Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil


Karlin
#1
Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2461214.ece

Quote:

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.


K - it is good to hear someone 'important' tell it like it is. So many Americans still believe that invading Iraq had something to do with 9/11 or the War on Terror. Or, that Saddam supported al Queda [he did not, Saddam hated al Queda and had driven them out of Iraq, or at least kept them hiding and useless].

Maybe we can't blame Americans for believing Saddam's Iraq had something to do with terrorism, Pres. Bush keeps saying so. [google it]

It may be true now that Iraq is at the centre of the the War on Terrorism, but only because Bush made it so by invading it. A million+ dead Iraqi civilians might not have wanted it that way...

----------------

related: Major Media are Propaganda Monkeys -
The NYT wrote a long article yesterday on Greenspan’s memoir – “Former Fed Chief Attacks Bush on Fiscal Role” – with ZERO mention of his comments on Iraq and oil.

I guess it is here, on the WWW, where we will have to sort out the reality from the lies.
 
Just the Facts
Free Thinker
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by Karlin View Post

A million+ dead Iraqi civilians might not have wanted it that way...

If you're going to mock Bush for spreading misinformation you would do yourself credit by not doing the same.

Saddam may not have supported Al Qaeda specifically, but he definitely supported terrorism. The most well known being the 25k he would send to families of suicide bombers.
 
gerryh
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post

If you're going to mock Bush for spreading misinformation you would do yourself credit by not doing the same.

Saddam may not have supported Al Qaeda specifically, but he definitely supported terrorism. The most well known being the 25k he would send to families of suicide bombers.


You mean the 25k to Palestinian freedom fighters?
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post

If you're going to mock Bush for spreading misinformation you would do yourself credit by not doing the same.

Saddam may not have supported Al Qaeda specifically, but he definitely supported terrorism. The most well known being the 25k he would send to families of suicide bombers.

Keep trying buddy but you aren't going to find anything at the bottom of the barrel no matter how hard you scrape.

Failed war for no reason.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#5
Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil


Could it possibly have been anything else?
 
I think not
#6
But nobody can point to these vast shipments of oil. How on earth did the Left miss that?

I mean it is really quite self explanatory, when you invade a country for oil, you make sure the pieplelines are shut down for years, decreasing output from 6 million bareels per day to less than 2. By doing so, you increase scarcity and prompt oil to go from $20 to $80 a barrel. And spend $500 billion in the process.

Yep, sounds like it was all for oil, indeed.
Last edited by I think not; Sep 16th, 2007 at 06:09 PM..
 
Toro
#7
Alan Greenspan also says that he couldn't see the technology bubble coming, that his excess creation of money didn't create the housing bubble, that people should take out ARMs - in 2005! - that the US economy would keep expanding and expanding four days before the recession officially started in 1973, etc., etc., etc.
 
Zzarchov
#8
That a nation which commited an act of genocide got to sit around and no one (aka, Canada, France, Germany, Italy etc) did anything to stop it until the regime was later toppled by the US and UK 15+ years later is more damning than a superpower going to war for a strategic resource.

Lets face it, you have no moral right to object if your an enabler of genocide. Rwanda occured precisely because people knew no one would object or do anything.

Seems to me like fighting for oil is small potatoes.
 
Trigger
#9
I believe that things are not as they appear. We have always looked back on history and tried to understand what it was like to live in those times, but find ourselves limited to speculation for lack of experience. I don’t think that is different from how we perceive reality in present times. We are bestowed with mass media but restricted to what a select group of people put forth for us to see and hear. There is much more to the big picture, lingering in the shadows of our understanding. It is with this understanding that we must perceive reality and use logical thought to fill in the gaps. The information the media and power brokers of our free society have let us know should be evaluated and speculated upon, as we do the history of past times.


The war raging in Iraq and Afghanistan is more about the future prosperity of western interests than about the freedom and democratic reform of their people. America has sought the coveted natural resources of the area and seized them by force. Oil is the obvious culprit for its limited availability and current demand as a commodity, but there are other reasons this region of the world is crucial to the dominance of the West: it will be the gateway to our survival.


The most serious threat to our current reality is the changing environment around us. There is significant evidence to suggest that we have industrialized the earth to the point of altering our planets ecosystems. We have endangered our existence and are thus forced to face the consequences of our industrial progress. We must seek alternative sources of energy, but will need to use oil until those processes are refined to the point of economic feasibility. Regardless of the global warming denial that some Western governments put forth, I believe they are very aware of the reality of our situation and are using the current war in preparation for this looming catastrophe. To tell us the truth would require admitting the problem and thus require a plan to deal with it. They have a plan. They just don’t want us to know about it because it requires we accept these acts of war on our behalf.


I am sure their logic sound. The West believes that they are the only culture that can effectively deal with a climate change crisis, the only people with the technological and intellectual resources. It would follow then that they should have control of the industrial machine that must be altered to protect our future, and control over the resources required to fuel it. Oil. The fall of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran will open the door to this change. So it goes.


How much of this is ideology and how much ego? I can’t say. But there must be better explanation for this war than what has been put forth through the media. I would think global preservation is a more noble reason to invade and destroy sovereign nations than the fiction we have been given thus far. Weapons of Mass Destruction that do not exist, terror that is fueled by media more than by acts of terrorism, and religious plurality are not the cause of this war, they are excuses for it. This is a war that was waged by the west. We are the belligerents. Canada is no longer peace keeping. There must be good reason for this exceptional change!


I want the truth, not these veils they give us for our reality. What is it that is really motivating our leaders to wage war in another land? Greed or Survival? What is the cause of this war? And are we, the people of these democratically governed belligerent nations in support of it? I say not.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#10  Top Rated Post
We have discussed and proven enough times on this forum the fact that the $ 25K went to the fund used by the Red Crescent (Islam's equivalent of the Red Cross) which has gotten FAR more funding from the Saudis and Qatar.

But the pro war liars persist in their lies. No surprise.
 
I think not
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

We have discussed and proven enough times on this forum the fact that the $ 25K went to the fund used by the Red Crescent (Islam's equivalent of the Red Cross) which has gotten FAR more funding from the Saudis and Qatar.

But the pro war liars persist in their lies. No surprise.

I'll believe that when I see evidence of the slant drilling theory.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not View Post

decreasing output from 6 million bareels per day to less than 2. By doing so, you increase scarcity and prompt oil to go from $20 to $80 a barrel. And spend $500 billion in the process.

Yep, sounds like it was all for oil, indeed.

6 million barrels @ $20 = $120 million.

2 million barrels @ $80 = $160 million.

Yep, that can still make it about oil. Increasing profit per barrel and stretching the supply. Darn good business practice if you ask me.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#13
I'll believe that when I see evidence of the slant drilling theory.


But believing that there are WMD all over Iraq is a lot easier.

LOL!
 
Just the Facts
Free Thinker
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

You mean the 25k to Palestinian freedom fighters?

He sent money to the Jews too?!

And now Gopher tells me he supported the red crescent!!

I must have had this guy all wrong, he was a regular philanthropist.
 
Just the Facts
Free Thinker
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

Failed war for no reason.

Maybe, but it's not a war, it's a theatre of a larger war. Even if a failure, it's no more a failed war than the invasion of Dieppe was a failed war. Just a dumb mistake along the way.
 
I think not
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

6 million barrels @ $20 = $120 million.

2 million barrels @ $80 = $160 million.

Yep, that can still make it about oil. Increasing profit per barrel and stretching the supply. Darn good business practice if you ask me.

Is it? We can do a bit more math and see if it makes economic sense.

Pre-war oil supply from Iraq to the US was (April 2003) 22 million barrels for the month of April.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mttimiz1m.htm

If you mulitply that figure with $20 a barrel, it costs the US $440 Million each month (approximate average) to purchase that oil from Iraq.

Now the war has cost us $500 Billion so far with no end in sight, correct?

If you divide the cost of war to date $500 Billion with one month's supply of oil from Iraq, you get 1136 months of oil supply OR roughly 95 years.

Instead we opted to throw away $500 Billion, create remorse towards the US from all around the planet, kill hundreds of thousands of people, while we could have struck a deal with Saddam and have him supply us with oil over the next century.

Does it still sound like a good business deal to you?
 
I think not
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

I'll believe that when I see evidence of the slant drilling theory.


But believing that there are WMD all over Iraq is a lot easier.

LOL!

Why don't you answer the question instead of diverting attention?
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#18
All that money wasted proves that Bush is indeed a compassionate conservative --- he's very generous with our tax dollars and gives it to the wealthy out of a sense of beneficence to them.
 
I think not
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

All that money wasted proves that Bush is indeed a compassionate conservative --- he's very generous with our tax dollars and gives it to the wealthy out of a sense of beneficence to them.

That's about as valid as your slant drilling theory, not to mention your claim to Saddam Husseins benevolence of "charitable" work.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Why don't you answer the question instead of diverting attention?


As I wrote above, I've posted the links which prove that Saddam's money went to the Red Crescent just like the money given by Saudis and Qataris. If I did it again you would only ignore them as you always do. It's just no point in repeating it since you keep ignoring it and believing the reich wing bullsh*t.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not View Post

Is it? We can do a bit more math and see if it makes economic sense.

Pre-war oil supply from Iraq to the US was (April 2003) 22 million barrels for the month of April.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mttimiz1m.htm

If you mulitply that figure with $20 a barrel, it costs the US $440 Million each month (approximate average) to purchase that oil from Iraq.

Now the war has cost us $500 Billion so far with no end in sight, correct?

If you divide the cost of war to date $500 Billion with one month's supply of oil from Iraq, you get 1136 months of oil supply OR roughly 95 years.

Instead we opted to throw away $500 Billion, create remorse towards the US from all around the planet, kill hundreds of thousands of people, while we could have struck a deal with Saddam and have him supply us with oil over the next century.

Does it still sound like a good business deal to you?

If you bought into it being solely about oil, no, you're right it doesn't make a ton of sense. To be totally honest with you, I don't think it was about oil itself. That's why I don't get into these debates much... because no reason makes a lick of sense to me. Not the conspiracy theories, not the government explanations... frankly, the whole thing feels to me like one of the horrible blow out fights my husband and I have once a year when my hormones peak on exactly the wrong day. Where you can't pinpoint what brought it on, can't find the right explanation, you're just pissed and want to punch someone and scream for days on end. It simply has to be taken out on someone.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#22

Don't believe it? Look it up.

BTW, where's your Iraq WMD??
 
Just the Facts
Free Thinker
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Trigger View Post

The war raging in Iraq and Afghanistan is more about the future prosperity of western interests than about the freedom and democratic reform of their people. America has sought the coveted natural resources of the area and seized them by force. Oil is the obvious culprit for its limited availability and current demand as a commodity, but there are other reasons this region of the world is crucial to the dominance of the West: it will be the gateway to our survival.

If that were the case, Venezuela would have been a much more sensible and lucrative target. Heck, even Nigeria would easier.

This war is about Jihad. Terrorists are blowing things up all over the world. Are they pissed off about Algerian foreign policy too?
 
I think not
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

As I wrote above, I've posted the links which prove that Saddam's money went to the Red Crescent just like the money given by Saudis and Qataris. If I did it again you would only ignore them as you always do. It's just no point in repeating it since you keep ignoring it and believing the reich wing bullsh*t.

Don't accuse me of things I don't do, we've never had this conversation before. Go ahead prove your slant drilling theory and Saddam Husseins charitable work.
 
I think not
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Don't believe it? Look it up.

BTW, where's your Iraq WMD??

There is nothing to lookup. Saddam Hussein gave money to terrorists. Period. And Kuwait NEVER slant drilled into anywhere!!!! It's all in your head. Go ahead and prove it and stop diverting attention.

P.S. I never had WMD's in Iraq.
 
I think not
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

If you bought into it being solely about oil, no, you're right it doesn't make a ton of sense. To be totally honest with you, I don't think it was about oil itself. That's why I don't get into these debates much... because no reason makes a lick of sense to me. Not the conspiracy theories, not the government explanations... frankly, the whole thing feels to me like one of the horrible blow out fights my husband and I have once a year when my hormones peak on exactly the wrong day. Where you can't pinpoint what brought it on, can't find the right explanation, you're just pissed and want to punch someone and scream for days on end. It simply has to be taken out on someone.

Exactly, it was never about oil. There is a bigger picture, the oil theory is for the crows.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#27

Ok, here's the same bet I made to the other right wing cowards on this forum before: I will yet again post the same link which proves Saddam gave money to what is called ''shahid'' or witnesses just as did the Saudis and Qataris.

But I will do so only if you leave the forum for keeps.

How about it? Are you going to cower away like the other right wingers or will you finally accept the challenge?

It's time to put up or shut the f@ck up.

How about it??
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#28
Anybody want to take a bet that ITN will run away?
 
wallyj
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Don't believe it? Look it up.

BTW, where's your Iraq WMD??

You are so thick. Saddam agreed to allow UN inspectors into Iraq to stop the bombing after Saddam invaded Kuwait. Later,SADDAM,said NO I don't want inspectors in my country anymore. In fact,I will gamble my people's lives that everyone will back down to my massive ego. Saddam gambled his country and lost. And now years later the anti-bush morons try to twist the facts and rather than go back and find the truth,thier immaturity keeps them on the same old lie. No WMD's,Bush lied. Well that is the big lie. Bush went in because that evil bastard Saddam wanted to renege on the original deal and did not want inspectors to look for any weapons. Saddam could have allowed the UN to have access,but he chose to roll the dice. Saddam is responsible for this debacle not the U.S..
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not View Post

Exactly, it was never about oil. There is a bigger picture, the oil theory is for the crows.

I don't know that that's necessarily true either ITN. Very rarely, in these big blow out fights, is there any one particular thing at work. Often, you get focused on something that's set you off (eg, dishes or WMDs), and even those fighting don't realize what the real factors were (like fatigue or irritation over oil supply) that set them off.