Stop the War Machine.

Tony the Tiger takes a No War position
Tony the Poodle, that's a different story.

The Bush administration doesn’t give much credence to the “No Blood for Oil” protests, but a USEIA brief at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html offers an insight into why the Bush administration was so anxious to invade Iraq. The brief states that Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world behind Saudi Arabia. Short term, the reason why the Bush administration invaded Iraq was to open up oil fields that have been limited by UN sanctions to increased oil production, which would lower the cost per barrel of crude. With the US Presidential election just over a year and a half away, increased oil production in known Iraqi oil fields, would mean cheap oil that could quickly spur the US economy. The brief also indicates that 90% or more of Iraq has largely gone unexplored for oil due to years of war and UN sanctions. Longer term, the Bush administration is looking to open Iraq to US oil companies to develop potentially lucrative Iraqi oil fields. It looks like the Bush administration’s real intention was to liberate Iraqi oil and not the Iraqi people.

The cost of the wat is very in dollars and politicsl hastles.

It would be far cheap and easier to lift the sanctions and let IQar doo what ever they wanted to. But our children would pay the price later for the parents actios or inactions today

Thanks to the anti-war left leaning liberal crowd for completely discrediting themselves in the eyes of the American public.

Innacurate and non-starter slogans like 'No Blood for Oil' have really helped out in that regard. Thank you so much for that.

"No Blood For Oil" is what should be written on the top of your car's oil filler cap. Blood isn't a lubricant, and will void your engine's warranty.

Given that the public keeps swinging toward the pro-war position, maybe the mindless masses aren't smart enough to understand your message. Can you possibly simplify it some more? "No War for Oil" is to complicated. "No War" isn't working either. "War" doesn't work, so maybe you'd be better off not saying anything.

A recent study showed that 9% of people shifted to the pro-Bush camp when shown images of anti-war rallies. This is why pro-war people are willing to drive people to anti-war rallies, and why many pro-war people wander through the crowds. Based on the numbers, each anti-war protestor pushes ten-fold or more people into the pro-war camp. No we're at war, and the shifts are probably larger. I especially loved the giant banner that said "We Support Our Troops if they Shoot Their Officers", as shown at the SF Indymedia site. That picture will probably cost the Democrats a few congressional seats. The question is, was it flown by anti-war people or pro-war infiltrators?

If we wanted Iraqi oil we'd have just dropped the sanctions. Have we siezed Kuwaiti oil? It's a commodity. Economics doesn't work that way. It would make as much sense as California invading Kansas to get control of the wheat supply. California wouldn't be getting bread any cheaper. If Iraq starts pumping, oil prices plummet, as will oil companies profits. Maybe you should form an argument that would convince someone who's once run a lemonade stand.

I loved your post 'Amused.'

That's telling it like it is. These left wing dorks have no place to hide when someone of your intelligence zeros in on them.

Thanks for posting.

BA

You anti-war people keep moving the goal post. Before the war the story is that Bush maintains the sanctions to pad the pockets of his oil buddies. Now it's that he wants to cheapen oil by flooding the market. What will happen to his oil buddies when the price plummets?

Thanks.

Interestingly, a month or so ago the anti-war people were screaming that our democracy isn't functioning, because Bush was pursuing his war despite the fact that a clear majority of the American public was opposed to an attack without UN approval.

Wouldn't that same logic dictate that since the majority now supports an attack, Bush has no choice but to comply, even if he's personally opposed? Both arguments are specious, but I see the protestors have no problem clinging to a piece of invalid logic, then discarding it when it no longer suits their purposes.

Fortunately, this isn't lost on all the folks sitting in small town America. In a battle to win hearts and minds, using tactics that repel tens upon tens of millions is rather daft. In an interview at today's London peace rally, they asked a woman if she supported the troops. She said "No. I don't support the British Troops. They're war criminals." That'll go over well in the pubs.