From The Sunday Times
September 16, 2007
Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
Graham 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.
Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.
While it's not a new assertion, I think it is new to come from someone like Greenspan.
I have to ask... is there possibly a strategy in this?
Nice to see a high ranking figure say what we already knew...but who actually expects a government to declare a war in the name of oil? Of course they're not going to say that.
I'm all for blowing the crap out of Middle Eastern countries to secure our fat lifestyles (and the Euro whiners lifestyles as well) but I'm not in favor of executing the war campaign poorly as the current administration is doing. Greed over war profits is what needs to stop.
I'm all for alternative energy, etc but lets be realistic. The oil companies run the world and that's not going to change, ever, until the entire global economy collapses and then we are all fucked. (which will happen in our lifetimes so enjoy the five years or so of quality living you have left!)
Winnow wrote:Nice to see a high ranking figure say what we already knew...but who actually expects a government to declare a war in the name of oil? Of course they're not going to say that.
I'm all for blowing the crap out of Middle Eastern countries to secure our fat lifestyles (and the Euro whiners lifestyles as well) but I'm not in favor of executing the war campaign poorly as the current administration is doing. Greed over war profits is what needs to stop.
I'm all for alternative energy, etc but lets be realistic. The oil companies run the world and that's not going to change, ever, until the entire global economy collapses and then we are all fucked. (which will happen in our lifetimes so enjoy the five years or so of quality living you have left!)
The military would love to fight wars the right way. They would love to go in big, massive, with little concern for collateral damage and just win wars fast and effectively with little of heir own casualties. However, nicey-nice liberal fags have crippled the militarys ability to fight that way. The media is way too involved in every aspect of the battles now. Too much media attention is given to the enemy. The media plays the enemies game. The enemy knows their press releases, tapes, audio will get play and they can fuck with the view of such conflict by the opposing countries people. Then you mix in the powerful people who profit from a long drawn out war. It makes a nice match. The Dems and Reps fight eachother in the media, drawing all attention from its people on to them, while the both of them get richer and richer.
What tactic exactly, short of glassing the entire country, do you think would root out a small percentage of insurgents among millions of collateral assets (civilians)?
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
I love how every time Winnow attempts to grandstand with his misplaced American sense of superiority he consistantly fails to realise that any realistic attempt to "flatten the euro whiners" would mean certain death for every one in his, and every other country. None of which really adds up to keeping too much of a "fat lifestyle" in pocket.
If someone has a positive global outlook for the next 10-20 years, please feel free to share. I don't mean fantasies or what you hope will happen, but a realistic guess.
Winnow wrote:If someone has a positive global outlook for the next 10-20 years, please feel free to share. I don't mean fantasies or what you hope will happen, but a realistic guess.
This administration has sent us down a very dark path. I look for small changes that are hopefully the start of a brighter future. First up, is the next election. We'll see what's next after that baby step is complete.
I have a positive outlook. This is the information age, and the average person now is so much more informed than the average person from a generation (let alone past generations) ago. If it wasn't for republicans and religious types we'd've been headed in the right direction a long time ago. Religion and republicanism are both more weak now than ever before. Especially religion.
