2007-10-26 23:58:15 · 19 answers · asked by jeffwey m 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
what war over oil are we fighting??...how much oil have we taken from Iraq??....we liberated Kuwait, ....could have taken ALL its oil, but we didn't touch one drop....some might argue we SHOULD take oil from Iraq for liberating them from a murdering dictator...but we haven't touched a drop...so what war for oil are we fighting???....THINK FOR YOURSELF!!...stop buying those simpleton sayings the libs use because they think you have a short attention span...its about oil.....George Bush lied....the war is lost.....THINK!!!
2007-10-27 00:03:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
WOW!!! The trillion-dollar question (literally!).
Over thirty years ago the US knew that depending on oil was a problem. A good portion of the world's oil reserves are in the hands of volatile nations. Instead of addressing the root cause of the problem - over-dependence on the automobile for transportation as well as overall inefficiencies in heating, cooling and energy production - the US did nothing - well, if you discount buddying up with middle-eastern oil Chieftains they did nothing.
The fact that is lost on all the chest-thumping Bush war supporters is that if the US didn't need the oil, we simply would have no 'strategic interest' or 'national interest' in what goes on in the middle east. NOBODY WOULD CARE!
There are viable alternatives that could eliminate our need for foreign oil but this country does not have the political will to implement these alternatives. The really sad thing is that the oil will run out anyway so we are doubly dumb for not addressing the issue.
If the money spent in Iraq was invested in the US infrastructure in the form of mass-transportation systems we could have easily halved our current oil imports. Then there are solar-powered electrical generation. just about every home in the country that has decent sun exposure could generate it's own electricity with a photovoltaic system. That's right - your own power plant on your roof. It would be about $10,000 per house.
It boils down to the fact that we as Americans are unwilling to change our lifestyle. We are a drive-everywhere, one-person-per-Hummer society of small families living in huge 4500 square-foot homes an hour's drive from work. Our leaders follow the people. The people are too lazy, paranoid of other people and short-sighted to change until they wake up one day and they can't heat their home or afford to fill up that Hummer.
That day is fast approaching.
2007-10-27 00:36:23 · answer #2 · answered by spay&neuter-all-republicans 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What war over oil? If we are in Iraq to take their oil then the price of gas should come down as we bring all their oil into the U.S. We need to find alternative fuels but in the mean time what would be wrong with drilling for oil in the U.S.A. and even let the oil companies build one or two new refineries.
2007-10-27 00:26:19 · answer #3 · answered by hdean45 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its not only the fuel, oil is used to make plastic and I would say we make more plastic than we use fuel. Don't be fooled the oil companies will own any alternative fuel that is made, but whats cheaper than oil, it cost nothing to make it.
2007-10-27 00:28:05 · answer #4 · answered by man of ape 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This war isn't being fought over oil, it just happens to be a large side benefit. Did you know the reason Saddam invaded Kuwait was because he accused them of slant drilling into Iraq's oil fields? A practice that is illegal in the US. For those who say we haven't received a drop of Iraq's oil, take a look at how much more we have imported from Kuwait since the start of this fiasco. Personally I think we're in Iraq because this President wants a super base of operations for our military in the region. We might not be there to capture their oil but we're certainly there to protect it from others capturing it.
2007-10-27 00:29:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a matter of timing.
Demand is now starting to build for autos powered by something other than a gasoline fueled engine. My guess is that within ten years there will be no more gasoline powered autos on the highways anymore.
GM plans to have the first fuel cell vehicles in the showrooms in 2 years.
2007-10-27 00:24:19 · answer #6 · answered by Perplexed Bob 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is estimated that if the war ended right now it will cost about 2 trillion dollars when all is said and done. With that kind of money we could have solar panels on every building in this country making the need for oil for electricity obsolete. Then with that savings we could develop electric cars and a grid to support them making oil completely unnecessary, then we could let the middle east destroy themselves and it wouldn't effect us at all! And buy the way it would almost wipe out carbon emissions and pollution.
2007-10-27 00:27:31 · answer #7 · answered by David R 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Indeed but the oil companies dont want that to happen, we should already have everything powered by alternative fuels but the oil companies stop it any way they can
2007-10-27 00:01:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are 2 flaws in the oil-invasion concept. First, the cost of the invasion heavily outweighs the cost of the oil. 2nd, the oil would be controlled via American or Iraqi companies which will sell the oil on the worldwide industry; this makes the controller of such oil irrelavant. the only results of the conflict on the cost of gasoline is in the soundness of the region; ergo, a conflict between every person in an 'oil united states of america' could have an result on gasoline cost, not purely us invading Iraq. they say 'purchase on cannons, sell on trumpets' for good reason. With the style of oil experts in the administration, i stumble on it confusing to have faith that they could base the invasion completely upon oil.
2016-10-02 22:02:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A flawed question.
Your question assumes that we fight wars for oil. If that was the case, why don't we take over Saudi Arabia? They have a lot more oil than Iraq, and we'd be justified since the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. If war was about oil, why not take over Mexico? They have oil reserves and would be a lot easier to invade logistically than Iraq. If war was about oil, why not invade Southeast Asia? That's where the Japanese got their oil in WWII, and it would give us naval bases to watch over the emerging Chinese?
I have no problems looking for alternative power sources, but maybe wars are about more than oil.
2007-10-27 00:09:49 · answer #10 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes but wars are about more than oil, there are many industries that profit from war, oil is a fake motive.
2007-10-27 00:03:35 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋