USA established diplomatic realtion with Libya. Is this fluenced by the current upsurge in oil prices?
487646
no i dont think so ,i think it is amessage to other countries , which means 2 be with us or against us
480104
It is already happening.  It's not a shooting war but an economic one centering on oil.  All the more reason the US needs to wake up and devlop alternate, domestically based energy sources.
638781
It was another contrived oil shortage like we are in now. The countrys in the middle east got together and stopped production. That shut this country down in three days. But what was not learned is that while their production is down they are making no money either. We could have waited them out and they would never try it again. This oil shortage is differant as they are releasing just enough oil to keep us going and keep prices up.
118212
Not at present as;\n\nA) IRAQ will now provide much of the oil the USA wants, at a price it likes. Therefore it can afford some disruption to oil supplies from Saudia Arabia - it won't cause panic buying in the US.\n\nB) The are easier targets which, if invaded/attacked, will restore US confidence in its armed forces and help get a Republican re-elected to the White House.\n\nNope - no attack on IRAN in the near future.
457866
The price of gas is going up due to the increase in price of oil (from which gas is refined) in the world markets.\n\nIt is not a question of supply and demand. There is as much oil being produced and consumed last week as this week. It is just that the stock and commodity markets (mainly in New York) control prices and push the prices up for their profit.\n\nThese commodity market types rely on politicians like George W and Cheney to use violent language. They will then jump on the bandwagon by bidding prices higher.
645427
We are importing about half of what we use now. If you would like to choose which half of our nation cannot use oil, then we could quit importing.\n\nIt isn't a matter of how much oil is in the ground. We can't produce it fast enough, or refine it fast enough to more than marginally outpace demand.
409202
no, the more we war with the middle east, the higher prices are gonna go. south america is laughing because they arent gonna sell to us either. we are alienating ourselves. by this, we'll choke off any oil contacts & grind our production, tranportation & economy to a halt. uk isnt gonna back us anymore, we lost any european alies with the last iraq campaign, the saudis have other customers & dont necesarilly need us & irael has always sabbotaged usa, obviously not our friend. we have 20 years of oil at best here at home. china & russia wont buddy up. who do we have left. we're wedging ourselves into a position of having to attack & steal. yeh, the global economy will change in the near future, for the worst.
611896
My hope is that the future will show that, yes, it is worth it.  Not only to the Iraqis, but also for the entire region as well as to us.  If we can build allies in the region, it stands to reason that it will benefit us in the future.  Libya has been taken off of the list of terrorist nations.  Freedom and Democracy can be contatious.  Kuwait is a great example.
165693
No, I thnk the US is behaving like the Roman Empire and I believe we will suffer the same fate Rome did in 456 A.D.\n\nThis war is a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.\nHas to be about oil - self aggrandizement, will-to-power, and money. I do not support Bush's Crusade. Never did.
290875
the US gets it's oil from  OPEC ( Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countires). This includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and many other middle eastern countires. \nSOme of the oil does come from the south ( texas for example). As to prices google it.
777787
yes and we sparked it when we invaded. perhaps an all out Arab cicil war is what our hidden adgenda really is so we can grab oil by the barrells full
251487
I do agree.  The presence of oil in the middle east has propped up medieval autocratic governments that would have otherwise fallen by the wayside.  The petro-dollars have given these government the means to basically bribe their populations without really serving them.  While some middle-easterners are ridiculously rich, the majority are in abject poverty (that is why Islamic radicalism is becoming so popular).  If you look, you will see that the radical Muslim movements are the most popular in the countries that are trying the hardest to restrict their people.
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.
148269
When you look at the progress made with Libya and Lebanon, then yes, some of them have definitely gotten the message.\n\nSince 9-11, there have been no major terrorist attacks on American soil.  Instead they've gone for easier targets in Europe and Iraq.  As to why that is, it's hard to say, but perhaps getting the message is part of it.
692121
Its a new form of colonisation i suppose. The more countries u get under the USA's influence, the more trade oppurtunities it brings to the US.\n\nEven when it comes to wars sponsored by the US, the weapons and equipment brings in money, not only to the economy but to the poilticiens as well.
961201
Well, the true reason is kind of multi-pronged.\n\nFirstly, it was for oil. However, not in the way that the "those evil war mongering republicans are all poopy heads" crowd seem to believe. Like it or not the US economy is highly dependant on foreign oil. The previous regime in Iraq first tried to take over Kuwait, a major producer that sits directly on the gulf. Additionally, that regime made it quite clear that they intended to use their influence on global oil markets in any way they could to harm western economies. Can you imagine a world where a single very anti-American dictator controls 70% of the worlds oil supply and chooses not to sell to us at any price but rather give China, a major rival, access to virtually unlimited supplies at cut rate prices?\n\nSecondly, it was about breaking up the web of state funded terrorism. Like it or not there are a large number of middle eastern fundamentalists who are actively working to wipe America off of the map. This is not some new phenomena that has taken place since we took action in Iraq. This has been brewing for decades. I know that it is an unpleasant realization to some, but America is at war and we did not start it nor did it begin with the invasion of Iraq nor with 9/11. Middle eastern fundamentalists declared war on the US more than a decade ago. Unfortunately, most Americans are too busy carrying on with their normal lives to realize this as a clear and present danger. One of the insidious attributes about international terrorism is that there is no single nation-state that the US can point to as the "enemy". This gives state sponsors of terrorism the luxury of calling the US an aggressive bully when we take action against them. Iraq was one of many enablers in the international terrorism network. There are others. It is my hope that America will not have to learn the hard way that it is better to deal with such threats early even though such actions may not appear politically correct rather than wait until a mushroom cloud erupts over Israel, the UK, or the Eastern coast of the US.
889904
It seems so. The USA with the blessings from Pope and the backing of the Zionist Jews has been raising almost a crusade and claims that it would last another 40 years. It seems that till the last Muslim is killed the UK/USA duo will not live in peace. Oil could be the immediate gain but the ultimate target is annihilation of the Islamic community. It is also written in the Quran that by 2011 the Islamic community may be finished. But we pray for peace and China will hit the last nail into the coffin!