Explain how the war is "for oil".

GO.

8/1/2006 3:12:07 AM

I DEMAND THAT YOU EXPLAIN HOW THE WAR IS FOR OIL!

BY DISCREDITING THE PEOPLE WHO SAY THE WAR IS FOR OIL, I WILL BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY THE WAR!!!

8/1/2006 3:43:50 AM

Assuming you are talking about the Iraq war, there are two reasons commonly made justifying it. The first is to quell the threat of global terrorism responsible for 9/11. If we were serious about elimintating terrorism and bringing justice, why don't we go after Saudi Arabia since this is where Osama Bin Laden and 14 of the 19 hijackers are from? The other reason is for humanitarian reasons because Saddam committed genocide on his own people. If were are serious about preventing and punishing genocide, why then are we not intervening in the Darfur confilict were genocide has been taking place during the Iraq War? The answer to these questions are the our government is more interested in creating stable partners in the Middle East more than enforcing humanitarian rights or combating terrorism.

8/1/2006 4:25:07 AM

Quote :

"If we were serious about elimintating terrorism and bringing justice, why don't we go after Saudi Arabia since this is where Osama Bin Laden and 14 of the 19 hijackers are from?"

Just shooting from the hip here since I know nothing on the subject... Maybe because the terrorists aren't there? Let's say there is a group of terrorists that are all citizens of America. They later move up to Canada to hide out and form their plans. Which would you go after 1) America, because they are American citizens or 2) Canada because that's where their base of operations is.

Again, I don't keep up with all the who did what where details, I'm just saying.

Quote :

"The other reason is for humanitarian reasons because Saddam committed genocide on his own people. If were are serious about preventing and punishing genocide, why then are we not intervening in the Darfur confilict were genocide has been taking place during the Iraq War?"

Well Saddam gassed the Kurds what, almost 20 years ago. Maybe we'll bring the Darfur criminals to justice 20 years from now

Quote :

"The answer to these questions are the our government is more interested in creating stable partners in the Middle East more than enforcing humanitarian rights or combating terrorism."

Yeah, that's probably the sad truth of it.

[Edited on August 1, 2006 at 7:35 AM. Reason : -]

8/1/2006 7:35:09 AM

not a lot of explanations

bttt

8/1/2006 2:55:48 PM

That's because no serious person is going to make a "no war for oil" argument.

Fry: Would you please explain why all conservatives hate black people? And why do they want to kill poor people?

8/1/2006 3:06:27 PM

Quote :

"And why do they want to kill poor people?"

Depends on which poor. Poor recent immigrants are often good freedom loving up-and-coming citizens, native poor tend to be socialists hell bent on taking away all our rights.

8/1/2006 4:07:49 PM

Quote :

"Fry: Would you please explain why all conservatives hate black people? And why do they want to kill poor people?"

I hope to god that's not a serious question. Generally I can tolerate liberals because they're well-meaning albeit misguided (IMHO). But when you devolve into absolutely idiotic levels of straw-man arguments like this, it bothers me to no end.

8/1/2006 4:44:47 PM

boonedocks : i've heard a lot of people say the war is for oil. so i want to hear some explanations. i'm curious. and your questions may rank with the dumbest i've ever seen on this website.

8/1/2006 6:59:50 PM

They were serious questions that demand serious answers only, prz.

8/1/2006 11:44:21 PM

I especially like this one:


MARXISTS OF THE WORLD, UNITE AGAINST BUSH THE CAPITALIST DOG!

8/1/2006 11:46:22 PM

Maybe it should be "War for Oil Companies" haven't they been making record profits recently?

8/1/2006 11:48:21 PM

Quote :

"Poor recent immigrants are often good freedom loving up-and-coming citizens, native poor tend to be socialists hell bent on taking away all our rights."

Actually, I'd say both sides tend to drift towards the left like that. Look at Mexico and Latin America these days. Of course, these are illegal immigrants, so they really shouldnt matter anyway, since they shouldnt be in here so easily.

^tell me genius, IF WE CONTROLLED THE OIL SUPPLY W/ THIS WAR, THEN HOW ARE THE PRICES SO HIGH? IS IT BECAUSE BUSH AND THE CAPITALIST AGRESSORS HATE THE POOR? IT MUST BE!

[Edited on August 1, 2006 at 11:50 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2006 11:49:08 PM

The funny part about this is the GOP rebuttal to the nearly non-existant "no blood for oil" argument.

Quote :

"IF WE WENT TO WAR FOR OIL, THEN HOW ARE THE PRICES SO HIGH?"

As if Bush would've been able to do something right over there.

It's like if I asked "if we went to war to create a free and stable Iraq, then why is it plunging into civil war?"

The obvious answer is that of course a free and stable Iraq was part of Bush's rational for war. It's just that he fucks up anything he touches.

8/2/2006 12:24:45 AM

"Well see, it all started back when W. thought he was going to get wealthy by drilling oil in Bahrain. Before he could find out how much oil he was going to get, Iraq started getting pissed at Kuwait for drilling Iraq's oil underneath their shared border. As President, there was a lot that W's father could do to protect his investment from oil-hungry dictators who seem to pool in that region; so little George got a belated Christmas present in early 1991.

Unfortunately, well after the American public found a new television program to watch (night vision air raids don't have a long shelf life) and forced the Pentagon's hand out of Iraq, the oil reserves in Bahrain proved to be as dry as 90% of the surface of that part of the world. Naturally, this pissed off the little Connectican. He'd had enough of trying to find his own oil, and wanted a plan to go steal someone elses.

The rest, as they say, is history..."

There. Are you happy now that you have a recognizable effigy to flame?

---

Does anyone else find it bizarre that higher gas prices are the evidence that oil companies couldn't have been the motivating actors? The last time I checked, monopolies don't go around reducing the prices of limited resources that they gain control over. That's simply not how a free market operates.

[Edited on August 2, 2006 at 1:07 AM. Reason : ...]

8/2/2006 12:54:33 AM

other than speculation, does anyone have any proof to back up the theory of W going to war for oil companies, or oil in general?

8/2/2006 1:27:49 AM

moveon.org said so.

8/2/2006 1:31:07 AM

haha. there's some credible hardcore evidence. you should be a C.S.I. boonedocks

8/2/2006 1:32:49 AM

while boonedocks might be more moderate than the typical liberal (so he insists, and ill trust him), sad most of the left has latched on to moveon, howard dean, the anti-war movement, and cindy sheehan as figureheads who push the "war for oil" mantra.

8/2/2006 1:37:48 AM

You know, when you let Fox News and Limbaugh define "liberal" for you, you're bound to develop some misconceptions about them as a whole.

Such as the "no blood for oil" thing.

8/2/2006 1:47:19 AM

you know, i actually dont watch much of the pundits these days, but whatever you say. what i always see in the news is this side of the liberals. maybe the ap should stop covering these groups so much and saying that theyre "voices of the left"?

8/2/2006 2:13:51 AM

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but w/e.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/cabinet.asp

Quote :

"Bush himself is a former Texas oilman. His company, Arbusto, was on the verge of bankruptcy when it merged with Spectrum 7 in 1984. Harken Energy bought Spectrum in 1986, and Bush was given a seat on Harken's board. He went on to become managing general partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team before entering politics. Vice President Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, the world's largest oil field services company, until he joined the Bush ticket in 2000. Halliburton's activities in the Middle East have drawn scrutiny. The company's European subsidiaries sold spare parts to Iraq's oil industry, despite U.N. sanctions. Halliburton and its subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root have reaped huge profits from the rebuilding of Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion of the country in 2003. Critics charge that Halliburton has received preferential treatment in the awarding of government contracts in Iraq. The company also has faced trouble at home. It agreed to pay $4 billion to settle myriad asbestos and silica-related lawsuits, and is facing a class-action suit alleging accounting fraud."

And...

http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/cabinet/cabinet.rice.asp

With these people in office we then invaded the country with oil reserves only second to Saudi Arabia. One of the first things the US did when it went into Iraq was to secure the oil fields. This was a war for oil, but not for us. For corporations. Oil companies are now making record profits. You may say thats capitalism but how is it capitalism when our taxes are going to fund a war that enables them to make said profits. Not to metion that the government is giving the energy companies billions of subsidies. We the people are getting screwed, at both ends.

8/2/2006 9:17:23 AM

^salis???

8/2/2006 9:30:09 AM