Reality is difficult for some people to stomach.
They've been telling themselves since day 1 that it was about WMD's....nope, I mean freedom, yeah that's it freedom. No wait, it's about terrorism, that's the one.
They are all about consistency.
2007-09-23 15:21:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
8⤊
5⤋
Iraq wasn't so much for oil as for controlling the amount of oil. there can only be a certain amount on the open market at one time in order for prices to remain high....see the way OPEC does things. If Saddam had been allowed to sell his oil without restriction, the major oil companies (who pump it and ship it and actually speculate with it) as well as all the oil producing countries would have made less money. They did not and do not want Iraq's oil on the market at this time....they want to sit on it, telling us there is a shortage, and using that fear to manipulate the price. oil will run out eventually, but we are seeing greed squeeze every dollar from us as they can. Bush is in the pockets of heavy industry and the has a history with oil companies and the Saudi's. Bush and his crew are very good at manipulating us.
2007-09-23 22:27:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by Ford Prefect 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
they definitely should. isn't the result the most important indicator? doesn't matter what they think that was the intention! oil and military corporations and n general the corporations are gaining from this war and any other war that exists in the world! these corporations ar basically owned by the same people. if you break it down. they are white, Anglo Saxon, conservative and protestant male! peace
2007-09-23 23:05:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by macmanf4j 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Republicans will continue to tell themselves that Iraq was about taking out Saddam, the mastermind of 9/11.
2007-09-23 22:33:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by Incognito 5
·
4⤊
1⤋
No they won't - it took em a little time to absorb the idea they were wrong about the oil thing - like several years.
To expect them to be honest with themselves twice in one 5 year period is asking too much.
2007-09-23 22:40:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
True , despite what the Cons above say.
Do they know that the comment about the war "largely being about oil" is echoed in (radical liberal former Fed-Chairman) Alan Greenspan's latest book? Apparently he's about to join Code Pink, he's making such radical unfounded assertions.
2007-09-23 22:28:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by celticexpress 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
Only after they admit that Halliburton has not profited from the Iraqi War.
2007-09-23 22:24:14
·
answer #7
·
answered by MenifeeManiac 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
No, it just doesn't ring true for me, why?, if it's true what you say, are our military "still waiting" for updated equipment?
"GOD BLESS OUR TROOP'S"
P.S I guess I should have emphasized that yes it is a well known "FACT" that this war was started for oil, I was disagreeing about the military related part of your question.
Sorry multitasking at the moment, the usual for me.
2007-09-23 22:24:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by ~Celtic~Saltire~ 5
·
1⤊
4⤋
Yep, war for oil. Yep. So much oil. So much oil in fact a barrel just hit 81 dollars. Yep, glad we got all that oil and not relying on OPEC to determine the price.
Seriously though, if this is a war for oil, I wish it would hurry up and get here. My truck is hungry.
2007-09-23 22:19:56
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
5⤋
the military is not benefiting. but blackwater and other private contractors/mercenaries are.
2007-09-24 00:47:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Of course you know it is gonna take another fool proof event to get them to admit this too... like Cheney telling them that the Iraq war has made him 10-15 times richer than he was already.....
The rest of us know that what you say is the truth and is the facts of the matter.
2007-09-23 22:21:52
·
answer #11
·
answered by Dream Realized 2
·
8⤊
5⤋