|
|
Post by tits on Jul 25, 2005 16:39:00 GMT -8
come from?
I have read and heard many reports from the sources and none have made this connection.
HOWEVER...
Even on the BBC I hear "Bush-Bashers" make the claim that this is a war for oil.
Where did this falsehood get started and (if the BBs refuse to listen) how do we counter it?
|
|
|
|
Post by CommonSense on Jul 26, 2005 11:01:26 GMT -8
Well I know that the Persian Gulf War was also called a "war for oil" by lefties. Isn't that insane? A war to liberate a country from a foreign oppressor and all we wanted was oil! I doubt the ones who start these rumors actually believe themselves, but they certainly get people to believe them. So I suppose the left thought that they could use the same phrase in this new war against Saddam Hussein.
|
|
|
|
Post by americanpride on Jul 26, 2005 15:21:22 GMT -8
Well - if it is a war for oil, why is it demonized?
Oil is perhaps the most necessary national resource.
|
|
|
|
Post by CommonSense on Jul 26, 2005 15:41:40 GMT -8
Well - if it is a war for oil, why is it demonized? Oil is perhaps the most necessary national resource. I don't think people like the idea of putting soldiers in harm's way for something like oil. All the oil in the ME can't equal to one human life. |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Jul 26, 2005 17:06:07 GMT -8
Well - if it is a war for oil, why is it demonized? Oil is perhaps the most necessary national resource. Hey Chris....where did you get that tag line from? I like it  |
|
|
|
Post by oil on Jul 26, 2005 17:17:56 GMT -8
Common Sense, The first gulf war WAS over oil, if Saddam got control of kuwait we'd of been in trouble, and you can bet we'd be treating him as nicely as the Saudis.
|
|
|
|
Post by americanpride on Jul 26, 2005 19:02:10 GMT -8
Well - if it is a war for oil, why is it demonized? Oil is perhaps the most necessary national resource. Hey Chris....where did you get that tag line from? I like it I wrote it myself. |
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Jul 27, 2005 1:36:56 GMT -8
I believe oil played no small factor, but was definitly not the sole reason for going to war.
Of course this occupation should serve American interests well if we took some oil to lessen the burden of the taxpayer for this war, but once we do that the left will pounce and claim that the war was only for oil.
|
|
|
|
Post by Remey688 on Jul 27, 2005 7:30:39 GMT -8
Well - if it is a war for oil, why is it demonized? Oil is perhaps the most necessary national resource. I don't think people like the idea of putting soldiers in harm's way for something like oil. All the oil in the ME can't equal to one human life. The question is whether we have the right to defend our economy and way of life. If you think not I would suggest learning how to ride, feed and care for a horse, and use a rifle and side arm, set up a tent without electrocuting yourself like the Scoutmasters and finding fresh water in the wild. None of it is easy. Also gardening 101 would be approp, as is woodworking, and working with a wood or coal furnace for one's metallurgical needs. Most people in the US could start a fire without a grill or cigarette lighter and would be dead after that . . . |
|
|
|
Post by seascamp on Jul 27, 2005 17:30:25 GMT -8
As things unfold it may turn out that oil becomes a huge factor. If the 8th district Rep. has her way, those Iraqi oil fields and associated revenues will be in the hands of our sworn enemies in a flash and then we’ll be in for it, big time. The wolves just wait and salivate, mumbling ‘you go girl’.
Anybody remember the assertion about the suffering of the Iraqi children and that it was on the US because of the enforced UN sanctions? As I recall Sean Penn was beating those pots and pans. I guess Penn either didn’t get the UN shush-up word or he was rolling his own and had not clue about all that oil for food money going poof to places and pockets unknown.
Scamp
|
|
|
|
Post by toejam on Jul 28, 2005 2:11:19 GMT -8
come from? I have read and heard many reports from the sources and none have made this connection. HOWEVER... Even on the BBC I hear "Bush-Bashers" make the claim that this is a war for oil. Where did this falsehood get started and (if the BBs refuse to listen) how do we counter it? They said this about Vietnam and every conflict since then. It hasn't been true yet. |
|
|
|
Post by tits on Jul 28, 2005 11:37:30 GMT -8
a Walton or Kronke, if the Left would be claiming that Bush was in this war to establish a new Walmart Super Store or source for cheaper goods? I agree Mike, they have been saying that about everything since I can remember. The funny thing is that the Japanese did use the oil embargo as part of their impetus for pushing the West out of the Far East. I also agree that the oil resources of Iraq and the ME play an important role in every policy we have had in the ME. I challenge the Left to establish a candidate who would promote a “war type footing” to develop alternative fuel and transportation. The Easy ideas that the Left and my environmentalist friends promote are only appropriate for very specific geographic regions. Solar for the south west, wind for the coastal and tropics, but … Most cities similar to KC have no real mass transit and rely on buses. The majority of Americans see a personal car as a right and not a privilege. As such we spend billions on roadways, parking, and infrastructure and expect the government to make the problems of traffic congestion, air pollution, water pollution, and accidental deaths go away. Personally, I believe the ME will become a non issue to most of the West once we lose our dependence upon their only resource OIL. This is my gripe against the Left, they seem to be more concerned with casting blame rather than offering solutions.  |
|
|
|
Post by ReformedLiberal on Jul 28, 2005 11:55:40 GMT -8
I challenge the Left to establish a candidate who would promote a “war type footing” to develop alternative fuel and transportation. The Easy ideas that the Left and my environmentalist friends promote are only appropriate for very specific geographic regions. Solar for the south west, wind for the coastal and tropics, but … And the ones they promote as universal, like hydrogen and electric cars, only transfer emissions from the tailpipe to somewhere else. Electric cars increase the demand on power plants that burn gas, coal, oil, etc. So instead of coming out of a car's tailpipe, the pollutants come out of a stationary smokestack. Hydrogen fuel is currently created by stripping and releasing carbon atoms into the atmosphere. Hydrogen won't be environmentally friendly until we get it from water, releasing oxygen, and use less energy to get it than we get from it. |
|
