Do you believe Alan Greenspan claim that Iraq war was really for oil?

Question

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

Forgot to add...

Feel free to say why you believe him... or not as the case may be.. please

Re biiiiigdooooog
I PERSONALLY did not misquote.. I merely added the link to the media report so that ppl could read it, then make up thier own minds on it before responding - as you obviously have done. The HEADLINE of of the article made the claim that Alan Greenspan claimed the Iraq war was really about oil - NOT ME PERSONALLY.

I'm still very much a novice when it comes to the art of political, legal and media spin...
I am merely asking the same question but in a different way to the original one because for some reason the same question was removed for a violation rule after 17 answers 4 days ago.. and I put it in the same category - here.. Go figure !!! So today, I decided to break the original question down.. and getting far more responses... same underlying question..

Ain't "freedom of speech" a wonderful tool...?.. not to mention good education.

Answer 1

well the war certainly wasnt because of WMD's....

Answer 2

Iraq has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq’s reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, much has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades. The Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon. But first the Parliament must pass a new oil sector investment law allowing foreign companies to assume a major role in the country. The US has threatened to withhold funding as well as financial and military support if the law does not soon pass. Although the Iraqi cabinet endorsed the draft law in July 2007, Parliament has balked at the legislation. Most Iraqis favor continued control by a national company and the powerful oil workers union strongly opposes de-nationalization. Iraq's political future is very much in flux, but oil remains the central feature of the political landscape.


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

Answer 3

Should George W Bush be tried for war crimes as perpetrator of the 2003 Iraq invasion? Of course. Should Tony Blair be tried for war crimes as an accomplice? Of course. Should other NATO countries leaders who sent thier troops to join the US soldiers in Iraq also be tried for war crimes as accomplices? Not sure on this one, I think it would have to be a case by case basis, more likely they should just be removed from power by the system. 4th question, follow-up: "Will any of these trials ever happen" No.

Answer 4

Yes, I do. I'm curious what other people think it is for? I didn't realize there was another reason for it.

Historically the whole reason we ever supported Israel is because we needed some kind of foothold in the region and they were the closest to us in terms of culture and belief - and those factors gave us an "in".

The reason we wanted in the region is because the commodity of crude oil there. If we can could maintain oil control we have more leverage to control a lot globally. Scarce resources = power and we want to get to it say, before China does. Plus, the middle east has traditionally not been our friends so we don't want them constantly dictating terms on us.

I don't see why this is such a polarized issue; especially among parties. I'm different from my friends in that I am Republican and totally see the War in Iraq "for oil" as it is, as logical and fine. The pursuit of this scarce resource is a rational one; and believe me, I rather have us get our hands on it then someone else. People's arguement that the war is for the fight on freedom and terror is fine, but is of little consequence to me. I say this because Iraq is one of many silly places. There are threats globally across all continents and cultures - so I don't believe that we are just targeting Iraq solely for the purpose of ending terrorism or to find Osama. We think he is elsewhere so why not go there (i.e. Pakistan)? And what happen to Afghanistan?

I also choose what I believe not only on facts, but on the perceived margin of discrepency I have relative to those in the know' to those in "Power" and those who are way more educated than I. When debate boils down to the everyday citizen I sometimes feel it is so pointless because the general public has no idea, nor capacity for that matter, to truly understand what goes on behind power's door. I think there are levels. Many levels. And those in Washington, the main decision makers, are on a whole different level that the general public is ignorant of. When they make emotional appeals and explaination like "War on Terror" of "Fight for Freedom" you must consider the legitamacy of such statements. To me, emnotional appeals are easy ones, something they through out to give the citizens something to chew on why they plan & plot behind closed doors. They are smart, educated, well-prepared, and well-resourced to do what they want. Real policy boils down to economics and political leverage - that's all. That's the hard reality of power and the cost of business done at such high levels. These things are what make America America. We are efficient and put the best resources into it. We'll be damned if we let such a scarce commodity go unchecked and controled by an enemy. If it was the UK in the region we would be more trusting of there responsibility with the oil; we know they would put it on the global markets and sell it porperly. But these royals, who own the oil and use it for themselves and leverage when conducting global affairs and such is simply not viable for us. And, if we stunt more jihads or terrror attacks that's a nice bonus added to it.

You know, a lot of conservatives bach Michael Moore movies, and although most of it is exaggerated for emotional effect (it is a movie after all, come on!), the are a lot of underlining truths portrayed. If you are military and are there I'm sure you see how big-business moves around there. It is real, it is happening.

Nice question and I enjoy you accepting all sides.

God bless if you are there and be safe!

Answer 5

I sure do. Alan Greenspan have more political(in the hearings he would loudly state tax cuts are good and then mumble they need to be accompanied by spending cuts). but he has immense knowledge of the US and world economy.

He knew the war was about oil. Saddam wanted to sell oil in Euros not US dollars, which would have tough for the US economy. So the Republican part of Alan Greenspan understood that but the Libertarian part of Greenspan didn't think we should go to war for it.

Iran is threatening to use Euros as well, in the sales of their oil. We already know how the US feels about that.

Iraq may have larger reserves than anywhere in the world. Don't bother "following the money", follow the oil.

Funny, all Republicans that speak out, talk a different talk a few days later. Hagel, Warner, Greenspan. You have to wonder if they have files like CIA director Hoover had on people to get them to do what they wanted.

Answer 6

of course the war in Iraq was mostly about oil. There are other reasons, but I think it's obvious oil is a major reason.
Oil is the lifeblood of the global economy. Saddam Hussein had the potential to seriously disrupt the oil trade.

When Cheney and Rumsfield were planning the war, securing the oil fields was part of the plan.

When people say why is gas expensive fail to realize that had the US not secured the oil there it would be $130-$150 a barrel as opposed to $80 a barrel.

Answer 7

A. You misquoted. B. You didnt state the entire quote, thereby, missing the entire context. C. No......only an ostrich with his head stuck in the sand would believe this.......OK.....and possibly a radical left wing liberal.

Answer 8

off-course for oil. or else for what. Iraq,Iran have the most of the oil reserve in the middle east. by taking control over oil means a direct control over world economy. Iraq was attacked USA/UK on the grounds that it posses weapons of mass destruction. but this claim of US was proved wrong. the immediate reason after this comes as the accusation of oil reserves.

Answer 9

If it was, we sure haven't accomplished that mission yet. We don't take any oil from Iraq, we hardly buy any of our oil from Iraq and US oil companies are not very involved in doing business in or with Iraq.

Answer 10

There was never a doubt in my mind! I've always know it was about 2 things
1 The oil and the profits to be made from it
2 the profits from investments in the companies awarded no bid contracts
OK it's about one thing War profiteering!

Answer 11

I believe that is what he thinks. Whether he is right or not, I feel we will learn the truth eventually in someones tell all book later.