If the Iraq war was all about oil, then why is gas still expensive?
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.
52107
First off, The entire iraqi war on terror was in part to protect the oils assets. Which means the Bush family fortune.\nYes it is a scam. Why else would oil commpany executives and CEOs be questioned and put ontrial and even scolded by our congress. They are making "Not billions" but Trillions of dollars off of common people while our government fabricates things to protect the oil assets. Are they truly in danger? Who knows.\nIts one huge cover up. Europe is used to paying 6 dollars per gallon. So we don't get any sympothy from them at all. They say quite your snivveling. but the truth is we are the ones getting scammed big time! is there anything we common folks can do about it, probably not or at least I am not sure.
1010324
I don’t see why it is so difficult for people to understand that entering Iraq had nothing to do with oil.  Just looking at the known oil reserves within the control of North America, then adding to that know deposits of shale oil, then adding to that the known deposits of sand oil in Canada, then looking at the known reserves of oil in South America, we have enough oil to exceed 200 years or more of demand.  We have enough coal reserves (which can be converted into a form of crude oil) to cover at least 200 years from that resource.  None of this takes into consideration oil developed from renewable biomass, or ethanol or hydrogen generated from renewable biomass or wind powered electrical generation.  The fact is the Americas do not need oil from other parts of the world for at least 500 years.\n\nIn addition, oil from Iraq to the United States was very small if any at all prior to the war, and there is none now coming from Iraq and none required after the war.
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.
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.
281817
US doesnt' want to steal iraq's oil.  it needs to control the world trade in oil.  basially require all oil-producing countries to market their oil in dollars, effectively making american paper money redeemable in oil.\n\ncompliant arab regimes also re-invest hundreds of billions of dollars of oil profits in the united states.  if they're allowed to start selling oil in Euros they will invest their profits somewhere else and the US economy will suffer tremendously\n\nthat's why bush went to war with all these countries.  to maintain america's control over the oil trade.
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.
164321
the government is so stuipid. it went to Iraq to rob oil, but each barrel of petrol cost 3 times its price just to steal it;)\nI wonder when will US stop wars. or at least to stop washing our brains that we have a great future. \ni think we get that amount when the currency falls .when  you can buy one coca cola for 1000$
949639
If pols could control gas prices, it would always be cheap.\nIf oil cos could control prices it would always be expensive.\nWhat can we conclude from this?
664209
There is an oil dimension but not the simplistic one that most people trott out.\n\n1) The U.S has no need of Iraqi oil. It actually has no dependance on any middle eastern oil supply for its own domestic needs.\n\n2) The main recipients of Iraqi oil have been and continue to be France, Germany, and Russia.\n\n3) The stability of global oil supply is vital for the continuance of our society. Everything you eat, wear, work at, use or enjoy depends on oil, and the price of oil. If you listen to some people they would tell you that its about putting gas in your SUV and 50 cents less per gallon, but its not. A minor raise in the global oil price, caused by some kind of mad fundamentalism could melt our society down faster than a horror novel.\n\nThe U.S has enough strategic reserve and alternative supply to ride it out, but oddly its the anti american countries like Germany and France who would suffer the most if the U.S didnt act as the worlds policeman.
1147879
Basically it comes down to supply and demand.  There is increasing demand for oil (mostly from developing countries like China and India, but demand in the US is increasing also).  OPEC is already producing near its capacity, coupled with no relatively new oil refineries having been built, this causes the an increasing demand against a slower (negligible) increase in supply of the refined oil used for gasoline.   Hurricane Katrina knocked out some production capacity which is still not completely up and running.  Also there are other less significant reasons such as the changing of fuel additives from mtbe to ethanol (this has been done for environmental reasons).  To put a few non-truths to bed...  The oil companies were NOT found to be doing any price gouging (illegally increasing prices beyond unreasonable economic fundamentals).  Second, everyone wants to blame President Bush for increasing prices when in fact he no longer has any personal investments in oil companies(he did this specifically to discredit these accusation most likely); in fact President Bush has probably more to lose from high oil prices than any other single individual alive.  He wants a strong economy, with little inflation and needs that help for party elections this fall.  If you want a specific group of people to blame, you should look at commodity traders themselves, they are the ones who control the international price changes from day to day and are the ones who fear supply disruptions (such as the one that occured in Africa, threats from Iran and Venezuela recently) and terrorists act which affect the flow of oil (the so called terror premium).
596294
I don't believe this war was about oil--- we get most of our oil from other sources--- I believe it was about strategic positioning of our allies (in other words, we want access to the land and won't get it unless a friendly government is in power). We basically want to set up military bases somewhere in the Middle East, and what better way to do it than to "liberate" Iraq!  And the African nations do not have any similar resource--- oil, land, political allegiances, natural resources--- that we can use to our advantage, so we don't get involved. Pretty sad, considering the horrible genocides going on in some countries.\n\nAnd to the poster who said that all Africans have AIDS and why attack them when they'll die off on their own... that's just one of the ugliest things I have ever heard. And there was no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and there's no WMD either... not sure how you are getting your facts...
519292
It would be stupid if it was. But since when are wars smart?\n\nThere are so many alternatives to oil now. If a country went to war for oil, it would only be because it's leaders had some stake in the oil business themselves. And they would have had to scam their public into thinking it was for some other reason. A reason like national security, WMDs or some other nonesense.\n\nHmmmm, sounds familiar
925641
Yes it was. The US economy is built around oil but more importantly the US economy operates using the so called petro dollar. The Oil industry is the only thing that gives any strength to what in reality is a weak dollar. Now Iraq has one of the top five oil reserves in the world. Everything was going fine until Saddam began to sell his oil in Euros and not dollars. This was a huge threat to the US economy. This was the tipping point on whether Iraq would be invaded or not. When oil was being sold in Euros that essentially made it more expensive for the US to buy and thus threatened the economy. Britain was OK because it gets more Euros for the pound but as 1 dollar is worth less than 1 Euro oil became more expensive for America.\n\nThe excuse was then formulated that there was a threat from Saddam. Yes there was a threat... to the US economy but no physical threat. The threat was economic but in a capitalist world you simply have to live with that. Unfortunately the US backed by Britain (because the UK economy is reliant to an extent on the US economy) changed the rules and married war with capitalism.\n\nIf the war wasn't about oil why have the US not invaded N. Korea when they actually do possess and have tested the WMDs that Saddam supposedly possessed... the amswer is simple. There is no oil there.
1039232
iraq was invaded for its gas...fuel
369352
Answer to Question one:  There is strife in Nigeria and Iraq driving gas prices up.  There is also a potential nuclear war brewing between the US and Iran, the forth largest producer.  For some insane reason, the fact that oil prices are skyrocketing isn't causing the powers that be to think twice about causing another war.  Finally, China and India are growing in economic capacity and need oil to build their economies.  \n\nAnswer 2:  Because the insurgents are attacking the oil infrastructure in Iraq and that's Imperialism.  I guess the US could exact tribute from Iraq, but were they to do that, the country would have a revolution within a few minutes and then they wouldn't sell any oil to the US.
389844
The Bush family has made all there money for years of of oil and dirty deeds. If you research it you will find there was a deal with Sadam about a pipe line to be built, And when he refused we went to war!! These oil companies are making record profits!!! No one is doing anything to stop them. And oil is part of the reason we are at war, to control more oil!!