What evidence is there that we went to war for oil?
491113
There is none, if inflation had followed suit with everything else clothes, food, building supplies etc.It would be over 3 dollars a gallon.The problem is people actually give idiots like micheal moore and al fraken credibility, its uncanny!!!!They have both been proven to be liars.One of the biggest reasons gas prices increase is simply speculative theory!! we went to war for humanitarian reasons, those people want us there they were under dictatorship. clinton sent soliders into Bosnia in 98 and knowone had a problem with that, it was for humanitarian reasons or so we thought.The real problem a lot of people have with this is the time its taking but you cant put a time frame on something like this.
455302
Well mochita, I believe that we have a war on our hands. As we have painfully come to learn is that one of the greatest weapons to use in a war against an opposing country is to attack its economy, and further to destabilize the fabric of its society.\nThese concerns for international security are the prime motives for the war in Iraq.\nIf we may only try to remember that Iraq's, or rather Saddam Hussein's intentions when he decided to invade Kuwait was for the reason of controlling the export and price of oil through its seaports.\nAlso a main reason for Saddam's decision is Kuwaits geographical location from where Saddam intended to intercept any trade that would issue through this waterway, and I believe it is the mouth of the Red Sea; however, if I am in error please advise me.\nIn my opinion the crisis that our economy is causing for our country are tactics of multiplier effects.\nWe have to conserve our trade routes and partners and this has already cost us billions.\nAdd to that the loss of human life of our loved ones cannot be ignored.\nI could go on forever laying out the reasons for the cause of this war and why my approval of such a war; I however am a much older and more experienced person than many of our citizens and who has learned to try to see and not to only look.\nDo not become angry or spiteful because we are at war. Just try to keep up with as much reliable information that you can and thusly continue to learn under a good shade.  Jose
805960
Wow, I have been gone for months and you people are still around.\n\nThis war isn't for oil. If it was for oil we would have TAKEN OVER the country and called it America II.
537816
I am a liberal and have never used the "war for oil" argument. The argument I use is "war for riches". It made no difference who we attacked, as long as we attacked somebody. Halliburton is recording record profits, and Dick Cheney by extension. Bush's father is making a lot of money through the Carlyle Group, which owns United Defense Industries, United States Marine Repair, and EG&G Technical Services, all of which are turning heavy profits from this war.\n\nAs for the correlation between Bush and gas prices, I think his actions have a direct, although unintentional, effect of raising them. It's supply and demand. Before the war Iraq produced 3.5 million barrels of oil per day. Now they are producing 1.6 million. Oil prices spiked slightly when the administration talked about attacking Iran for the first time - fear speculation.\n\nThere are an equal number of sheeple on both sides of the aisle. Blindly following anyone is not patriotism, it's stupidity.
836491
Yes!!! Then they could finally prove that Bush did something wrong!!!! Funny how people blame the war on oil and yet refuse to let oil companies drill in Alaska!!! War for oil now that is hilarious!!
331997
You mean like going to war in the middle east or drilling for oil in Alaska?
1015526
There is no agreement on how much oil there is. Therefore, 'peak oil' is a meaningless concept.  Besides, the US media is only interested in attacking their political opponents.  They couldn't care less about facts.
821695
Your right he did admit it.....he says we can't leave the oil to the  terriorists. Well Mr.Bush it was their oil in the first place who are we to take from their country?!?!?! Not to mention Mr bush has stock in the oil people...yes he is lining his pocket with money that  he makes from the oil. Not a surprise this war is really about making money for all those jerks in the White House and their buddies. Maybe the rest of the people will open their eyes now to the truth!!! Then again the Bush followers ignore all the things he says to prove things like this. Strange people!!!
1177005
The war is obviously not about oil. The left only chooses to portray the war that way because they think they can more easily capture the attention and support of the American population as a whole using an easy-to-understand subject. By proclaiming to the people that the war is all about oil and backing their argument up with un-researched facts, the vast majority who cannot think for themselves are easily swayed (this of course, is why the vast majority of liberals cannot think for themselves). \n\nAnd of course, when an unpatriotic soldier says that the war MUST be about oil because the first thing the troops did was head for the oil fields, this soldier must be absolutely brainless. The soldier does not realize that, 1) the borders are completely covered in oil fields and the country could not have been invaded without passing through them at some point, and 2) this action was taken to prevent what happened last time (e.g. the oil fields being set on fire, causing a massive loss of oil and resulting in negative health effects in a wide area).\n\nAlso, the liberals need to take some time to sit down and think logically. Oil prices in the United States have been on a constant rise since before the war started. If the U.S.'s purpose in invading Iraq was to gain a monopoly on the oil market, then reserves would be greater and prices would be lower. Don't try to argue this fact with stupid liberal logic, the fact of the matter is, you're wrong and all of this is elementary.\n\nThe war, obviously, began as an attempt to strike back at terrorism and to secure the safety of the U.S. and its allies after the events of 9/11. Liberals can make biased, unintelligent statements such as "Saddam didn't crash the planes into the twin towers" or "The ones we are fighting are just citizens defending their country", but people who make such statements are completely wrong in several aspects. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the planners and executers of the attacks, had/have strong ties in Iraq. Saddam, although he may not have been directly involved, was guilty of harboring terrorists and committing acts of terrorism himself (mass murder to name one).\n\nAs a result of invading Iraq, many terrorist connections have been broken and leaders of terrorist organizations have been captured. This is fact, not biased speculation. Saddam's regime, which was guilty of many terrorism-based acts, has been eliminated for the most part, and Iraq's people are much safer. The remaining organized terrorism is still fighting, and the U.S. is fighting back hard. Many previously-deprived citizens of Iraq now have access to food, water, medicine, and transportation. Over 25 million people have literally been rescued by the noble actions of the United States, actions that perplexingly divide the opinions of the nation. Liberals need to realize that the war may be costly and that many of the reasons originally given for its initiation were unsupported by fact, but that more good has come out of the war than bad. Liberals whose beliefs are so heavily anchored in human rights and the greater good should have no problems accepting these facts, and should keep their fat mouths shut for once in history.\n\nNone of these opinions and facts discussed are biased, simply logical. I'm not asking liberals to become republicans, just to look logically at the war in general and to see which side really is biased and unsupported by fact. If you can't see the logic in the war, then just don't say anything at all, and stop trying to treat this war like another Vietnam.\n\nThe salvation of 25 million innocent people has been gained at the price of between 2 and 3 thousand lives of U.S. soldiers. Yes, their lives were important, but personally I think that's a really good deal. Think about it.
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.
590647
more us propoganda to justify there need 4 oil
764132
Yes of course it is. Since oil was discovered in the middle east we have been trying to get our hands on it. There is a reason these people hate us and it isnt for our freedoms or our religious beliefs, or their religous beliefs.  Especially not that oil is running out.
591014
Hey i couldn't agree more with you. Bush fought a war for oil because of his greed.
314188
Check your facts, and then find new sources for your information.\nOPEC determines oil prices.\nIn 1973 they did it creating our first 'gas crisis' in retaliation for our involvment in and equipping of Isreal for their war with Egypt.\nAs long as the liberal qwacks keep preventing drilling in Alaska, we'll have a shortage.\nUntil GAS COMPANIES and CAR MANUFACTURES stop preventing alternative fuel sources.\nAnd until idiots like you stop making up phony questions.
1097047
If it were a war for oil, wouldn't we be bringing all that oil over here?  It is, in fact, a completely oil-less war.  We've gotten no oil out of it.  If we had taken that oil - free oil - prices would be at an all-time low.\n\nAlso, for those that say it's a war for oil because Bush is an oil baron, the last thing an oil baron would do would be anything that increases supply.  That would make the price go down.  So, if Bush were an oil baron, the absolute last thing he would want would be a war for oil.  Simple supply and demand.\n\nThe truly twisted, tinfoil-hat crowd should be claiming that Bush went to war to PREVENT Iraqi oil from getting to the U.S., thus restricting supply.  So, maybe it would be a war FROM oil.  See, the crazy conspiracists can't even get their conspiracies right.
263132
No, but maintaining the security of the oil supply has been a priority for every administration since cars, trucks and planes became essential to our economy. It would be very foolish not to have this concern, or to allow hostile powers to control too much of the world's oil supply. \n\nThis sort of question is usually asked in reference to the allegation that the current war in Iraq is due to an intention by this administration to control oil. There are several things wrong with this theory. \n1. other countries have high interests in oil supply as well, but they are not involved in the war. For example: prior to this war, the primary customer for Iraqi oil was France. \n2. The US need for oil now is about the same as it has been for some time. This war would have occurred in the 1970s if oil is all it is about. \n3. Controlling oil is an exceptionally simplistic view of the reasons the war occurred. It paints the war in very negative terms having to do with money and greed and corporations, which are reasons much easier to attack than if the war is about more complex issues such as safety, democracy, international politics, etc... \n4. A much more likely reason for the war is that the entire middle east has significant problems which have been spilling out onto other parts of the world for many years. It took a major spillover like 9/11 to push the US to the point where they felt they had to do something.
571428
we don't have to go to war for oil. going to war drives oil prices up. i'm not even liberal.