Do you agree with Greenspan that the War in Iraq is about Oil?

Question

Greenspan stated that it was more important to remove Saddam than it was Bin Laden because Saddam had threatened OPEC's oil supply in the early 1990's.

He went on to say that had Saddam threatened the oil supply in this decade it would have led to catastrophic results for the global economy. He eluded to potential losses in the trillions if that were to happen.

Greenspan was not talking about America's consumption of OPEC oil specifically though that certainly plays a part.

He appeared on Charlie Rose to clarrify that. He was mainly talking about stability. Instability would have created market fears & send oil prices skyrocketing. It likewise would have curtailed production in factories worldwide that are more dependant on OPEC oil than we are.

That's were is estimate of a loss in trillions comes from. He's basically saying the global economic system is much more interweaved now than it was say 15 yrs ago.

Answer 1

If it was about oil - you made a pretty good case of why we had to go in there. Not to mention that Iraq is a terrorist training ground and supported those who wanted to harm the USA.
None of us were invited to sit in on WAR meetings so because we do not have all the facts we are unable to say FOR SURE why we are there...BUT - I still think we NEED TO BE THERE and we need to win this war.

Answer 2

To be honest: I don't know! But I find it hard to believe that president Bush would sacrifice the lives of our troops over oil! Why is it that the CIA and other intelligence agencies said that Saddam did indeed have weapons of mass destruction? I mean the president based his decision on what the Intelligence reports said! If anyone is to blame, I would have to say it would have to be those who gave the intel. If that Intel is false, then diciplinary action should be taken against those who where providing the false intel. Mabe the President knows more about Iraq than what he is telling. Mabe Iraq was partly responsible for the September 11th attacks. Niether you or I know whats really going on! I can promise you that!

Answer 3

Well, it is kind of a tricky conundrum (the Iraq conflict):

First off, it was a war on a reckless despot, who had supposedly rejected peace and numerous UN resolutions. It was time to straighten out Sadaam!

Then, it was a war on terror, specifically about WMD's that were rampant in Iraq. We had to keep Sadaam from profiteering his WMD's and Oil in deals with nefarious ne'er do wells!

Then, there weren't any WMD's so it was about oil and stabilizing the region for Democratic governments to flood the world with gazillions of gallons of oil!

Then the locals in Iraq started fighting back regionally, and Al Qaeda siezed the opportunity to jump in the Kill Americans pool, so it became a war on terror because Al Qaeda was in Iraq and we must crush Al Qaeda at all costs!

Now, in the current stage, leaving now would de-stabilize Iraq and let the nefarious ne'er do wells take control and promote their nefarious ways. We must not abandon the people of Iraq, who deserve the stable and fruitful democracy that only we can offer (albeit at a very steep price, for us and for them)

So, in a nutshell, the reasons for war are "updated" as the reality of the times changes. We'll end up stuck there forever.

Answer 4

Yes, I do agree with him. Too bad he couldn't have spoken up sooner! While we may not agree with the war in Iraq today, I feel that getting rid of Saddam was important because he was threatening to sell the oil to China in order to force us into a bidding war against them. We need oil, we only have approximately 96 days of reserve oil in this country, our wells are running out & to obtain the oil from coal shale is very costly. This in no way means that we should go to war to obtain what we need from others, but it does explain some of the why some would feel that we could justify it.

Answer 5

Yes and No. The oil issue was discussed long before 2003. At our rate of growth we needed to prepare for at least 50,000 more barrels of oil a day by 2012. The real issue wasn't just the oil but Saddams plan to join Iran and EU's plan to break the American economy by selling most of their oil for "euros" instead of US dollars. This is still a pressing issue with Iran.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

Answer 6

Sure it is about oil. Why would we want terrorist insurgents taking over a land rich in oil reserves? That would be destructive to the free world that is dependent on oil. That is why we are there, helping Iraq to be a free nation, and in that perspective, it makes total sense. Would be nice to see some more world nations join the Allied Forces and lend a hand.

Answer 7

i think of the Iraq Oil regulation demonstrates that this replaced into a minimum of component to the reason of the warfare. If it replaced into approximately spreading elections or combating terrorism, why replaced into privatizing Iraqi oil fields and inspiring remote places (study U.S.) businesses to take a place and earnings considered one of these necessary precedence after the conflict? i do no longer think of that's the completed reason (I additionally think of the conservatives easily believed in some kind of opposite domino theory to boot), in spite of the undeniable fact that it replaced into definitely component to the reason.

Answer 8

Of course it was about oil, never found any WMD'S, any connection to Taliban, or Al-Qaeda, Bush and Cheney have been caught in so many lies, and Iran is about Oil but I can guarantee that Iran won't lay down like Iraq.

Answer 9

Thats all its about. They sold it on the other 'reasons,' because they needed an excuse. The whole war on terror, just like the war on drugs, are excuses used to obfuscate the real motive: greed.

Funny thing is it was so obvious from its inception, yet those who were brave enough to call it that were discarded as whackos, and the lie withstood for so long (and still stands in the minds of the ignorant) that now they dont even get the credit for their prescience.

Answer 10

hey let me answer that.....first of all you have to know that i'm an arab, a muslim one so my answer will probably be the closest to the trurh.....well ofcourse without any doubt america invaded iraq because of oil...iraq as we all know is the richest country in the world when it comes to oil....if you don't agree or have any doubts answer this : america the angel killed saddam the tyrant and freed it's people oh wow so why is it in iraq now? i mean if it really took iraq over because of saddam well he's gone now what are you doing in our lands now. (if it would make ant difference i'm egyptian not from iraq but i know what our brothers and sisters suffer there plus my experience i have friends from iraq who live here in egypt and who made me gain more experience). what you are exactly doing is taking our oil and resources...hope you get it thanks.....

Answer 11

wow,!!!
why does it take thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and all this destruction to get people to finaly pay attention??!!!
i guess those are the people that were left behind that are finaly catchingup to the rest of us!!!

so now its becoming more "sane" to realize and speak out that it was about oil??!!!

jesus, as long as someone puts an "official" stamp on it!!!