Is it justified to attack country for oil?
154000
uh... WHAT OIL would that be, Sparky? Liberals keep whining about it but no one can ever seem to answer the question as to WHERE *EXACTLY* THAT STOLEN OIL IS LOCATED.\n\nJust a guess, but I suspect that the question WON'T get answered here either... Go figure.
680040
The answer to your question has many if's and but's. \n\nThe U.S. would not go to war simply over the price of oil. It would go to war provided that it has a reason other than the price of oil. \n\nIt might go to war if Iran or Nokor pushes through with Uranium enriching in their Nuclear programs.\n\nIf in case oil reaches the $ 100 mark to a barrel. I guess Americans would have to do away with their gas guzzling SUVs. \n\nDevelopment of alternative sources of fuel would be accelerated. \n\nThe prices of commodities would increase.\n\nThe U.S. might consider the use of more nuclear power plants.\n\nThe U.S. would be forced to find alternative means to support its energy program.\n\nAnd so on and so forth.
373722
PROOF - WAR ON IRAQ IS FOR OIL\n\nBush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.\n\n      "President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains\n      a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets\n      from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to\n      the US 'military intervention' is necessary."[1] \n\nThe decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war.\n\nThe only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war, and the invasion hasn't even started yet!\n\n      "Profits in the fourth quarter soared 50% to $4.09bn (£2.5bn),\n      beating analyst expectations."[2] \n\nWar-time propaganda tells you what you want to hear; that your politicians have noble motives for the war on Iraq.
841269
I suggest reading 'armed madhouse' by greg palast. In this book he makes the arguement (with footnotes) that the reason we went into Iraq is for the oil. But not to take the oil. No ... we want to keep the oil in Iraq. You see economic supply and demand would dictate that if the second largest oil producing nation was bogged down by an occupation then prices would soar. Hmmmm and how have the oil companies been fairing since the invasion???? Who's side do you think this honest patriot is on?? http://blogs.it/0100206/stories/2004/03/15/houseOfBushHouseOfSaud.html
346144
Of course.  Goodness, we have plans for invading Canada!  We have plans for invading every country in the world, as does China, Russia, etc., if they're smart.\n\nContingency plans are part of being prepared for every way things might change.  Careless leaders wait until the emergency happens.\n\nThis is why I find the whole, "President Bush had plans to invade Iraq" argument so silly.  President Clinton had plans to invade Iraq.  So did Ford, Carter, Reagen, Nixon, etc.  Like I said.  Silly to try to "blame" President Bush for something so obviously a necessary part of government.\n\nWe won't do it.  We will not invade a nation that is sovereign.  We invaded Iraq because we had a cease-fire with them after they attacked us while we were defending Kuwait.  Iraq agreed to certain terms for the cease-fire, and after a decade, they kept breaking their agreement; we invaded.\n\nBut we don't invade sovereign nations.  Iran will have to do something stupid.  We might even encourage them: "Go ahead and hit me, feel free!"\n\nIsrael is a natural source of a pre-emptive attack.  We'll see.
912851
because there is more than one reason to control the oil.  Oil is the money that extremists use to wage war.  The govt cant say its about oil because people cant get past the thought that we did it just to profit.  How about we did it to stop the people that want us dead from their gaining profit.  The only way to keep people at bay is to attack their money.  the same people that say we are waging war to take oil also say these terrorists cant do anything because they are savages living in caves.  maybe so now but anybody can gain technology when there are people who are willing to sell their technology at a price.  and they definatly have the ability to buy it with no restrictions on their use of the most used commodity in the world.
363890
Its in north america.Not all that a popular country,but famous for invading other countries for oil.
1142813
Everyone wants the oil, but the question is who is going to get it. Gas in the States is very cheap because we made a deal with the Saudis 60ish years ago. But with the growth of China oil demand is way up. So we needed another source of dependable cheap oil. \n\nI'm not saying that we went to war for oil, but some think it would be a nice reward for "saving" Iraq.
881664
Yes. Consider "oil supply" or "Oil reserves" if appropriate.\n\ncc
829627
We could attack them. We really don't need an excuse to go to war with them. We'll just make up lies. That always seems to work good for our government!
1135533
no war can ever really be justified ,unless youre invaded and have to defend yourself.\nbut this does not deter politicians who can justify everything including ,genocide
838066
Very good question. If the war HAD been about oil, we would have.
878787
Yes. Period. \nWhy don't we attack North Korea? Because they don't have it? Why don't we overthrow Kuwait's emir, and install democracy? because they have oil.
70596
Society and the economy demand a steady supply of oil.  I know on no one who has pulled the main circuit breaker of their home or thrown away the keys to their car(s), especially gas guzzlers whether they are liberal or conservative.  It is our problem.  Whoever owns the oil should profit by its sale, but oil need not become a geopolitical football.\n\nThe real question is whether oil will be used to fuel the world or to fuel terrorism.  The fuel problem is only temporary.  We need to capture perhaps 1% of 1% of the sun's solar energy to meet all our needs.  Technology is rapidly improving.  Soon there will be available relatively cheap plastic foil photovoltaic cells to convert solar energy to electrical energy.  The technology already exists.  The roofs of most buildings will be covered with them.  Then we will still need a little oil to lubricate our bikes and hedge clippers.  The problem is to obtain and maintain world peace until then.  And that may be a decade or two.
1085223
It is in our national interest (because of the geographical size of our country) to either increase the available supply of petroleum or develop alternative fuel sources. The former may only be a temporary solution, but the latter will take time and resources and may invite retaliation in the form of extremely high petroleum prices while we attempt to retool our energy using and producing systems.
1122392
Might be time for a reality check, huh? They don't hate the troops, just the policies leading to the war for oil.
1079169
The realities of the oil crunch and energy-hungry nations have forced many countries into a potential global conflict. We can't back away from it but we could limit it by producing alternative sources of power. While the US sanctions the war in Iraq (as a source of black gold),it condemns China for seeking the same in African countries...by peaceful means! The American government has been led by wealth over many years,and the current administration is not an exception. Perhaps we should require a different document....not of independence but a curriculum vitae of elected officials as well as proof of their financial dealings.