Libs claim that the war was for oil and the mass tanker traffic on the east coast is amazingly well,......not happening Bush is brilliant, where is he hiding all of the "stolen oil"
2007-11-14 14:18:15 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't know. I spent fifteen months in Baghdad, and didn't notice any oil tankers en route to the USA. While it's true that protecting oil infrastructure is a priority, the reason is that oil is a primary source of revenue for the government of Iraq.
2007-11-14 14:33:18 · answer #1 · answered by DOOM 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋
I see that jade leprachaun says that it was for oil, but that we can't secure the oil. We "secured" the oil in the first week of combat. If the oil was the objective we would merely hold the oil fields, which are not in the major cities and therefor do not offer the enemy a physical place to hide. Also, the oil fields position deprives the enemy of a civilian population to hide amongst after losing each battle or detonation an ied. clearly, we are not there "for the oil', so lets end this foolish talk now.
2007-11-14 14:29:31 · answer #2 · answered by avatar2068 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yes and just think of the long lines at the pumps. waiting for the lower priced stolen gas. Good job libs, you keep us with a merry heart. from all the good laughs.If reality ever sets in our laughing days are over right?
2016-04-04 01:53:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Iraqis seem to keep forgetting to give it up I guess. Truth is if I were OPEC I would have started raising the price of oil when the move "Inconvenient Truth" began showing and the speeches made all over the world began. Then, when it began collecting awards, especially the Nobel Peace Prize I would have really raised it up. You know the price did go up as each of these events occurred. Well maybe that is the inconvenient truth.
2007-11-14 14:27:46 · answer #4 · answered by rance42 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Doing fine,why assume the oil is for the US. A war for oil does not mean it is being taken off to the US. It could have something to do with what Saddam was going to sell the oil for. Actually there is missing oil in Iraq,but it is not known where it is. Probably with the missing cash and weapons.
2007-11-14 14:30:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Probably the same way they handle any oil - refining it into useful products to support our economy. Except near as anyone can tell, they paid for it.
2007-11-14 14:35:28 · answer #6 · answered by dukefenton 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Stolen oil. Have you ever heard of OPEC? Read up on it. Those tight-fisted sissies aren't going to let anyone 'steal' oil.
2007-11-14 14:27:24 · answer #7 · answered by timothystrain 2 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Let's at least get one thing straight -everything we do in the middle east is for, oil and Israel and that's fine. If there wasn't oil and we didn't need to protect Israel we wouldn't give a damn. Let's just be honest about it.
Do you really believe we gave a rat's *** about the poor
Iraqis? Then what about the poor Saudis? Do you think we love Muslims so much we want them to be happy and free?
Please.
2007-11-14 14:30:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Come we all know it was for the crashed u.f.o's Saddam had.At least that's what the Globe said....
May be we sided with the greys to take him out.
2007-11-14 15:21:28 · answer #9 · answered by ak6702 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hey...those "tankers" are actually passenger ships for the mass exodus of libs when Shrillary loses !
2007-11-14 14:26:52 · answer #10 · answered by commanderbuck383 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋