And Bush is the one who is trying to maintain our way of life. Yes, he is misleading. But, in the end, we are the ones who wage war by demanding oil in our everyday lives.
If we never needed oil, why would Bush fight, and sacrifice thousands of soldiers?
Of course, he personally benefits from it. But general population benefits from war even greatly - If of course oil is the priority.
I do not hold any political position, I am rather curious.
2007-11-02 19:01:23 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
These answers are misleading as Bush's. Who would be sitting here answering this question on Friday night/Saturday morning anyway.
2007-11-02 19:28:35 · update #1
Most answers are simply not clear enough. Do the owners of these answers even realize what they wrote? Simply Stupid.
2007-11-02 19:33:16 · update #2
Invading Iraq to secure the oil there and failing is a failure.
However, I will grade Bush on his performance relative to his large political donors:
1) Oil companies and Oil interests: A+
Price of Oil up 500% (16 to 90 $ a barrel).
2) Defense Contractors: A+
Defense spending up 100%
Previous equipment purchased used up and requiring replacement.
3) Wall Street: A+
Middle class is more in debt to investors than ever.
4) Hard nosed republicans: A+
Insist that their choice for president be unpopular and warmongering.
I'd say Bush is an A+ president for those that supported him.
2007-11-02 19:11:08 · answer #1 · answered by snarkysmug 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
We depend on oil because we have an 'oil only' energy policy...it's not the 'market' or 'free trade' or anything of that nature. The Oil Mafia has full control over all aspects of 'our' government that has to do with the stuff that keeps your wheels on the road. We've had the technology to half our use of oil for decades...simply raising the CAFE standards a few mpg would eliminate our need for middle east oil, but increases in the CAFE standards are either voted down or watered down. This isn't the 'market' working....this is the results of the antics of the oil industry. The short answer is no...we don't depend on oil...we depend on oil because that's the setup. We're being reamed royal and it's all legal...doesn't that make you feel better?
2007-11-02 19:14:48 · answer #2 · answered by Noah H 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes the war is about oil. Or should I say the price of oil. Every thing the bush dynasty has done is about driving the cost of crude oil up.
2007-11-03 03:01:26 · answer #3 · answered by austin j 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oil = Crack
George Bush and all his interests keep pushing it on us and they love the money they are making off our habit. We need leadership that will take us through the 12 steps to get us off our dependency on oil. Unfortunately, the democrats are no different, atleast the Republicans are up front with their aspirations.
The only way this habit is going to be broken is either through revolution, or untill we run out of fuel/water/food, which won't be long at the rate we are going.
That is why I hate Bush. He is the poster boy of everything that is wrong with our world.
2007-11-02 19:20:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
For one thing, Bush isn't spending hundreds of billions and getting tens or hundreds of thousands of people killed so you can have cheap oil.
He's waging war so the oil industry he represents can have greater control over production worldwide, and consequently over the price they get for their own production.
He and they would be thrilled to have you paying twice again as much for oil and they may well have you doing so before this is over.
For another thing, this country's "need" for oil is due largely to elective travel; millions of commuters, living in suburbs far removed from their jobs, driving daily 20 or 40 miles to work, using vehicles designed for hauling or off road use as single passenger vehicles.
The consumer's "right" to such conspicuous consumption is trumpeted by those who sell them the means to indulge in it, as if it were inscribed in the Constitution. Which it is not, btw.
Not that there's anything wrong with luxury. But if this "need" for oil is what justifys, for you, a war that has cost, to date, about six hundred billion dollars (and counting), and tens of thousands of innocent lives, then I think you should have your head examined.
Heroin junkies, sick with the "need" for their commodity of choice, have every bit as much justification for bashing your skull in, to finance their habit, as the US has to interminably threaten, bomb and invade whole regions of the world, to support yours.
***
I'm not having any trouble understanding any of the answers on here, even the ones I think are off the mark.
Maybe you should take a course in reading comprehension.
2007-11-02 19:27:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
The war is about a stable and controllable economy.And has been for 50 years.Oil is a temporary fix for a wartime economy necessarily accelerated for compliance and survival.When mankind starts using water for his energy needs economies will slow but stabilize.
2007-11-02 19:18:33 · answer #6 · answered by stratoframe 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Operations in Iraq are not about oil. Operation Iraqi Freedom is no more about oil than Operation Desert Fox was. I tend to think many of the President Bush detractors would not even know what Desert Fox was without looking it up.
2007-11-02 19:08:50 · answer #7 · answered by coho51 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
The US government should not be invading other countries to seize their assets.
The US government could and should assist with the development and production of alternative, renewable energy and products to reduce our dependence on such a limited resource.
The Bush administration has many ties to the oil industry giving the appearance of conflict of interest.
2007-11-02 19:09:37 · answer #8 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Why are we wasting time on oil thats going to run out? Shouldn't we be focusing on alternatives instead, spending billions there?
2007-11-02 19:16:02 · answer #9 · answered by Munbe 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
What makes you think Bush has a personal stake in the Iraqi oil fields? He got out of the oil business back in 1988 when he sold his oil company for $800,000 and used $500,000 of the $800,000 to buy into the Texas Rangers baseball organization. In 1992 he ran for governor of Texas and won. In 1998 during his 2nd term as Texas governor he sold his share of the Texas Rangers for $14,000,000. I have no doubt that Bush owns oil stocks, but I would not call him rich like say, George Soros (Moveon.org) who owns 6 million shares of Halliburton stock. 2006 tax returns showed Bush grossed about $700,000 of which $400,000 is his salary as president of the US. So to say Bush is profitting personally from the war in Iraq is just BS.
2007-11-02 19:20:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋