rather than oil
2007-12-28 14:07:32 · 24 answers · asked by Pamby 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
This is not my question and I don't know so much, its from: Noam Chomsky interview by Michael Hastings
2007-12-28 14:19:44 · update #1
I very much doubt it, as it has been leaked here in Aussie that we followed Bush as did the Poms, it was purely for the control of the oil...
I don't see anybody really caring what is happening in various places in Africa, why ? ; because there is no oil there...
Blessed Be... )O(
2007-12-28 16:03:00 · answer #1 · answered by Bunge 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
I see where you're alluding to, but I don't think that was the sole purpose of us going to war. I do believe that Sadam Hussain has been a threat for a long time and 9/11 did give the government excuse to go ahead and snatch him from power, which is good. However, there are fallicies I won't discuss that I have noticed lately, but I don't think the invasion has anything to do with oil. Actually, the informators that are causing that speculation seem to be very disingenuous with their information being their sources were dug up well after 9/11.
To answer your question, I think we would have invaded Iraq and if not us... the rednecks and patriotic individuals would've.
God bless America.
2007-12-28 22:18:29 · answer #2 · answered by Pilgrim Progressing 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes we as America still would have invaded Iraq. countrary what CNN and all these others idiots are putting out on the table, Iraq was a threat to the U.S. and everyone. I spent so many Christmas seasons in Kuwait to keep Iraq in check, it was only matter of time. The U.S. along with all the other countries determined it was a severe threat and not just the U.S. It was for the future of the Middle East and the citizens of Iraq and the U.S is why it was invaded, not for oil.
2007-12-28 22:20:41 · answer #3 · answered by kevin T 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Probably. The reasons for our military offensive against Iraq are spelled out in the link below. There is no mention of oil. In fact, over 80% of Iraqi oil production is under contract to a French oil firm (Compagnie Petrol De Francais). And the French haven't committed one soldier to guard that oil. OLf course, once we discovered that fact in the files of the Iraqi Oil Ministry and let Paris know about it the French politicians all turned into mimes.
2007-12-28 23:59:25 · answer #4 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We've had conflicts in many other countries that didn't have any oil. And even if oil was part of the reason for invading, the same people complaining about our troops being in Iraq would be complaining about how Bush needs to do something about the even higher gas prices.
2007-12-28 22:12:02 · answer #5 · answered by DC 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
yeah if McDonald's was president. Iraq is like 2 or 3 in leading oil supply, now look at who owns a oil company and has tons invested into oil companies. That would be Bush and and his right hand man. Hmm... ironic I know. Our purpose of invading anyone should of been finding Bin Laden and stringing him up by his toe nails.. but now we have 100,000 or more troops policing a county that we are building 9 permanent bases in... seems twisted
2007-12-28 22:23:19 · answer #6 · answered by American Women 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If the Terrorist was using lettuce and pickles to finance their terrorist operations, of course we would. They did not take over Kuwait for lettuce and pickles tho. They wanted all the oil to finance their terrorist organization. Whoever controls the middle east controls all the riches of the oil.
2007-12-28 22:18:11 · answer #7 · answered by igdubya 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
People are always going to complain, thats just the way it goes. Who knows, if they were a threat, I'm sure we would have. We are, and it seems we always have been, a country against war. The leaders take us into it, but the public bitches about it. Since the beginning of time, there has been war and conflict, it's the way it will always be.
2007-12-28 22:28:55 · answer #8 · answered by Educating the uneducated 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you want to know why we invaded Iraq - look at a map.
Can you name the only country that borders Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran?
Strategy and real estate have one thing in common: the importance of location.
2007-12-28 22:21:20 · answer #9 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
HECK NO!!
It's funny how they all use the "horrible dictator" argument.. And there sits Kim J, and the genecide in Sudan commences, not to mention the other one in Laos.. How bout Liberia, practically begging the U.S. to come.. The Saudi's have to be the #1 problem in the long run, they plop out terrorist's like crazy.... Yep.. I'm glad we elected a "conservative" so he can stick to the con belief of "not policing the world".. hahaha. What ever happened to that argument anyways.?? Oh yea,, Ron Paul gets criticized by the Far Right for it.... Weird.....
2007-12-28 22:15:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Saying that this is not your question is so typical of liberals like Noam Chomsky in that they only teach what to think, not how to think...
2007-12-28 22:33:24 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋