Like with war, we and the government can attack a country over oil,

"Blood for Oil" is a phrase thrown around by anti-Americans and liberals all_the_time. As this is not the first time I've heard the term on the HR Wiki Forum, I have a proposition:

Anyone who believes in this nebulous "Blood for Oil" concept is hereby invited to explain what it means and

PROVE IT.

Note: To prove something, you must do more than post "Lolz bush is killinz peepz 4 oil lololol!"

Like with war, we and the government can attack a country over oil, and protest ourselves over attacking a country in the first place.

Okay, this is a side issue, but I totally object to you bandying the terms "anti-American" and "liberal" around here. There are a whole spectrum of people who believe that the war in Iraq was motivated by oil. It's their moral objection (whether it's justified or not), and in no way does it need to be driven by anti-Americanism or liberalism.

And where does liberalism come into it, anyway?

It means that we invade harmless countries just to get cheap oil.

Prove it? Umm, Iraq. We Invaded them, we went to war for one reason, and fought for another, although I wouldn't call it war, maybe conquest fits. But we went there hoping to get rid of a middleman by taking over their oilfields.

Anyone who believes in this nebulous "Blood for Oil" concept is hereby invited to explain what it means and

PROVE IT.

I love it when people say we went into Iraq to get their oil. If this is true, why are gas prices as high as they are?

The easy response is to look at the record profits for the oil companies. Blood for Oil doesn't mean blood so we have lower gas prices, but that through wars the oil economy is rigged for higher oil company profits. But still, that's just a convenient coincidence and there's no proof that was really the reason for the war.

That's a good point... though oil companies can also get huge profits by upping their prices a few cents per gallon.

see, the only reason Bush invaded Iraq is to finish what his father started.

In a foreign policy move that would later be questioned, President Bush achieved his stated objectives of liberating Kuwait and forcing Iraqi withdrawal, then ordered a cessation of combat operations —allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power. His Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney noted that invading the country would get the United States "bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." Bush later explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq".

In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, President Bush said, "Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

"Blood for Oil" is a phrase thrown around by anti-Americans and liberals all_the_time.

Lahi seems to have started this thread in reaction to something Cola said on another thread, in which he expressed his opinion that the war was entirely on account of oil.

Exactly, im an Inside Joke.

saying that COLA isn't "smart enough" sounds a little close to Dr. Lurve-speak to me.

I never said oil had NO effect on the war. Only that it does not seem to be the primary motive behind it. After all, it's not like we're ruling Iraq and are yanking all their resources out from under them.

More Iraqies are being killed now then when Saddam was in charge.

What about the genocide committed by Saddam's sons? Did they factor that into the equation?

Not to mention the fact that 99% of the deaths in Iraq over the past three\4 years have been Iraqis killing Iraqis or Americans killing insurgents.

Far different from mass executions of "political enemies" under Saddam. Or the attempted extermination of the Kurds.

Learn the history of oil in the United States, Saudi Arabia and our economie's dependence on Middle East oil.

Not only is our economy dependent on oil, many politicians and businessmen make billions of dollars off of it.

Seriously... the history of oil is not that old, and is all recorded in books. It's not a big mystery.

Most people prefer to say that we're in Iraq to fight terrorism instead of for oil, because that way it's easier to drive your gas guzzling SUV to the corner market and not feel guilty.

Besides... if the war was on terror, we'd be in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

Some great (cheap) books I'd recommend:

House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Under
The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money
Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude by Robert Baer (Ex-CIA agent)

Look at how people were suprised at the corruption and greed of Enron. Sorry folks... it seems most people are blinded by geed these days. From the Bushs, Rumsfields and Cheneys (who profit like mad haters) to the wealthy oil executives (who lavish themselves with exuberant profits). It's about world domination and greed.

Some great (cheap) books I'd recommend:

House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Under
The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money
Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude by Robert Baer (Ex-CIA agent)

For some reason, those books don't sound too objective..

I still can't believe that people actually think the Iraq war is about oil. If it were, we would have been in there in January of 2001 (well technically, that's not true, Sr would have never pulled US troops out of there in the first place).

Based on your quote about Bush's intelligence (the thing about being smarter than the president meaning that one can read), I ask which is more likely:
1:The war in Iraq is a poorly planned, poorly executed attempt at bringing democracy to a facist regime.
2: This "moron" somehow came up with a master plan to invade a country so that he and his friends could profit from the oil contained therein.

I've weighed both and I've made my decision. It's sad that the second isn't true.. At least then we probably would have lost fewer lives.