I've seen it now for the 137th time, and it still doesn't make sense.
Another anti-war protester who makes the "No War For Oil" claim.
Can anyone explain the logic behind the claim that the war on terror is somehow related to oil?
I don't see a connection. Saddam's oil reserves are a minimal contribution to what we have used each year (and I would hope that all oil dependence continues to decline.)
Anyone with some proof? Bushbashing opinion will no-doubtedly appear, but I would like to see some concrete proof that the US gov't or any other gov't started this war simply for oil.
(Your opinion as to what you think some of these people may be thinking would also be welcome.)
3 comments:
As to what they are thinking, I have no idea. I agree, it doesn't make sense.
What I guess is happening is that liberal wackos, desperate to make the war on terror something that would appeal to the class-envy crowd, are attempting to connect the war with greed for oil. Even that sounds too intellgent for people of this caliber to come up with, but there it is.
I wonder if they feel that the war is truly over keeping the price of oil down, not to fight the war on terror, and that we shouldn't start a war for such a greedy reason. If that's where the origin of this is coming from, they are one sorry bunch. Perhaps paranoid?
I'm rambling, LR, but I can't come up with any else. Maybe Mr. Jackson will be able to "connect the dots" better.
The war on terror is not connected to any war for oil. But to many of us, it's hard to see how the "War on Terror" is the same thing as the War in Iraq. Many of us do not see any logic to a claim that a war in Iraq was the best way to prosecute our war on terror, so we figure that logic dictates it MUST be something else...a war for oil?
How about a war for sand? They got plenty of that, too!
Post a Comment