Jump to content

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil


DrDNA
 Share

Recommended Posts

"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

 

I never would have believed that Greenspan would admit that. He must have had a major life changing event......on the scale of religous conversion, a near death experience, or maybe a horse kicked him in the head.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Protecting resource supply has been one of the most important factors in world affairs since the Suez crisis. What Greenspan is really saying is that there's a fairly subtle policy distinction that takes place at an intellectual level that the current US administration (and previous British one) didn't feel the average Joe was capable of parsing.

 

He's got a point there (Greenspan does), but the unfortunate side effect of this is the way it will be manipulated by conspiracy theory nutjobs and anti-corporation wackos the world 'round. (sigh)

 

I've been looking forward to this book for some time now, btw, and plan to read it. I've read a couple of bios on the guy and some of his essays from his Objectivist days as well. Interesting fellow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, coming from an Ayn Rand disciple, starting a war to get your hands on a lot of oil is not something to be critical of, nor is lying about it. His criticism is directed at the public. "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient." Not that it was done, and not that those in power failed to do what was politically inconvenient, but that it was inconvenient, i.e., that people wouldn't accept such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wheels continue to fall off the bus. I think that this a very very sad situation. Worse than I ever could have imagined.

 

What next? A tell all book by Rove, Condi, Rumi,....?

 

Is a late admission better than no admission at all?.

Should he have just kept his mouth shut at this point? He certainly doesn't need the money (from the book revenues), but it sure looks like sales were the motivation. Perhaps I'm just naive......

If the situation in Nigeria degrades, as the worlds 7th largest oil producer ( documented as that, they very well could produce more off the books), can we expect the same thing to happen there?

 

Crazy times these are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War is fore the war profiteers

 

 

Blade, why don't you speak your mind thoroughly and then hang around and defend your position? Much more interesting that way. I think you'll find that nobody here is really interested in hit-and-run posts.

 

Besides, one-liners are for ideologues. Or as George Lucas put it, "Only the Sith speak in absolutes." (Isn't it amusingly ironic that a Jedi said that? You know, speaking in absolutes....) :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blade, why don't you speak your mind thoroughly and then hang around and defend your position? Much more interesting that way. I think you'll find that nobody here is really interested in hit-and-run posts.

 

Besides, one-liners are for ideologues. Or as George Lucas put it, "Only the Sith speak in absolutes." (Isn't it amusingly ironic that a Jedi said that? You know, speaking in absolutes....) :doh:

 

well fore one thing. the forums here are not active enough to hang around and f5 all the time.

 

and how am i supposed to put that long documentary in words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't there any safeguards in place to prevent a conflict of interest in the US Executive branch of government? I would have thought having a President and Vice President sitting on boards of large oil companies would be regarded as a conflict of interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't there any safeguards in place to prevent a conflict of interest in the US Executive branch of government? I would have thought having a President and Vice President sitting on boards of large oil companies would be regarded as a conflict of interest.

 

You'd think...

 

Almost as disturbing as the Federal Reserve. We have unelected people dictating economic policy.

 

Some would also argue that their position on oil isn't a conflict of interest since all of us have an interest in oil - maintaining our standard of living. I don't agree with that, but I can see it coming...

 

Maybe we should consider separation of business and state rather than worry so much about church and state...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't there any safeguards in place to prevent a conflict of interest in the US Executive branch of government? I would have thought having a President and Vice President sitting on boards of large oil companies would be regarded as a conflict of interest.

 

The president and vice president do not sit on any boards of any public corporations. Nor do they have any private interests -- they even divest themselves of investments in publically-held companies. I believe there are regulations or laws about that sort of thing. I believe these rules affect ALL government officials.

 

What you're really asking is why someone is allowed to be president or vice president when they've formerly held a position on the board of a large corporation. Obvious responses to that position include "isn't that something for the voters to decide" and "what, you can't be a board member of a large corporation and then go on to become a politician? why not?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The president and vice president are exempt from conflict of interest laws for whatever retarded reason. Cheney still has unexercised Halliburton stock options which are skyrocketing in value, however Cheney claims that they're earmarked for various charities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The president and vice president are exempt from conflict of interest laws for whatever retarded reason. Cheney still has unexercised Halliburton stock options which are skyrocketing in value, however Cheney claims that they're earmarked for various charities.

 

Perhaps it's for the "Richard Cheney Medical Bill" Foundation.

 

 

 

As to the OP - I guess a war about oil is better than a war about nothing at all. In other words, it's an improvement over 'nam. (maybe?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the OP - I guess a war about oil is better than a war about nothing at all. In other words, it's an improvement over 'nam. (maybe?)

 

Yes, but this is a bit like saying that pouring lemon juice on to an open wound is better than pouring hydrochloric acid on to it. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The president and vice president are exempt from conflict of interest laws for whatever retarded reason. Cheney still has unexercised Halliburton stock options which are skyrocketing in value, however Cheney claims that they're earmarked for various charities.

 

Wow. I didn't know that.

Does anyone know the supposed logic behind this exemption?

That seems to be soooooo wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most, if not all, of the troops who have been injured or died in the Iraqi War would disagree with that statement.

 

It depends on how much they like oil...

 

Also, don't forget that some of them probably still think this is completely about homeland security and that Sadaam was responsible for 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.