do you believe Alan Greenspan in his book said we went to Iraq for oil?

Question

A New York newspaper recently misconstrued what Alan Greenspan said in his book, they stated falsely that Greenspan said we went to Iraq for oil.

This is a yes or no question...but you can give your comments if you like.

well Kelly, I can't accept your statement because I heard Alan Greenspan in an interview and he did NOT say we went to Iraq for oil....he did confirm that the New York newspaper was wrong and that they misconstrued what he said.

well Rico, Greenspan did NOT say that....so I can't accept your answer because most of your comment was off topic.

can't accept your answer either Noah because the topic was Greenspan and his book and you were off topic.

Answer 1

No.
Safeguarding the oil shipments was a concern but not the main issue.

Answer 2

False? Shazam! Controling the flow of oil is essential to a country that floats on oil. Buying oil for cheap dollars is essential as well. If oil is sold in Euros it would take $1.30 to buy one Euro. That would make $80.00 a barrel oil cost $24.00 more. As that was Saddam's plan something had to be done. But wait..there's more! Speaking as a member of the Bush Junta...which I'm not, 'controling' the flow of oil to other countries has massive stratigic value....why do you think China is getting so chummy with the oil producing middle east countries? Now if the US can create US friendly puppet governments or at least dependent governments out of the current middle east thugocracies we, the US, hold a huge advantage. So saying that the occupation of Iraq isn't about oil is like saying air isn't about breathing. Now we could go another way....as we get less than 20% of 'our' oil from the middle east we could MoveOn.com to 21st century technology...some of which has been around for 40 years...but who's counting? Cars that get 40 mpg....making plastic out of bio-mass...mandated better home insulation...all kinds of innovations that that would reduce our need for oil, but of course that would reduce the profit margin of the Oil Mafia and God knows we can't have that. So we spend several billion borrowed dollars a day to occupy Iraq for phoney reasons instead of using our cash and credit to reduce out need for m/e oil. Run that through the equation and see what you come up with.

Answer 3

In interviews since his books release he has stated that this is about oil and considering his direct involvement in accomplishing this goal I would tend to believe him!

He also said "...and we all know it."

Finally the truth is coming out and STILL people want to quibble about it!

Once it is no longer possible to keep denying ugly truths it then becomes necessary for the people involved to somehow turn it into a good thing. After all isn't something as important as controlling oil interests important for the security of the United States? You can bet the U.S. government and leaders of the U.S. oil markets think so!

How dare those Iraqis have the U.S. oil under their sand! This is all ridiculous!

Instead of utilizing advanced technology to end our dependence on oil we have the oil companies and the government waging war for control of a commodity that will at some point in the future run out. We have the technology to wean off of oil. The powerbrokers in the oil biz just haven't exhausted their profit making abilities yet. When that day comes they will broker water (hydro-power) or whatever other source is used to create energy!
If it's a commodity there will be someone financially profitting from it!

Answer 4

A) particular, he reported it to sell books. B) He reported it grow to be unlucky that because of the fact of politics, the administration won't be able to come out and admit that the conflict is approximately oil to three quantity. C) He additionally reported that, with out the conflict, oil may well be at a hundred thirty five+ money a barrel. In different words, he grow to be asserting what he sees because of the fact the political actuality of the situatiion, no longer making a fee judgment on the advisability of the conflict.

Answer 5

From its very first day, this insane, immoral 'war' was all about OIL and WAR PROFITEERING. Nothing else.
Anyone who believes we're 'in' Iraq to bring democracy to that nation, to defend our borders against 'terrorists' from some unknown 'evil empire', or to establish peace in the Middle East, is incredibly naive.
The American people were deceived, Congress was lied to, and our valiant U.S. troops were conned into believing there was honorable purpose in attacking another sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States. In fact, 675,000 Iraqis and 3,800 U.S. soldiers have sacrificed their lives so that a handful of wealthy elitists, industrialists and power brokers can become wealthier and more powerful.
The U.S. will maintain a 'presence' in Iraq for decades - perhaps generations - until we've sucked every drop of OIL from that land's sands. That's why we're building the largest U.S. embassy in the world on a 104-acre site in downtown Baghdad overlooking the 'new' Iraqi puppet government installed by the Bush administration. That's why Halliburton is building fourteen (yes- 14!) new permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.
Greenspan was 'on point' if he, indeed, said that. We went to Iraq for settle a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein that the Bush family held ever since the days of Desert Storm; to rape that land of all its OIL, and to enrich the coffers of the giant U.S. military-industrial complex [which Eisenhower warned us about], and which needed to boost its profits after so many years of 'peace'. -RKO- 09/18/07

Answer 6

yes

Answer 7

Yes it is all about oil.
Why no interest in Zim?, no added value

Answer 8

no, he's trying to divert attention away from Zionism.