil has been flowing in that direction ever since. I''m not sure much or any of it is going to keep YOUR nice big telly running.

Answer 2

Of course they care how much oil costs. If oil is too expensive then nobody can afford to buy it and then nobody will buy cars and and the cost of production for everything from plastics to food will rise and the economy will go into a tail spin. It is not personal for them it is about keeping the economy afloat. Your view is extremely simplistic and narrow minded.

The oil companies can't make money unless the world consumes oil. Do you think they will make a profit off the back of a few world leaders and rich people?

Answer 3

irrespective of who owns the oil, it will still be costing you 100 times the current price. The difference is that if bush and blair own it then they get to charge the money and otherwise it goes to the arabs. This war is about money, power and in teh case GW about revenge. history has shown that when stung, the yanks go in and kill lots of people. They start to loose lots of thier own and then they back right out again, solving nothing, achieving nothing and gaining nothing. america will leave iraq as it rightly should and will have achieved nothing other than to destroy a nation. Iraq was a huge mistake and there will be others again in future. That is the nature of a superpower. 'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

Answer 4

You most certainly speak for yourself and care for no one else other than your own material self interest.
All American wars are borne out of self interest with either oil or a servitude state as their objective and regrettably Britain is their willing partner due to Thatcher, Major, Blair and very likely Brown.
If you fail to understand this then you are ignoring American history over the past 50 years.

Answer 5

Hmmm, let's see. Well, it wasn't for WMDs, as there were none.

It wasn't concern for the people of Iraq, since previously US has supported Saddam and hosts of other brutal dictatorships round the world.

Wasn't to fight Islamic extremists, because Hussein was secular and repressed them himself.

So, that leaves...control of the Iraqi oil and attempting to establish a permanent neo-colonial presence in the Middle East. Oh, and lots of money for Haliburton.

Answer 6

id say you are half right.. i was in the first iraq "dessert storm" we went in over oil not kuwait!!! so bush fought for oil then.. this time bush went in for oil again and revenge..

tony blair was lied too by the USA this time and once in he could not get out due to US pressure and lack of backbone in blair..

so for me you are only half correct. you do make a good point though we do need the fuel , the whole world does

Answer 7

Spare just a thought for the 3 million put to death over 25 years of Saddam Hussein.

Answer 8

Ragheads have killed, raped, Ragheads for hundreds of years, well before the days of Saddam etc.
The different tribes have never agreed to anything and never will.
Democracy will not work in Iraq or Afghanistan, it is not in their blood or lifestyle and never will be.
US and UK troops should never have gone there in the first place. What has happened there to date? Ragheads are more responsible for the killings and executions of their own kind than can be laid at the feet of the US & UK forces.
:-)

Answer 9

I agree as Iraqi oil is not owned by US companies. It belongs to the Iraqis.

Answer 10

Alan Greenspan does. He said so today. And 1,2 million Iraqis died for it all.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170237,00.html