Listening to a conservative radio talk host who seems conservative on many issues-spending-gay right etc...he feels there were many EVIL abusive dictators around the -this particular one was sitting on oil...he seems to be calling it the way it is.... North Korea flaunting nuclear capability....(By the way he said Iran was encouraging us to go into Iraq-Chalbi-to take care of their dirty work)
2007-12-07 03:34:00 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
No. But it will take until the current crop of (far-left wing) "historians" die off until history shows that the war was NOT a blood for oil proposition.
The term "Will history show" can be substituted with "In 50 years time" to get a better idea of what history will show. Either that or an ability to rise above the frays of the day and time in which we dwell. Not too many can do that and those that can certainly are not heard in a day and age like the one in which we're living.
Joe T's a cynical bastard, isn't he?
2007-12-07 03:38:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
NO.
History will show Iraq as a war for democracy in the Middle East. Democracy that could have prevented radical Islam from taking over the region. If radical Islam takes over the region then we will have World War 3. History will show this and Bush will be vindicated.
2007-12-07 06:08:23 · answer #2 · answered by YAadventurer 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
HOW is this about "oil"?
I hear this all the time but NO ONE ever explains how it is about oil???
America does not buy or use Iraqi oil????
(We get more oil from Canada than from the entire Middle East......If this is about oil, why did we not invade Canada?)
America does not profit from the sale of Iraqi oil ???
( the Iraqi oil fields ares run by the UN and ALL profits go to the Iraqi government)
Bush and other "oil" people would have garnered MORE profit by NOT invading????
(Iraqi oil fields were so antiquated and in such bad repair.....they would have shut down unless the invasion had not rebuilt them. Less oil means even HIGHER oil prices than we have today.....the invasion and repairs kept the oil supply higher..... cheaper)
Six years of a detailed liberal media anal exam has failed to prove that ANYONE in America has profited from Iraqi oil?
So why should history support this liberal canard
2007-12-07 05:11:04 · answer #3 · answered by Kojak 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
superb. i cant recover from the certainty that somebody who participates in the better training device of a maximum-stronger us of a leaves it with such an opinion. makes one contemplate whether coercive classes of humanism for all such graduates are a solid theory? PLEASE mail me an answer to how your "fairly intelligence" can produce a fee of "killing & loss of existence for a definite dwelling wide-spread" ????????? an answer'd be extremely extremely spectacular. actually, might you kill ONE harmless to maintain a existence variety? is YOUR blood properly worth it? I completely accept as true with those right here rightly asserting that the iraq conflict is one in all the climate increasing the gasoline expenses. use your lifelike intelligence to make THAT right into a prevented dwelling wide-spread... btw this conflict is (gonna be) paid by making use of stressful working individuals' tax money, yeah bypass you dwelling wide-spread ^^ in this regard iraq conflict works precisely like classical colonialism: its solid for some firms, yet a harm to national financial device cuz completely financed by making use of the state. yet trillions of deficit aint your situation, all of us understand. thats what grandchildren are for. and what techniques does your lifelike intelligence enable with reference to the certainty that for the time of the very long term even the iraqi oil reserves dont rely for being merely as unlasting as all others? thats no longer fixing a situation yet merely pushing it somewhat. as warring as human race may well be, there are continuously 2 perspectives on it. between the human beings experiencing it and between the human beings staying at domicile sending others into it. conflict has continuously been there. so has the comprehension that it would be prevented.
2016-10-10 11:31:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Because historians will recognize that 85% of Iraqi oil production was under contract to a French firm (Compagnie Petrol De Francais). Historians generally do their homework!
2007-12-07 06:37:48 · answer #5 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is true - there are many evil dictators in power even right now who have slaughtered their own people - and who have access to WMDs, and who support terrorist groups. So why did we choose Iraq??? It couldn't be that they sit on the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world, or that Saddam attempted to assassinate George Bush Sr., or that George Bush Sr never "completed" the Gulf War.
Especially as we now know that Saddam never supported terrorist groups (their ideology threatened his dictatorship), and while he had WMDs and used them in the past, he was no longer making or stockpiling them as our "intel" reported. And yes he was a evil man, however there are many more evil men out there worse then him - so, history WILL show that our reasons for going in to Iraq was a farce to secure oil.
2007-12-07 04:34:27 · answer #6 · answered by Christopher B 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Only if we were taking the oil which we are not. And the argument that it's a war for oil merely because they have oil there is also fallacious. If that were the case then one could make the argument that it's a "War for pants" because they wear pants over there with equal validity.
2007-12-07 03:47:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Yes, it will show that Bushie participated in a cover up for oil control in the middle east. And started a war to gain the control. Which he now has.
Fast Eddie is sure fast and loose with his words.
2007-12-07 03:56:54 · answer #8 · answered by Lou 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
so the ex head of the federal reserve is a far leftie is he. did he not say it was for oil are or you forgetting that. He is no historian by the way an economist a rather conservative one at that.
2007-12-07 03:41:54 · answer #9 · answered by BUST TO UTOPIA 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Rightly or wrongly history will show this as a war about security of energy supply.
2007-12-07 04:04:25 · answer #10 · answered by I got questions! 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋