How many Britons are in support of Iraq war- how many thought it was for oil?
961484
At the time of the war it was about 50/50 - but that was when the corporate media spoon fed us all the lies.\n\nSince then we have found out it was an illegal war, based on lies in order to gain power, get oil and make money.  It feels a little like I have taken the 'red pill' recently - having basically discovered how skewed the media are, and that we are fed a load of propaganda - I really don't like it. More people are waking up to this fact, fortunately - so with any luck and a lot of hard work, we might stamp out our corrupt leaders.\n\nMost people here want the troops out now.  The troops themselves also want to get out - according to a few reports anyways, including some top ranking guy (source - some paper a months or so ago.)\n\npeace.
1017953
I'm a former Marine too. Semper Fi.\n\nTo answer your question I don't think there's anyone who doesn't honestly support our troops. What they don't support is the Bu11sh!t war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even your average Joe knows that 15 of the 19 Sept 11th hijackers were from Saudi. So why aren't we "liberating" Saudi from all of that oil?\n\nJoking aside. Not everyone is going to support the war, and it's a logical fallacy to suggest as the Conservatives have that one cannot support the troops and NOT support the president's war on Iraq at the same time. It's all or nothing with these folks. To support the troops one must support the war, that's the warmongering ideology. They allow no room for dissent.\n\nWell, obviously anyone can put 100% support behind the troops and not support our illegal war in Iraq. In fact it's my opinion that not requesting Congress to end our involvement in Iraq and bring our boys home sooner than later is a disservice to our men and women in uniform. But that's just my opinion.\n\n__________\n\nAfter reading the neocon's answer at the bottom (the guy who stupidly and typically quoted Fox News - Please!), I felt that I needed to provide a few details he conveniently neglected to share.\n\nAbsolutely NO weapons of Mass destruction have been recovered from Iraq. What has been found, however, are the *remains* of weapons programs that existed pre-first gulf war. \n\nI would also like to point out that Chemical and Bio weapons have a maximum shelf-life of (drum roll) TWO WEEKS. 15 years is a lot longer than TWO WEEKS.
838066
Very good question. If the war HAD been about oil, we would have.
1144805
As simple as it sounds, this seems to be a loaded question because it could be interpreted in several different ways.   \n\nIf the question was, "Do you support our troops in Iraq?", my answer would be; absolutely, yes. If the question was "Would you have supported our war in Iraq before it was begun?", my answer would have to be no.  If the question was, "Do you support funding wars with taxpayer's money in which the primary mission is either to  A. oust a dictator  or  B. spread democracy?", I would feel pressed to say no.  There are homeland concerns that, I feel, need to be addressed first before we open ourselves to this type of international involvement.\n\nI support handing the situation in Iraq over to the newly formed government, so that we may consider there to be an END to our war in Iraq.
83125
First off, for those that answered, we are NOT in Iraq for oil. Our main oil supply comes from Canada. North America(including our own country) supplies almost THREE TIMES the amount of oil we get from the Middle East. If we were in it for oil, we would have invaded Canada long ago, and it would have been an easy fight(no offense to Canadians). It is well known(to those who dont ignore it) that Iraq harbors, even promotes, terrorism toward other nations. Well, it used to, before Good ol' Dubya handled it. So get some facts before you force your unfounded statements on everyone.\n\nAnd to answer the question, no, the war in Iraq is not over. It will not be until the job is done. If we had an immediate withdrawl, as many liberals want, Iraq would become a refuge, a hive, of terrorists, greatly increasing the chance of another attack against the U.S. We are trying to make peace, because you cannot keep it if there is none to begin with. If liberals really try hard and look into the future, then they will see that its for the better, but i highly doubt that their highly biased minds will consider that.
111132
What makes you think they would want to help to capture a man the american public seem to have forgotten about in favour of supporting Bush's oil campaign? Feel free to e-mail me your response\n\nI don't regard that as adequate motivation. What nationality are you(if you don't mind me asking)?
1136263
It is only 29% of the people in America that still support him and most of the reason is because of the war in Iraq. Most people are waking up to the fact that there was no weapons of mass destruction, that it isn't about freedom for the Iraqi people and it was probably more about the price of oil. \n   I think that the 29% that still support him must be the more mentally deficient of the population of the United States. They just do not want to believe that they elected and reelected a crook.
847009
How about Bush and Blair for the over 600,000 Iraqis that have died sine this war started?
589451
i completely agree.We should be helping our own countries first.They dont appreciate it in Iraq anyway.We have too many homeless on the streets,abused children and drug addicts that need our attention a lot more.And whilst we are in Iraq we are getting all their refugees and asylum seekers over here.Which if they really are in desperate and appreciative i would give my support, but majority come here take our jobs,get more in support and money,more then the homeless of this country already,and what really adds the cream,protest how Britain is going to hell and how we should be killed and tortured!!!In our own country,and thesae people come to us for refuge!!!!We are all too quick to sort out the countries around us but avoid the issues at home.
541398
I support the war because I support freedom and democracy. If the U.S. were to initially retreat from Iraq now, chaos will inevitable consume everyone in a global standard. \n\nBecause terorists are a large group of people who seek to kill those who do not believe in their faith, something should be done NOW instead LATER. Who knows, we could have all faced something worse on 9/11. Unless people want their own bus stops to be bombed, then we should all support the war efforts.\n\nOne last thing; people can support the war but not the government or the president. Though I am a Bush-supporter; this does NOT mean that liberals have to like Bush or accord with him if they support the War on Terror.
1048535
The Iraq war was a farce. Big oil is the answer!
860277
Do not you get it? It is an oil war! The west wanted to control the middle east to control the OIL , manipulate the prices (the price of a barrel has tripled since the war with no clear reason) so it becomes difficult for China to get the energy they need to compete with US. \nThe British media and American media are nothing but a few millionaires who run the show. Most of the British reads "The SUN", "THE MIRROR", "DAILY MAIL"...more than 10 millions read this newspapers everyday with an average IQ of 2! the respectable newspapers like "the independent", "the Guardian"...are read by few hundred thousands..the majority of the Americans do not read newspapers or watch news...\nThe so called western democracy is a BIG lie, there is no difference between BUSH and Saddam (BOTH THUGS) no difference between the prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghreib and those in the time of Saddam. The western media just publish what big guys want. Do not forget the Jewish Lobby who got a hand in each western newspaper (the sun, daily mail...)\n\nI stopped watching British and American news. Try Euronews, DW (German in English) you get the whole facts!
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.
18449
A majority of Americans now feel that there is no exit strategy for the Iraq war.  Many Americans, politicians and leaders felt that going to war, based on the facts at the time, was appropriate.  In retrospect, we realize we were wrong. Way wrong.  And lied to.
857077
Securing a long term stable supply of Oil is the ultimate motive for the US's involvement in Iraq.\n\nOne of the biggest challenges facing the developed world in the next three decades is supply of energy. Oil is the blood of the economy - when the price per barrel of oil moves - so too does inflation, government policy, and ultimately the growth of nations.\n\nthink about this.. The US removing Iraq's dictator and being involved in the rebuilding both politically and physically of the new Iraq puts the Bush administration in a position where they can ensure they have links to the Iraqi government at a high level. This in turn takes much of the political risk out of the oil supply from this oil rich nation.\n\nIt also doesnt hurt that American contractors were guaranteed 95% of the rebuilding that is underway and will be underway in the next decade in Iraq.\n\nIraq, Afghanistan and East Timor are all cash cows for oil - much to the detriment of the local populations.\n\nWhat about Tibet, Burma (Myanmar), some of the war torn African nations... no one cares - they dont have any oil...\n\nIf you enjoy the Western lifestyle offered in the US, England and Australia your best bet is to support the securing of oil or who knows what the next 30 years will bring.
598452
Been out of the industry for a little while now so cant give you precise figures, but what I can tell you is that North Sea crude is pretty much specialised and is virtually all exported.\n\nThe UK exchequer sells our crude for more than we pay to import generally.\n\nIt is not the type of crude which lends itself to petrol production either.\n\nIt was also pretty badly drilled at the time which means that whilst there is actually quite a lot left, most of it will be to difficult and expensive to be extracted, so the supply is diminishing quickly.
757890
You seem to be suffering from an unfortunate case of naievity. The war in Iraq was and remains an conflict to gain oil and distract public opinion from home problems. I'm an ex-British infantry officer (Afghanistan veteran) and I now work in the Oil industry so I'm fairly confident of my sources. The US (and incidentally us brits) went into Iraq in order to corner one of the largest oil reserves in the world and open it up for exploitation by their (and their political allies) coorporations and multinationals. If you look at the companies making billions out of the restructuring of the region and more importantly those who stand to make billions from their share in the now non-embargoed oil you will not find any French or German owned or based companies. You will however find companies who fund the election campaigns of the majority of the US Senate and pay huge ammounts of taxes to the British government. \n\nSchroeder and Chirac may have scored political points with the masses temporarily, but in the long run their disastorous right-wing policies on unemployment and immigration respectively will ensure they remain as negatively memorable as Bush and possibly Blair.\n\nFurthermore, what you call, the carnage in Iraq was not unimaginable four years ago. Senior Britsh military and independent analysts predicted that Iraq would turn into a bloody policing action in a similar manner to the explosion of violence in Northern Ireland in the 1950s. They were mocked in the newspapers when immediatedly after the 'liberation' there were no mass reprisals. Any occupying force in history, whether benign or not, has inevitably become the scapegoat for all local problems and has then been attacked, at the very least in the popular press and at the worst in the form of terrorism and or an armed uprising. International examples of this include Aden, Sierra Leone, Vietnam, etc.\n\nFinally the Iraqi's are not better off than they were before. However a basic understanding of the power dynamic in the Arab world and the disparate collection of races Iraq is made up of shows that widespread conflict in Iraq was inevitable. If and when Saddam died in power the same Sunni, Shiite, Criminal or potential Dictators would have formed their own cliques and siezed or recruited whatever weapons and branches of military they could and resumed the infighting. The proof of this is that this has occurred every time there has been a transition of power in Iraq since they deposed of their King just prior to World War 2.\n\nWars are never fought for the reasons claimed before or decided after the event.