Are there still any doubt about oil being the primary reason for Iraqi war?

Question

Now that former Fed Treas. Greenspan has written in his memoirs that it was politically inconvenient to truthfully admit Iraq war was about oil- and given he is fairly politically neutral- are there any more doubters?

Or perhaps those who truly believe the war is about imposing democracy are deluding themselves with a myth more comforting and less confronting than an immoral fact?

Was the Iraq oil war really about the stabilisation of the greenback (a currency based not on gold reserves but oil reserves/futures since the early 1970's)?

Was Iraq a goal to hedge best for currency security against China's massive reserves of US Treasury Bonds?

No- book not on sale yet in my country. I am actually a conservative- not a Neo-Con corporate whore, pimping public rights to billionaires.

Chevick- good point- but is it really National Interest? or rather Corporate Interest?
I was under the assumption the National Interest was solely about the People's Representative acting on the greater good of their public- not a choice elite few...

Michael- your US military is building 8+ new huge airbases as we type and an "embassy the size of the Vatican City"- Ron Paul, Repub.

Chevick- sorry if I offend- but no- I'm not a conservative-baiting rabid Leftwing pinko. I would be best described as a Federalist and Constitutional-sit in US political terms- a moderate conservative traditionalist.

Wesley- yes you are correct war is always about resources & their access.
But I fear using your military has turned out to be far more costly than simply bribing Saddam and his cronies to go away somewhere and leave us all in peace- most especially for your soldier and the unfortunate Iraqi civilian- not to mention your 7 trillion dollar debt to China and Japan.
Better perhaps to have threatened, bullied, bribed and cajoled rather actually fight?

Answer 1

No, no, you've got it wrong. We're there to "promote democracy."

*sarcasm*

Answer 2

Even if you are exactly correct in all these assertions, does this not all add up to the national interest of the United States as a country?

I believe the war is about defending the national interests of the United States. What is wrong with that?

-- I was under the assumption the National Interest was solely about the People's Representative acting on the greater good of their public- not a choice elite few... --


I think it is not solely about any one thing. And I differ with your view about the -choice few-. If American big business suffers, ordinary American citizens suffer too. I never got a GOOD job from a poor man.

I get your point at any rate, but I respectfully disagree with the characterization -blood for oil- and all that it suggests.

Answer 3

What's wrong with a war for oil anyway? It's about time we got something worthwhile for all that money we've spent, and I'm sick of paying $3 a gallon!

Human history has been full of wars over natural resources. This wasn't the first and it won't be the last. We have a really big and expensive military, the best in the world; we may as well use it for our own advancement, right? If not, why do we have it?

Answer 4

between the weakest factors Democrats/Liberals make is jointly as they say Bush lied approximately ________ (greater desirable troops, Iraqi oil, etc..). To lie, one has to intentionally understand that what one is declaring is pretend. If I assist you to be attentive to that we are going to rouse day after at present morning without deficit, this is a lie thinking that i understand thoroughly properly that may no longer ensue. jointly as Bush suggested "Iraqi oil will pay for the conflict." (or did he say "to help pay for the conflict"? i'm uncertain). he could have believed that this would have been a available selection. that's plausibe that he theory right here: Reconstruction will fee $x, and the revenues from the sale of Iraqi oil on the industry could be greater desirable valuable than that. subsequently, Iraqi oil will pay (or help to pay) for the conflict. as quickly as you will criticize him, criticize him for his gross miscalculation and mismanagement. you should extremely make a good case for that. yet why do you will choose to pass on a private attack and call him a liar? you're definitely wandering authentic into an area which you will no longer be able to in all threat prepare. It weakens your case exponentially.

Answer 5

We should have never gone there in the first place. The war in Iraq is because of two things: oil and Bush wanting to get the guy who wanted to get his daddy.

We should have stuck the course and concentrated on getting bin Ladin in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Our country...no...the world... is not safer because we have made such a mess in Iraq. And over 3700 American families have been affected by the sacrifices our our servicemen/women (and private contractors) have made because of this ill-conceived war (not to mention the thousands of Iraqi's).

Any progress toward stabilization made in the middle east was demolished with the first step we took into Iraq. It will take many, many years to get back to the point we were before.

I'm afraid that 12 years from now, when my son has to sign up for Selective Service, that he might be called to fight in what should have never been started in Iraq.

Answer 6

And Greenspan is a Republian.
Interestingly, he had some strong
crtiticism for Bush's father and Bush Jr as well as Dead eye Dick.
I have NO doubt oil plays a huge part in our occupation and invasion of Iraq. How could it not?

Answer 7

First off, Greenspan wasn't the former Federal Treasurer, so your info is flawed from the beginning. Secondly, did you read the book or are you just quoting from excerpts from a left wing website?

Answer 8

Look, Alan Greenspan is a bitter old man who's idea of excitement is raising or lowering the prime rate a quarter-point. If he's going to cash in with a tell-all book, he needs a little bit more action, so he's dredging up all his petty complaints with presidents past and turning it into a book...personally, I think he feels he was undervalued by the Republican party and now he's sticking in the knife and twisting.

Answer 9

Read the newspapers. Go back to 9-12-01. There were numerous reasons for the coalition going into Iraq. If we are able to get the country on it's feet and get the oil flowing it will be a good thing.
How can you knock progress?

Answer 10

The USA could be setting up a base to attack Iran, to establish a western-style democracy AND eliminate a possible source of nuclear weapons for Arab terrorists. Afganistan could be used too. remember, you heard it here 1st.