They have the second largest oil reserve in the world! and decades from now when there crude oil manufacturing capability is efficient, crude oil will cost less, and gasoline will cost less.
So a decade from now would you rather have gas prices at 20 dollars a gallon or 6-10 dollars a gallon (considering inflation)
Long term, I fail to see how lowered gas prices in the future and freedom afforded to the Iraqis are a bad thing.
your thoughts?
2007-09-23 08:23:53 · 17 answers · asked by Captain Kid 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
yea but, i dont believe we are seriously investing in alternative energy, and when oil does run out in the US we will get tired of being a slave to prices dictates by other nations and will seize what we need to survive. Maybe bush is just protecting our oil resources for the future.
2007-09-23 08:36:59 · update #1
Wozambo or whatever. Oil Revenue Law. nuff said do research. we arent getting any oil now cause that country is bombed to kingdom come, but when there production and oil drilling operations are back on track, you best your butt we will be getting crude oil from them.
2007-09-23 08:38:51 · update #2
No matter what your beliefs are or whos in charge, the government will always lie to you or in cheneys case classify everything as "secret" or "TSI"
2007-09-23 08:40:55 · update #3
African Man- Thats what im kind of getting at. Every single war or conflict was about securing resources of one kind or another. and in the wars to come (china) it will be the same
2007-09-23 08:42:49 · update #4
I was just talking about that yesterday, from a political stand point, its not such a bad idea, from a moral stand point, its horrible, but since when did war starts being about morality?
2007-09-23 08:36:23 · answer #1 · answered by God's favorite 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is a bad thing. A tenth of the money we have spent on Iraq could fully develop alternatives like Butanol to the mass production stage.
Second the price of gasoline will never go above 6 dollar a gallon if the worst fears promoted by environmental group become true. Once you cross about 4 to 4.50 per gallon there are a number of hundred different raw resources that can be refined to more crude oil then to gasoline. At the rate we are using gasoline we couldn't use up all of those sources in the next 500 years.
2007-09-23 08:35:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There has been a civil/sectarian war there for years, very actively for the past couple of years. Or are the 2000+ Iraqi deaths per month caused by a few really bad traffic accidents? Refusing to call it a civil war until now doesn't change the reality. Just like it doesn't change the reality that our presence there is obviously not helping, and likely causing more harm than good. Let's look at it from a cost-benefit perspective. How much money (tens of millions) and how many lives (dozens) did it cost for the US to invade Iraq and topple Saddam's government . How much money (tens of billions) and how many lives (thousands) has it cost for the US to remain in Iraq and try to force them to set up a new government. Which, by the way, is nowhere close to being ready to take over their country. What we should have done is pull out after "Mission Accomplished" and allow Iraq to set up whatever government it wanted. If we didn't like the results, we go in, topple it, and tell them to try again. We could have done that 10 times and still spent only 1% of the money and lost 1% of the lives that we have so far under the current plan. So, regardless of the goals, the means we're using to accomplish them are highly wasteful of both resources and American lives. And from any perspective, stupid means are not a good way to achieve any goals.
2016-05-17 05:18:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Offering "freedom" to the Iraqis has proved to be a really successful endeavor, hasn't it? Had we taken out Saddam and left, they'd be better off. As for the oil, it is not ours, but the oil barons would like to have it...or at least control of the oil. In my opinion, we have no business trying to "conquer" Iraq. We have already done much more damage to the country and to our reputation than is acceptable and we should stop at once!
2007-09-23 08:37:19 · answer #4 · answered by ArRo 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The "bad thing" would be lying about the motives -- assuming those were the actual motives. What can be tolerated if openly acknowledged is different than what is tolerated as a hidden agenda.
That being said -- I've never considered killing thousands of people -- let alone hundreds of thousands -- for purely economic reasons to be valid.
We have so many other options besides oil -- and greed is not valid grounds for any death.
2007-09-23 08:31:29 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
For one thing, we arent getting any oil from Iraq. Secondly, we have more oil than Iraq in our very own Alaska, if the enviro-nazis would just let us have it. Thirdly, oil always goes to the highest bidder, and China is bidding up the prices now with the Arabs.
2007-09-23 08:30:59 · answer #6 · answered by wambozambo 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋
So now we are classified back with The Roman Empire.
That is why we do need to be in in Iraq. We are trying to progress history not turn it back.
2007-09-23 08:32:41 · answer #7 · answered by Michael M 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i actualy will say yes to that question it is a bad thing not only because i have lost 5 famil members and 2 friends to that hell-hole but also because it's not our oil
2007-09-23 08:31:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Oil is a waste of time. It's a 19th century fuel and energy source. Meanwhile , we can develop renewable energy and fuel sources here at home that we can use forever. No American kids will have to die for that.
2007-09-23 08:30:47 · answer #9 · answered by Gerry S 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
So do you admit that Iraq is being conquered and not being freed? If that is true, why is Dubya lying?
2007-09-23 08:58:39 · answer #10 · answered by Mysterio 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋