No, we have plenty of SUVs and refined sugar.
Oil is what it's about, according to Alan Greenspan. Everyone listens to him when he says something about the economy, and "it's about oil" is certainly an economic pronouncement that also explains our continued presence there.
Another way to look at the Iraq war is that it's for the benefit fo specific cronies. One of Bush's great friends and a $25 million dollar contributor to Bush's presidential library, Ray L. Hunt of Hunt Oil, has recently negotiated an exclusive contract for oil exploration with the 4 oil rich Kurdish provinces. He also sits on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and the Board of Directors of Halliburton..
2007-10-07 00:49:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Yes we would ..because No politician is going to do anything major to have alternative fuels until all the oil is gone ,and the last dollar is made ..No Politician will ...so we may need the camels , until they find a real solution , because what they are funding right now is not a real solution ... E-85 is a joke , it takes nearly the same amount of petro to make it , and it burns up faster in the E-85 cars , which ='s more fill ups , and with the price of the E-85 close to regular unleaded has it just means you spend more ..but the politicains are throwing money to the program , and it does not work ......so until DC gets it right and stop throwing money at things that do not work , we better be getting all the camels we can ...
and we might as well get the dates too , if Hillary takes over , we will get her health care , and those 5 grand bonds on every child born in America , which will take away about half of you bring home pay in income taxes to pay for it , her gas taxes and carbon taxes imposed on everything and the high taxes on the trucking industry from the carbon tax for all ( 50 dollars per person per pound ) you will be paying half of you earnings to the Federal Govt. and in that bill is the plan to simplify the tax code , (which would do away with earned income ,and child tax credits ) , and it would states it would eliminate the mortgage tax credit as well ...so bread will be about a days wage, so we are going to need those fkn dates as well to survive ....... You don't really think the oil companies they talk about taxing will just pay 4 times the tax without shooting prices up to 4 times the price of today do you ..or the super rich they say they say they are going target for more taxes do you think the millionaires , and billionaires will stay here when they can take them , their money , and their business ,and go elswhere ..., do you think it would hurt bill gates to shut down Microsoft ?? he would not suffer one bit by laying off everyone and calling it quits ..and leaving the Country ....we better get more people over there and start taking the camels and the dates right now so we will have it when the sh*t hits the fan ....
2007-10-07 01:02:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Insensitively Honest 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I believe it is for the oil but also for the defence of Israel as someone did all ready mention. The Israeli lobby is very powerful in US and, as an outsider, does seem to me no American politician dares go against it.
BTW, why would those who make profit from oil and petrol lower the price just because they did get Iraqi oilfields under their control? Sure and they will keep the price as high as possible, for unlike many naive capitalists on this board, they make their own rules.
2007-10-07 03:04:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by gortamor 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Oil is the only asset would just be a dust bowl on it's own without,do you think free and fair elections will come to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait? as long as they play the game they survive ;Saddam broke the rules and had to be replaced as the current pretext of a Government isn't playing along another Saddam will be appointed and he will know the length of his Puppet strings
2007-10-07 00:47:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Will 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Probably. It might have taken the Bush Administration longer to make a case for invading Iraq, but I think it would have come out the same.
g-day!
2007-10-07 00:47:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by Kekionga 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
The United States is fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Yes there is oil there, but we have fought in other places for freedom and with nothing in return. During the early days of LB Johnson's presidency we fought the Simba's. a rebel group out to destroy the new country of the Congo. We threw Castro out of Grenada. We threw Saddam out of Kuwait. We stopped the genocide in what was Yugoslavia. We fought a cold war with the USSR for 50 years and won. I am not naive. We have fought wars we probably should not have. But I believe all those wars were just.
2007-10-07 00:39:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 6
·
3⤊
4⤋
If there was not oil, Saddam Hussein would not have wanted to control the oil and use it to bring the economies of the world to their knees at his pleasure. Saddam would have remained a low rent thug in charge of his band of thugs. Woulda shoulda coulda.
2007-10-07 00:42:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by GoGo Girls 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
The defence of Israel was the reason for the war in Iraq. No other explanation makes sense to me. Please see the links below
2007-10-07 01:55:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
If one is fighting for liberty and freedom it doesn't matter if oil or dates are involved. I am living in a country neighboring on Iraq and it is time that those people have a taste of what we are taking for granted. don't forget that every thing in this world has its price, even liberty and freedom..........
2007-10-07 00:39:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
I rather like dates.
Don't forget, I was raised in the desert as was my son Luke.
The sandpaper market is doing well.
2007-10-07 00:31:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Darth Vader 6
·
1⤊
1⤋