Greenspan: Iraq War WAS TOO for Oil, MAAAAAAAAAN...

Southpaw

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
934
0
0
#1
This is a guy who used to buy into Ayn Rand's horseshit, so who knows if he's sane. And begin the Plan B argument, "So What If It Was, I Drive An Escalade" ...now...

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oilGraham Paterson
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.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
 
Jul 13, 2006
12,836
1
0
Arkansas
#2
He's right, maaaaaaaaaaan. That's why oil is at an all-time high of $80 a barrel instead of us thieving Americans taking baths with an unlimited supply of the shit.
 

Southpaw

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
934
0
0
#3
A war for oil (even a successful one) wouldn't be waged to achieve lower prices for consumers. It would be waged to achieve higher profits for energy corporations - thankfully they don't have much pull with Washington or the Bush Administration in particular. A war for oil also would be waged in order for the U.S. to control one of the biggest "material prizes in world history" and thus deny access to current (China) and emerging (India) industrial competetors.
 

pure_waves

© Steven Carr Industries, 2014. Grrrrrrrr
Dec 9, 2004
1,406
1
513
Upper West Side, NY
#4
Of course its about oil, in a roundabout way that is. I think the Bush Administrations goal was securing the supply by removing a supporter of terrorism and a guy who was trying to get weapons of mass destruction. Terror and weapons of mass destructions threaten US interests including oil.

Only thing is, that removing Saddam to further this US goal is a two edged sword. As big of a tyrant Saddam was, he was a pillar of stability in Iraq (albeit through fear and violence). People were scared shitless of Saddam, including Iranians, Shiites, terrorists who werent friendly to the regime, etc. The very same clowns who are causing a ruckus right now.

When Saddam and his Bathist guys were booted, a huge vacuum was created. When we didnt fill it wth either a strong Iraqi leader or an overwhelming military force, Al Kaida, Iran, and Iraqi Shiites went right in to stake their claim and become the power brokers in Iraq. They didnt (and dont) feel the boot shaking fear that Saddam and his people gave them. So they got uppity and theyll keep being uppity until they are ruthlessly squashed. That's how things work in this part of the world.

Is the supply more secure with Saddam gone? You can argue pro and con. Our troops are on the ground and there's a relatively pro-Western government in power now. We also have a bunch of native tribes on our payroll as well, so we definitely have more influence than we did before the war started. But it's also a cluster fuck of a military operation, and probably will be for the foreseeable future.

But was it about oil? Sure, no surprise there Mr. Greenspan.
 

Your_Moms_Box

Free Shit / Socialism 2016
Dec 20, 2004
5,755
468
628
Dover, Delaware
#5
It was about oil.

It was about ensuring that bushes buddies would be able to control more of it.
 

Schmed

I'm a corpse without a soul...
Nov 4, 2002
2,356
0
0
Shitsville, NY
#6
It was about oil.

It was about ensuring that bushes buddies would be able to control more of it.
If you think this is only Bush, you're crazy, it's all of 'em. One of the biggest left wing democrats, Diane Feinstein ? Check and see what her husband's business does. You'll see that Republicans and Democrats alike are making big bucks from this war.
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
Sep 15, 2004
46,650
6,848
693
F.U.B.A.R
#7
The whole D vs. R thing is just to keep the rubes entertained. Neither party gives a flying fuck about you or yours. They want control and will do or spread whatever lies are necessary to reach that goal of total control, maaan.
 

abudabit

New Wackbag
Oct 10, 2004
14,802
0
0
#9
None of you guys have even the slightest clue about what he was trying to say. He said that Saddam threatened the global stability of oil supply so he was removed. He did not say it was about stealing oil. He did not say it was about trying to raise oil prices. He did not say it was about lowering oil prices. He said it was about removing a threat to oil supply. What he said is 100% true.
 

fuckwit

He loves you, and he needs money.
Jul 27, 2006
3,019
0
0
jersey
#10
he's only half right.

and now he can add his own name to the war profiter list.
i know! ill write a book and spill a little inside opinion on the war. make a few bucks. why add your voice in before the deaths when you could just be a coward and wait for public opinion to sway then use that to sell some books. nice


None of you guys have even the slightest clue about what he was trying to say. He said that Saddam threatened the global stability of oil supply so he was removed. He did not say it was about stealing oil. He did not say it was about trying to raise oil prices. He did not say it was about lowering oil prices. He said it was about removing a threat to oil supply. What he said is 100% true.
yeh and? the "rationale" for the war wasnt this. it was a lie.
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
Aug 29, 2002
31,399
2,129
818
Florida's Nature Coast
#11
None of you guys have even the slightest clue about what he was trying to say. He said that Saddam threatened the global stability of oil supply so he was removed. He did not say it was about stealing oil. He did not say it was about trying to raise oil prices. He did not say it was about lowering oil prices. He said it was about removing a threat to oil supply. What he said is 100% true.
Exactly.
 

UCFGavin

Registered User
Feb 25, 2006
2,061
0
0
#12
None of you guys have even the slightest clue about what he was trying to say. He said that Saddam threatened the global stability of oil supply so he was removed. He did not say it was about stealing oil. He did not say it was about trying to raise oil prices. He did not say it was about lowering oil prices. He said it was about removing a threat to oil supply. What he said is 100% true.
so that is reason for the US to declare an unconstitutional war?
 

abudabit

New Wackbag
Oct 10, 2004
14,802
0
0
#13
so that is reason for the US to declare an unconstitutional war?
I don't think he ever said that, did he? When did he say that? Hmm? Ayn Rand admirer calls Iraq economic interventionism. Think about it. Does that sound like an endorsement or an admonishment?
 

KingTheoden84

Registered User
Jun 9, 2007
91
0
0
#14
I think there is fracturing within the establishment/elite. A small, but empowered clique is looking for any possible excuse to attack Iran; they are so overcome by the sense of authority that they fail to see the obvious nightmare that would follow such a war. The neocons are truly insane and perhaps the most dangerous gang on Earth.

Greenspan might be signaling his disapproval of the current track we are on by making this bold statement. Abudabit rightly pointed out the precise commentary by Greenspan; Saddam was in other words not a leader who could be controlled or counted on to play ball and the globalists did not like that, in part because he would harm their chances to set oil prices. (There is much more that went into the motivations for the invasion of Iraq, however. Iraq, as was planned, is being turned into a giant military base that will serve as the launching point for the wars with Iran and Syria. Beyond that, it brings us closer to China and Russia, the former being a military target of the Project for a New American Century.)

The economic fallout of a strike on Iran would be devastating. Oil supply shipments through the Strait of Hormuz will grind to a halt and oil facilities in US allied states could come under missile attack as retaliation. Light sweet crude at $130 is a conservative estimate and an already weak economy will succumb to deep recession.

Militarily, the 175 000-odd troops stationed in Iraq would be faced with a total uprising of that nation. Iran could even launch an offensive in the south to capture Shi'a cities and territories. Those aircraft carriers stand no chance against a barrage of Sunburn anti-ship cruise missiles; the fact that they are being stationed right off the Iranian coast leads one to have serious questions about why kept there. Oh by the way, there would absolutely be a draft.

No Virginia, there will not be an easy war. The nutcases that brought us the never ending Iraq War are actually trying this bit. And so those with power and are opposed might feel it is time to snipe at the administration.

For the record, I dislike Greenspan immensely because his reign as Fed Chair was nothing but money supply expansions and bailouts to his bad betting friends. He was definitely no financial genius; his mess is left for us to deal with in the form of the subprime meltdown.
 

Southpaw

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
934
0
0
#15
Saddam Hussein was a "threat" to the "global stability of the oil supply" only in the sense that he was a obstacle to the long standing desire of some in the U.S. to have de facto control over those petroleum reserves while maintaining a local puppet regime who would follow orders.

He certainly wasn't much of a threat if you mean that he was unwilling to trade what he produced - even under UN sanctions he was still making deals with many, often illegally, in order to make more $$$. Since the right has spent the past few years arguing that international law isn't worth the paper it's written on we can look past the legalities of his oil dealings and see Saddam for what he was - a quite economically rational actor and thus not a threat to "stability" in any non-imperial definition.
 

moegolden

Perv-switch toggler
Oct 3, 2004
7,293
2
226
#16
Greenspan was appointed by Bush Sr. and pretty much apolitical, so when he sez this, it's pretty big.
 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#17
so that is reason for the US to declare an unconstitutional war?
This lie again.

I think there is fracturing within the establishment/elite. A small, but empowered clique is looking for any possible excuse to attack Iran; they are so overcome by the sense of authority that they fail to see the obvious nightmare that would follow such a war. The neocons are truly insane and perhaps the most dangerous gang on Earth.
Ah, the cry of the mythical "neocons" again. What neocons are running the government? This some sort of shadowy, government-within-a-government group? Led by Karl Rove maybe??? Seems to me, outside of the executive branch, Democrats seem to be running things, and the Republicans in the minority aren't exactly cut from your supposed neocon cloth.

Perhaps you're talking about this current administration, then. Well, my, it certainly seems to be marginalized, and Bush is rather particularly lame duck, so perhaps your all-powerful neocons aren't really a factor anymore.......not that they ever really were.

Words like "carnies & rubes" get used a lot on this board, but some people still fall for it time and time again.

Oh, and as for Iran? Looks like Democrats aren't too keen on letting them get the Bomb either:

Democrats: Nuclear Iran unacceptable


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hilary Leila Krieger , THE JERUSALEM POST Jan. 7, 2007

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

Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable, new House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told The Jerusalem Post hours after entering the party leadership position.

The Maryland Democrat said the view is shared by his party, rejecting assertions that the Democrats would be weaker than the Republicans on Iran.

He also said that the use of force against Teheran remained an option.

Hoyer, second only in the hierarchy of the House of Representatives to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is charged with articulating and strategizing on party policy.

He spoke to the Post on Thursday, the opening day of the 110th Congress, after making an appearance at the National Jewish Democratic Council reception honoring the six new Jewish members of Congress.

The council gathering was one of scores of events on Capitol Hill held to celebrate the start of the new session.

Hoyer is considered close to the Jewish community and many Israel supporters have hailed his elevation in the House.

He was one of the few non-Jewish lawmakers to attend the council reception.

Hoyer said the Democrats' position, like that of the Bush administration, was that preventing a nuclear-armed Iran had to be done through "discussions, negotiations, sanctions." Hoyer added that the US needed to work with the international community to block Teheran's nuclear ambitions.

At the same time, Hoyer said the use of force hadn't been taken off the table.

"I've not ruled that out," he said, but added, "It's not an option we want to consider until we know there is no other option."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467674368&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
That dirty, stinking, neocon Steny Hoyer.

Oh, and pure_waves is right, essentially. Iraq is about oil, in the sense that all of our focus upon the Middle East is about oil in a roundabout way. Not just because the eeeeeeeeeeeeevil oil corporations are out to get it all, maaaaan. Because a) the Middle East is filled with psychopaths who are enslaved to the virulent mind-virus that is Islam, and b ) the Middle East happens to have a lot of oil, which, unfortunately means that c) the psychopaths in the thrall of their death-cult have lots and lots of money to funnel in buying WMDs and otherwise waging jihad upon the rest of the world. And no sane person wants that sort of situation to continue.

But that's a separate argument. That's part of the "we need alternative energy sources, not necessarily for the environment, just to fuck with those cunts in the ME" argument.
 
Jul 13, 2006
12,836
1
0
Arkansas
#18
I just don't give a fuck anymore to be honest. I don't give a fuck why we are there or what the shit is about. There is a shitpile there and it's about time to start thinking of how to clean our boots off.
 

KingTheoden84

Registered User
Jun 9, 2007
91
0
0
#19
Vyce, you are either a troll or an idiot. To call the notion of neocons 'mythical' is so ridiculous that any reader with even slight brain power should skip over your neocon apology. You do realize that neocons used this term for years, right? You should also know that the neoconservative agenda is reflected by many Democrats as well (Hilary wants to attack Iran, Obama suggested invading Pakistan). Leo Strauss helped coalesce the movement by training power hungry, spiritless students. So drop the bullshit about they not existing.

Beyond that, in classic form you use the 'even they' tactic. Even Hilary wants to deal with Iran!!! WOW weee! Well, in that case I do support the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iranians who have done absolutely nothing to us (and are actually under attack from spec op led militants). Yup, I want to be drafted into a massive war of conquest all because HILARY said we ought to get tough.

Effing jackass.
 

mendozathejew

Registered User
Mar 12, 2005
6,749
0
0
jersey
#20
None of you guys have even the slightest clue about what he was trying to say. He said that Saddam threatened the global stability of oil supply so he was removed. He did not say it was about stealing oil. He did not say it was about trying to raise oil prices. He did not say it was about lowering oil prices. He said it was about removing a threat to oil supply. What he said is 100% true.
you were right on. Greenspan clarified his words today

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20817260/

“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,” Greenspan said.

Even a small disruption could drive oil prices as high as $120 a barrel and would mean “chaos” to the global economy, Greenspan told the newspaper.

Given that, “I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” he said. But he added he was not implying the war was an oil grab, the Post said.
 

Southpaw

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
934
0
0
#21
“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,” Greenspan said.
Sure - "very clear evidence" that neither he nor anyone else can produce. Saddam was in no military position to resume hostilities with Iran, either with direct naval engagement in the Strait of Hormuz let alone a ground invasion to get control over the Hormozgan Province.