| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:01 am Post subject: Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil |
 |
|
|
|
| Quote: | Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
"AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.
Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece |
no shit sherlock!
interesting that they end the article with the insistence of britain and america that the war wasn't about oil - and yet doesn't mention the oil law that was written by us ( the iraqi government didn't even see it for months! ) and is now being forced on the iraqi's against their wishes |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
and the bbc manages to cover the story ... without mentioning the oil!
| Quote: | Greenspan attacks Bush on economy
The former chairman of the US Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan has said President George W Bush pays too little attention to financial discipline.
In a book to be published next week, Mr Greenspan says Mr Bush ignored his advice to veto "out-of-control" bills that sent the US deeper into deficit.
And Mr Bush's Republicans deserved to lose control of Congress in last year's elections, he charges.
Mr Greenspan, 81, stepped down last year after nearly 19 years in the post.
In The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, Mr Greenspan - who has described himself as a "lifelong libertarian Republican" - spares no criticism of the Republican party.
He writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending at the time Republicans controlled Congress.
President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake", he said.
"Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," he says of the Bush administration.
And he charges that Republicans in Congress "swapped principle for power" and "ended up with neither".
"They deserved to lose."
Mr Greenspan retired in early 2006 after serving under six US presidents - either as Federal Reserve chairman or chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
He now runs a private consulting company - and is an honorary adviser to the UK government. |
they're so well disiplined the bbc staff - they know what not to mention ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| That's pretty shocking that the BBC didn't even mention the oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Yep... Times & Guardian mention it
+http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
and
+"http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170237,00.html"
Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m. "death toll
in Iraq now exceeds that of the Rwandan genocide in which about 800,000
died." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Quote: | Greenspan, Kissinger: Oil Drives U.S. in Iraq, Iran
by Robert Weissman
Alan Greenspan had acknowledged what is blindingly obvious to those who live in the reality-based world: The Iraq War was largely about oil.
Meanwhile, Henry Kissinger says in an op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post that control over oil is the key issue that should determine whether the U.S. undertakes military action against Iran.
These statements would not be remarkable, but for the effort of a broad swath of the U.S. political establishment to deny the central role of oil in U.S. involvement in the Middle East.
Greenspan's remarks, appearing first in his just-published memoirs, are eyebrow-raising for their directness:
"Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction,' American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
His follow-up remarks have been even more direct. "I thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the excuse was utterly beside the point," he told the Guardian.
Greenspan also tells the Washington Post's Bob Woodward that he actively lobbied the White House to remove Saddam Hussein for the express purpose of protecting Western control over global oil supplies.
"I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," Greenspan said. But, writes Woodward, Greenspan "added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab."
"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."
There's every reason to credit this view. U.S. oil companies surely have designs on Iraqi oil, and were concerned about inroads by French and other firms under Saddam. But the top U.S. geopolitical concern is making sure the oil remains in the hands of those who will cooperate with Western economies.
Henry Kissinger echoes this view in his op-ed. "Iran has legitimate aspirations that need to be respected," he writes -- but those legitimate aspirations do not include control over the oil that the United States and other industrial countries need.
"An Iran that practices subversion and seeks regional hegemony -- which appears to be the current trend -- must be faced with lines it will not be permitted to cross. The industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is incompatible with international security."
Note that Kissinger prioritizes Iranian (or "radical") control over regional oil supplies over concern about the country acquiring nuclear weapons.
One might reasonably suggest that Greenspan and Kissinger are only pointing out the obvious. (Kissinger himself refers to his concerns about Iran as "truisms.")
But these claims have not been accepted as obvious in U.S. political life.
The Iraq was "is not about oil" became a mantra among the pro-war crowd in the run-up to the commencement of hostilities and in the following months. A small sampling --
Said President Bush: The idea that the United States covets Iraqi oil fields is a "wrong impression." "I have a deep desire for peace. That's what I have a desire for. And freedom for the Iraqi people. See, I don't like a system where people are repressed through torture and murder in order to keep a dictator in place. It troubles me deeply. And so the Iraqi people must hear this loud and clear, that this country never has any intention to conquer anybody."
Condoleeza Rice, in response to the proposition, "if Saddam's primary export or natural resource was olive oil rather than oil, we would not be going through this situation," said: "This cannot be further from the truth. … He is a threat to his neighbors. He's a threat to American security interest. That is what the president has in mind." She
continued: "This is not about oil."
Colin Powell: "This is not about oil; this is about a tyrant, a dictator, who is developing weapons of mass destruction to use against the Arab populations."
Donald Rumsfeld: "It's not about oil and it's not about religion."
White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer on the U.S. desire to access Iraqi oil fields: "there's just nothing to it."
Coalition Provisional Authority Paul Bremer: "I have heard that allegation and I simply reject it."
General John Abizaid, Combatant Commander, Central Command, "It's not about oil."
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham: "It was not about oil."
"It's not about the oil," the Financial Times reported Richard Perle shouting at a parking attendant in frustration.
Australian Treasurer Peter Costello: "This is not about oil."
Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger: "The only thing I can tell you is this war is not about oil."
Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary: "This is not about oil. This is about international peace and security."
Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett: "This is not about oil. That was very clear. … This is about America, and America's position in the world, as the upholder of liberty for the oppressed."
And Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen joined war-monger Richard Perle in calling Representative Dennis Kucinich a "liar" (or at very least a "fool"), because Kucinich suggested the war might be motivated in part by a U.S. interest in Iraqi oil.
What lessons are to be drawn from the Greenspan-Kissinger revelations, other than that political leaders routinely lie or engage in mass self-delusion?
Controlling the U.S. war machine will require ending the U.S. addiction to oil -- not just foreign oil, but oil. There are of course other reasons that ending reliance on fossil fuels is imperative and of the greatest urgency.
More and more people are making the connections -- but there's no outpouring in the streets to overcome the entrenched economic interests that seek to maintain the petro-military nexus. A good place to start:
The No War, No Warming actions www.nowarnowarming.org planned for October 21-23 in Washington, D.C. and around the United States.
Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, and director of Essential Action .
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=13829 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johanssonite
Joined: 16 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Has there ever been any doubt? As Noam CHomsky would say if Iraqs national export was esparagus would an attack even be conceivable? Of course not. Having said all that oil was only a part of it.Other factors also came into play. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Johanssonite wrote: | | Of course not. Having said all that oil was only a part of it.Other factors also came into play. |
I agree, the other main factor was that Saddam Hussein stopped obeying the emperial orders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
i think for people like us there wasn't any doubt, but like the article points out, and as greenspan did the other week, this sort of thing just isn't said.
what interesting is there are a few people that still tell it like it is, like kissinger, and the media knows to ignore it. the greenspan quote was hardly picked up, it was ignored by the bbc, and this one from kissinger has got even less coverage so far - although give it until sunday ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Couchtripper - 2005-2015
|
