2007-09-15 17:06:31 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Oil is just a small part. The Iraq war is just a payoff. Companies like Haliburton and KBR put Bush in office, gave him tons of money, now he is paying them back with our money. He handed out lucrative goverment contracts and these companies are making billions each month. The longer the war goes on the more they profit. It sad but its true
2007-09-15 17:31:03 · answer #1 · answered by MattMan 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I believe the Iraq conflict was strarted to control the flow of oil...not protect it. Saddam could not sell enough oil all through the 90's. THe world narket (Exxon and etal) did not need fresh oil supplies to make money...they needed a short supply...they and other major oil companies are the largest bulk of oil speculators. When oil is in short supply, the value goes up...if it had beeen aluminum, Alcoa would have been doing it, but oil is the life blood of modern life...people are panicy, They didn't want more oil, they wanted to control it's flow in a simialar way as OPEC, but closer to home and the user market. If Iraq had suddenly started adding 20% to the world supply, the price would have been around $55 and they would not have made anything....So, it was about oil...just not what we see on the surface. The whole thing is just a way to manufacture money.
2007-09-16 00:36:24 · answer #2 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would need to know more about it to say. I certainly don't agree with this proposal. "Proposes lowering barriers to skilled immigrants ..." However, if the deal about the oil is true, I think it will come out after Bush is out of office. If it is, I hope he has a place to live in Mexico.
2007-09-16 00:41:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Alan Greenspan knows the economy, not politics.
I'd like to see what he says to support this claim. Right now I can only find a short blurb.
2007-09-16 00:38:42 · answer #4 · answered by Biggg 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He also seriously rebuked Bush's fiscal policies in his new book. He ran the federal reserve quite successfully for many years. I value his opinions and think he speaks the truth. I think Iraq for oil is a no brainer.
2007-09-16 00:15:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think it's about who controls the money. Oil is definitely money to some people, but not the only form. I think it is about who controls the 'war chest' for wars that will make money for "the bank." Does anybody know the name of the bank? I heard it might be Chase....?
2007-09-16 01:33:19 · answer #6 · answered by D.A. S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. If we really wanted oil we'd drill in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico, or convert shale, and we'd build more refineries --- all things that would be much cheaper than war and would cause oil pricies to decrease rather than increase.
2007-09-16 00:17:59 · answer #7 · answered by ML 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
When and where did Greenspan say this and was it to obscure the real cause : Iraeli pressure?
2007-09-16 00:15:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
yes
2007-09-16 02:07:35 · answer #9 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I absolutely think this true
2007-09-16 00:12:40 · answer #10 · answered by Nora T 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋