Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
- Thread starter Karlin
- Start date
Alan Greenspan: I Never Said Iraq War Was About Oil
My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.Will the media be as eager to propagate Greenspan's actual remarks as they were to do so for the ones attributed to him? I'm not holding my breath.
. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.
"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work..."
—Matthew Sheffield is Executive Editor of NewsBusters and president of Dialog Media, a web marketing firm.
You are so quick to try to blackmail the so-called 'liberal media' [it is not] for misquoting Greenspan.
Please look at my original post in this thread, at the bottom of the quote, and see that it says :
"A threat to the supplies". I didn't wrongly quote what was never written, by liberal or otherwise media, okay? Where did that idea come from anyhow??? Was it just all about confusing the issues? Or taking the sting out of Greenspan's words?
What you thought we wanted to wrongly imply is this: "the invasion and occupation of Iraq by USA forces as ordered by Pres GW Bush was about seizing the Iraqi oil"
- I can see that conservative leaning people at this forum might have thought I was saying that, but since I didn't even mention it in my own thoughts in the original post, I can only assume the "conservative media" was trying to take the sting out of Greenspan's words by declaring a mistaken slant that was never there, a tactic of TRICKERY, the tactics used by the conservatives and their media minions. I hope lefties, liberals, and peacemakers do not stoop to such tactics.
Karlin
PS -
[do you even follow this?} They were saying we said what G-span said was wrong, but we never said that thing they said we made up out of G-span's article. Therefore, it is the Bu****es that were doing the trickery.
AMY GOODMAN: Alan Greenspan, let's talk about the war in Iraq. You said what for many in your circles is the unspeakable, that the war in Iraq was for oil. Can you explain?
ALAN GREENSPAN: Yes. The point I was making was that if there were no oil under the sands of Iraq, Saddam Hussein would have never been able to accumulate the resources which enabled him to threaten his neighbors, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. And having watched him for thirty years, I was very fearful that he, if he ever achieved -- and I thought he might very well be able to buy one -- an atomic device, he would have essentially endeavored and perhaps succeeded in controlling the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, which is the channel through which eighteen or nineteen million barrels a day of the world eighty-five million barrel crude oil production flows. Had he decided to shut down, say, seven million barrels a day, which he could have done if he controlled, he could have essentially also shut down a significant part of economic activity throughout the world.
The size of the threat that he posed, as I saw it emerging, I thought was scary. And so, getting him out of office or getting him out of the control position he was in, I thought, was essential. And whether that be done by one means or another was not as important, but it’s clear to me that were there not the oil resources in Iraq, the whole picture of how that part of the Middle East developed would have been different.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re also joined in studio by Naomi Klein, author of the book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Your response to that, Naomi Klein?
NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I’m just wondering if it troubles Mr. Greenspan at all that wars over resources in other countries are actually illegal. Mr. Greenspan has praised the rule of law, the importance of the rule of law, in his book. But in his statements about the reasons why this has not been publicly discussed, he has said that it’s not politically expedient at this moment. But it’s not just that it’s not politically expedient, Mr. Greenspan. Are you aware that, according to the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions, it is illegal for one country to invade another over its natural resources? http://www.democracynow.org
ALAN GREENSPAN: Yes. The point I was making was that if there were no oil under the sands of Iraq, Saddam Hussein would have never been able to accumulate the resources which enabled him to threaten his neighbors, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. And having watched him for thirty years, I was very fearful that he, if he ever achieved -- and I thought he might very well be able to buy one -- an atomic device, he would have essentially endeavored and perhaps succeeded in controlling the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, which is the channel through which eighteen or nineteen million barrels a day of the world eighty-five million barrel crude oil production flows. Had he decided to shut down, say, seven million barrels a day, which he could have done if he controlled, he could have essentially also shut down a significant part of economic activity throughout the world.
The size of the threat that he posed, as I saw it emerging, I thought was scary. And so, getting him out of office or getting him out of the control position he was in, I thought, was essential. And whether that be done by one means or another was not as important, but it’s clear to me that were there not the oil resources in Iraq, the whole picture of how that part of the Middle East developed would have been different.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re also joined in studio by Naomi Klein, author of the book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Your response to that, Naomi Klein?
NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I’m just wondering if it troubles Mr. Greenspan at all that wars over resources in other countries are actually illegal. Mr. Greenspan has praised the rule of law, the importance of the rule of law, in his book. But in his statements about the reasons why this has not been publicly discussed, he has said that it’s not politically expedient at this moment. But it’s not just that it’s not politically expedient, Mr. Greenspan. Are you aware that, according to the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions, it is illegal for one country to invade another over its natural resources? http://www.democracynow.org
: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.
Saddam didnt support alqueada, usa did and still is.
Yeah better to ship to syria, let his family died, and use unusable weapons that can't even reach us military, there is no weapons of mass destruction in iraq since 1995, and here is the proof.
No wonder why you swallow everything they told you on wtc7 .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/03/hardtalk/ritter06oct.ram
Listen to what this UN inspector has to say , he is categorically saying, bush and blair, are stupid and liars to their teeth.
I remember reading years ago in the Cdn Magazine, the 1970s I think, a supplement in the Vancouver Sun, an American was asked that if the US needed Cdn water and they wouldn't sell it, "We''ll just take it." It is such a cavalier attutude among some Americans to take what they want in the world.