Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

[Karlin]

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

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]

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

:smile: 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]

:smile: 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]

:smile: 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.:lol:

Failed war for no reason.

 

[#juan]

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil


Could it possibly have been anything else?

 

[I think not]

But nobody can point to these vast shipments of oil. How on earth did the Left miss that? :roll:

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.

 

[Toro]

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]

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]

For oil

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]

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]

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]

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.:smile:

 

[gopher]

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]

You mean the 25k to Palestinian freedom fighters?

He sent money to the Jews too?! 8O

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]

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]

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.:smile:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.