"What a great site! I'm impressed by the great stuff you've pulled together. It merely confirms my long-held belief that economics CAN be interesting....
All the best"-
Charlie Wheelan,
aka The Naked Economist
This Op-Ed piece is perhaps too political for a high school economics blog, but what the heck- you can decide for yourself if this war was for oil.
10 comments:
Anonymous
said...
bush is working to get the big oil companies to take over iraq's oil. i feel that it is not ethical to try to take away a main source of income from a strugling governemnt for an already wealthy corporation. i could see reasoning behind it if the corporations had to invest in iraq, but since that is not required they would just be hurting a government that is already at its lowest. iraq's trade union asks for more time, less pressure and a chance at democracy that they have been promised. lets hope that bush actually tries to help them for the good of their economy instead of just thinking about the larger corporations.
This war was about alot of things, one of them being oil. This war was a way for Bush to help fix the problem that Bush Sr could not fix. But this war was almostly about oil, Iraq being the 2nd largest oil producing nation in the world we needed them to cooperate with us. Bush all and all has handled himself well, i hate people that say the war in Iraq was wrong, i think his approval rating after 9/11 was around 90 percent. If it was so wrong why did we push him to do this and back him when it first started?
This is a very sticky situation; as nice as it would be to have an oil industry without government control (of which its power is often used for selfish reasons), the oil industry left unattended would lead to a concentration of the profits. If these profits remain in the hands of the tycoons, it will most likely fail to enter the hands of workers or to allocate resources for better technology etc. However, while it is important for the oil to provide jobs and economic opportunity for various countries, the gov. control (if used properly) could help developed countries become less dependant on foreign oil and hopefully develop better fuel sources. It should be interesting to see if the laws follow through and what decisions will be made.
There's all the criticism of this war being about oil or the need to liberate the iraqis and many people hold to certain reasons, but now i just see this was as a war without any reason and that's why it's senseless that it hasn't stopped.
that picture plus this opinion smells like propoganda...anyway, if the war was for oil or democracy i do not know, but at this point i am optimistic. and its obvious that that lady wasnt going to agree with anything bush does, she is from san francisco
At this point it doesnt even matter too much about whether or not the war was for oil. Now reguardless of what the reasons were for going to war we have quite the mess on our hands. In addition article seemed extrodinarily liberal, as expectd from the ny times. There may be call for a more neutral or possibly conservative slanted response piece in order to gain a proper perspective over the issue.
the iraq war was clearly a war for oil it somehitng everyone seems to want especially us and all the diving americans do, though many americans would like to gain control of iraq's oil becaus eit could mean cheaper gas prices doing it could spark something worse
10 comments:
bush is working to get the big oil companies to take over iraq's oil. i feel that it is not ethical to try to take away a main source of income from a strugling governemnt for an already wealthy corporation. i could see reasoning behind it if the corporations had to invest in iraq, but since that is not required they would just be hurting a government that is already at its lowest. iraq's trade union asks for more time, less pressure and a chance at democracy that they have been promised. lets hope that bush actually tries to help them for the good of their economy instead of just thinking about the larger corporations.
This war was about alot of things, one of them being oil. This war was a way for Bush to help fix the problem that Bush Sr could not fix. But this war was almostly about oil, Iraq being the 2nd largest oil producing nation in the world we needed them to cooperate with us. Bush all and all has handled himself well, i hate people that say the war in Iraq was wrong, i think his approval rating after 9/11 was around 90 percent. If it was so wrong why did we push him to do this and back him when it first started?
This is a very sticky situation; as nice as it would be to have an oil industry without government control (of which its power is often used for selfish reasons), the oil industry left unattended would lead to a concentration of the profits. If these profits remain in the hands of the tycoons, it will most likely fail to enter the hands of workers or to allocate resources for better technology etc. However, while it is important for the oil to provide jobs and economic opportunity for various countries, the gov. control (if used properly) could help developed countries become less dependant on foreign oil and hopefully develop better fuel sources. It should be interesting to see if the laws follow through and what decisions will be made.
There's all the criticism of this war being about oil or the need to liberate the iraqis and many people hold to certain reasons, but now i just see this was as a war without any reason and that's why it's senseless that it hasn't stopped.
that picture plus this opinion smells like propoganda...anyway, if the war was for oil or democracy i do not know, but at this point i am optimistic. and its obvious that that lady wasnt going to agree with anything bush does, she is from san francisco
Almostly?
Almostly?
obv this lady was not about to agree with george bush's policy, she has a buzz cut
At this point it doesnt even matter too much about whether or not the war was for oil. Now reguardless of what the reasons were for going to war we have quite the mess on our hands. In addition article seemed extrodinarily liberal, as expectd from the ny times. There may be call for a more neutral or possibly conservative slanted response piece in order to gain a proper perspective over the issue.
the iraq war was clearly a war for oil it somehitng everyone seems to want especially us and all the diving americans do, though many americans would like to gain control of iraq's oil becaus eit could mean cheaper gas prices doing it could spark something worse
Post a Comment