Are so many people against Bush and his ';war for oil'; then why don't they boycott crude oil products?

If what you conspiracy theorists say is true, and Bush called us to Iraq for oil. Then why are you supporting his thirst by buying ';his'; product?Are so many people against Bush and his ';war for oil'; then why don't they boycott crude oil products?
that is pretty much what alternative fuels are!


that is like asking...a person not to breath oxygen. when you are kind of dependant on the substance, because the industry has made every attempt to crush any other alternative that has come about in the last several decades, its pretty hard to just boycott it!





and if hillbillies in kentucky can produce more than 4 gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn, scientists should be able to do so.Are so many people against Bush and his ';war for oil'; then why don't they boycott crude oil products?
';War for oil';...that kills me. You think for one second that if we were over there for oil that we wouldn't have looted the place by now? Our gas prices are still above $2 a gallon.
Essentially those who say such things are merely talking heads parroting what they've heard others say. These types of people are rarely filled with action rather than merely rhetoric.
Only the Liberals and the truly ignorant call the Middle East conflict a war for oil. It is first and foremost a religious war whether you want to admit it or not. It just happens to encompass the war against terrorist regimes. Liberals are going to run and hide in the closet no matter what this country goes to war for. How soon they forget all the people who died on 9/11.
Good point. I also think that those who object to the phrase ';Under God'; in the pledge should refuse to own or even touch any US currency since it has the phrase ';In God We Trust';. Nice guy that I am, I'm willing to take all that evil cash off their hands. That's just the kind of person I am.
Good question,its is also the same ilk that believe our soldiers are stupid enough to fight a war for oil.They aren't there with their boots on the ground,dodging lead and watching their brothers at arms die in their arms..,yeah that's all for oil.What asinine fools they are.
Just like the people that say we must change because of global warming. They have not given up their cars, use of electricity, and they still buy products that are not esential that took energy to produce them.





I really love the alternative fuel idea. That might work for the diesel ran engines that deliver goods, but it is unfeasible to believe we could produce enough corn to run Americas cars on ethanol. Just can't happen. Gasoline here the other day was down to $1.79, E-85 was $2.19. It costs way more to produce than gasoline does. I am not saying we don't need to find alternative fuel sources we do, but at what cost will be acceptable?
Unfortunately Oil is a necessity, for heat, electric, plastic's as well as to run our transportation system. While it would be almost impossible to boycott Oil, there are things that we could do to limit how much we use. Only make important trips like to work, Doctors appointments, shopping trips ect. When we do drive try to combine trips like Dr. appointments and shopping. ect. The speed limit or less. I saved 1 mile per gallon by slowing down from 62 to 55 miles an hour in a semi. I am sure this would translate into a huge savings if most everybody would do that. Even the little things like timing traffic signals to limit idle time. Turn the heat down and wear a sweater. There are many ways to conserve energy that would translate into much saving the use of oil, the next thing to do is get the glutinous American people to do it. Maybe when Gas gets to be $4 a gallon people will wise up and practice conservation.
It's NOT a war on oil as people call it. The U.S is fighting terrorism.
They want YOU to stop using oil not them.


Like the people in Hollywood who don't like big oil but fly around in private airplanes and ride in big limos.





Next award show watch what they drive up in you won't see 1 hybrid in the mix.
Firstly your question is flawed or at the very least confusing. It can be broken into three parts.





Q1) Are so many people against Bush? A1) Lets assume some people are, that seems pretty safe. However in order for a boycott to be affective, lets propose that a significant number of people are so we can get on with the question. To objectively answer part of your question though, one would have to carry out a survey of the population.





Q2) Bush and his ';war for oil';? A2) Well this is actually a statement not a question. And a subjective one based on your own conclusions. You have stated this as a fact so for arguments sake lets assume it is your premise for healthy debate and move on. Not saying I agree or disagree, just pointing out you have loaded your question, which suggests you may not really even be interested in an alternative view.





Q3) Why don't they boycott crude oil products? A3) An outright boycott starting tomorrow of all oil products by even a measurable percentage of the population would have significant impact on the global economy. It would demand a complete reform of the global economy, governments, industry, technology and societies.





A total boycotts impact would do more harm then good in the short term - apart from recessions on an international scale and all of the associated social consequences associated with recession - I believe you would observe an increase not a decrease in international conflict. Therefore it would be counter productive if your purpose is to achieve piece, assuming your premise to be correct.





Furthermore, assuming your premise to be true, you risk shifting the focus from oil rich countries to countries with abundant supplies of alternative resources and materials - perhaps Australia and its rich Uranium deposits for example.





A more responsible solution would be to slowly phase out oil dependencies and to seek alternative fuels and resources that can be sourced either locally or with trade friendly nations.





Furthermore remember boycotting oil is not simply a matter of not driving your car or using an alternative energy car. Oil is used to make plastics for one, synthetic materials, composites, and numerous other materials of strength, mass and properties that are not easily replaced. It is one thing to declare you are not going to drive your car anymore, but entirely another to boycott all oil products. Look around the room you are in, think about your day - consider all of the plastics and synthetics (all oil based) that you interact with every single day.





And don't forget fossil fuels are also used to produce heat in the construction of numerous other materials and technologies. For instance how do you think silicon is heated to sufficient temperatures to produce solar panels. Boycotting crude oil products completely is a naive concept at best.
We are not ';boycotting'; because we have no real substitute, for oil and gas, that is commercially available. By using oil that is imported, we are conserving our own oil supplies, so that when the rest of the world runs out, we will still have some. Hopefully by that time, we will have in production a good viable alternative form of energy to replace oil when we run out.
Assuming the theorists are true - because we are addicted to oil and will not stop using it until it is gone and are forced to use an alternative. Plus there is too much money to be made.