First, this is not an attack on liberals, I just dont understand how these two ideas can both be correct.
Ok, most liberals that I talk to believe two ideas that I find incompatable I was wondering if it could be explained to me. First, they believe that Moore was right about Bush having a cozy relationship with the Saudi's. Thats idea one. Yet, they also believe that the war in Iraq is about getting cheap oil for the U.S. If Bush was really in league with the Saudi's, wouldn't he avoid doing something that would give America more oil, that didn't come from Saudi Arabia? Therefore one of those ideas has to be incorrect for the other one to be correct. Please explain to me how both of these ideas can be correct.
2007-09-20 08:54:02 · 7 answers · asked by scorch_22 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ok, obviously there is no answer for this because I am not getting one. Basically the only response I get is that it is to control the flow of oil, which I can understand, but thats not the argument that I ever hear from those against the war, it is always "We invaded Iraq to get more oil for the United States." I totally understand the idea that he did it to actually prevent stable oil production in Iraq, based on the relationship with the Saudi's, but not that he did it to increase oil that America received.
2007-09-20 10:43:51 · update #1
The Iraq War is about oil and Bush does have a cozy relationship with the Saudis. But then again all US presidents have had cozy relationships with the Saudis. We keep them in power.
The War is about "CONTROLLING THE FLOW OF OIL."
2007-09-20 09:05:20 · answer #1 · answered by Page 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The close relationship bewteen the Bush family and the royal family of Saudi Arabia, al-Saud, is no secret. The amount of crude left in Saudi Arabia is not infinite, in fact production from the Ghawar field (or whatever it is) has dropped while demand has gone up. The idea about the war in Iraq is for oil is really about the future of the remaining oil in the world. It is critical for the global economy that the oil there remains on the market, to be traded, otherwise the cost per barrel could go up over $120, right now it is $80.
I'm not an expert at all, just an observer.
2007-09-20 09:03:24 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll explain. The war in Iraq is about oil, but not in the context you seem to believe. The Oil Laws that have been instituted allow the Iraqis full ability to sell their oil, but give the U.S. most of the profits. Bush does have a cozy relationship with the Saudis, because in that way he can get a great deal of oil and money from them as well. It's pretty simple actually.
2007-09-20 09:07:36 · answer #3 · answered by whiteflame55 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
another example of the inability for the conservative mind to grasp ideas that are not Black or White
Bush can have a cozy relationship with the Saudis and the oil industry at the same time -- in fact if the goal was to control the price and availability of oil it would be extremely beneficial to control both the Iraqi oil fields and the output of Saudi Arabia
2007-09-20 09:05:30 · answer #4 · answered by jj raider 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The two are not necessarily incompatible. The "cozy" relationship with Saudi Arabia is one reason for making war on one of their enemies and competitors. The war in Iraq is not so much about getting more oil from there as it is about protecting the oil that we do get from the region and our ability to get it.
2007-09-20 09:04:01 · answer #5 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Is it just a coinsidence that, the only foreign embassy in D.C. that is being guarded by CIA agents is the Saudi Arabian.
2007-09-20 09:01:54 · answer #6 · answered by SOX FAN 2004 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its a combination of both, mate !
Cheers.
2007-09-20 08:59:52 · answer #7 · answered by The ROCK 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋