Well, tell us something we don't know Alan!
But really- we all knew it was about oil- but why in particular?
Was it solely for contractor short-term profit?
Or was it a means of securing the greenback (given its valuation not based on gold reserves but linked to oil) against China's 'economic nuclear option' given China has massive reserves of US Treasury Bonds which it could, hypothetically, flood the market and massively & catastrophically deflate the value of the US dollar?
2007-09-17 01:14:22 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The cost of extracting oil in Iraq is much cheaper per barrel than elsewhere in the world. In parts of Iraq you can actually see the stuff on the surface.
The other reason was that Saddam had expressed an interest in switching trading in oil from the US dollar to the Euro. If this ever happens the US economy and the industrial-military complex that ensures US dominance worldwide would collapse. Iran have also mooted this notion - hence the current sabre rattling in relation to Iran.
2007-09-17 03:27:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think oil was/is a secondary concern.
The War in Iraq appears to be about two things:
1) Planting a democracy in the heart of the Middle East to act as a catalyst for change.
2) Smacking down Hussein for thumbing his nose at the first President Bush.
The first reason is justifiable, and the second reason... well, there's nothing wrong with enjoying your work, is there.
2007-09-17 02:53:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
China's Economy is growing 12 percent a year ??
I think America's economy will fall all the way ... then we will eventually make a comeback but I personally believe it will be very very hard for several generations before we see that.
This is not a generation of young people that are prepared for moderation in expenses ... let along ... depresssion.
It is going to hurt and there is going to be some pain felt.
My persional opinion.
I say get my assets and move out / I can't bear to see it happen
2007-09-17 03:57:07 · answer #3 · answered by Mildred S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oil is money, what do you think we are fighting for ? As far as China is concerned and as you said, has massive reserves of US treasury bonds, do you believe that they will rock the boat and lose half of it by doing so ? You better get your priorities straight, China is not the enemy, the enemy is in the middle east who not only wants to cut your pocket but your balls as well and I mean literally.
2007-09-17 03:18:49 · answer #4 · answered by CAPTAIN BEAR 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that, to get the required support, there must have been at least four reasons for (and at least as many against) intervening in Saddam's horrible regime ... but the question now is ... How to bring about peace in Iraq? And how to bring oil & trade routes back into Iraqi ownership?
2007-09-17 06:32:33 · answer #5 · answered by Wise Kai 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't trust the editing with Bartiromo's interview of Greenspan.
Greenspan said he was worried about Hussein taking control of the gulf of Hormuz and controlling the worlds supply of oil, therefore, to him the war was about oil.
I don't see that his statement was, "The war was about oil".
It was a war about oil to him possibly, but not the president. (Who knows why he thought the president went to war) The editing was clever and his comments quite possibly may have been misinterpreted. I can't say that I trust anyone in government to speak simply and honestly.
After all, he is the master of GreenSpeak.
You don't really know what he said, do you?
2007-09-17 18:53:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Things like oil and contracts and all the monetary concerns are always going to be a valid concern in war. It alsways has been and always will be. War is expensive and has to be paid for/settled in some way.
It doesn't mean its the reason for going! God I hate these left wing moronic idiots. Repeating one thing over and over and over doesn't make it right!!!!
2007-09-17 03:28:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Greenspan admits it was about oil but he appears still to advocate the war so American can control the oil!
2007-09-19 02:27:58 · answer #8 · answered by stuartie74 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i believe it was about WMD
then it was about Genocide and war crimes
then it was regime change
then it was stopping terroism in the middle east(as iraq was so responsible for that NOT!)
then it was stopping terroism in the USA (See above)
then it was to protect the Iraqi people
now its oil interesting I always thought it was to save GW Bushs *** from being kicked out before he did two terms anyway politics its way to complicated
2007-09-17 01:24:48 · answer #9 · answered by skippy12345 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
If I were awarded an eight million dollar ADVANCE for a book, I'd write about anything, too.
2007-09-17 01:33:34 · answer #10 · answered by illiberal Illuminati 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋