High Profile Libertarian Republican says Iraq invasion motivated by oil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

K COSSACK is clearly confused and has nothing of interest to add to the debates he's taking part in. Since almost everyone's disagreement with him is pretty much clear, may I suggest just to stop quoting him? It's fueling irrelevancies and derailing topics.

---

I've said that about other posters before too. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

On that note...

If the goal of the war was in fact oil rather than the stated goals of the Bush administration, could it be considered any more succesful than it is now? From what I've been hearing Iraq is not reaching oil quotas, meaning even more money flowing in from the US. Considering the general opposition to overlarge government spending on US citizens I'm surprised there haven't been more complaints about keeping Iraq affloat with taxpayers money.

Edit: which raises a thought. Greenspan's comment on the war in Iraq being largely about oil could just as easily be taken to mean that it was and still is crucial to funding the reconstruction of Iraq.

---

For the third time, Greenspan has said that he thought oil was justification enough for the war by itself. He's not saying that's what the administration's reason was. In fact, he has said that no one in the administration ever said to him that oil was the reason. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

For the third time, Greenspan has said that he thought oil was justification enough for the war by itself. He's not saying that's what the administration's reason was. In fact, he has said that no one in the administration ever said to him that oil was the reason. :yes:

---

I realise that. That's where the 'if' at the start of my statement came from, with the second part giving an alternative angle on Greenspan's comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

I realise that. That's where the 'if' at the start of my statement came from, with the second part giving an alternative angle on Greenspan's comments.

---

You're asking a hypothetical question, and I'm guessing not very hypothetical at that, that if Bush started the Iraq War to benefit American oil companies, has it been successful, yes?

Well, as Xiahou has pointed out repeatedly, Greenspan was saying that securing world oil supplies in and of itself was cause enough in HIS mind to take Saddam out (though he hinted that he would have preferred means other than war). He was talking about securing the global oil supply, a much broader economical question. He was actually quoted as saying that when he was discussing Iraq in the run up to the war, when HE raised the point about securing oil supplies, the staffers from the Defense and State Departments he was meeting with explicitly told him they were not allowed to consider oil supplies as a possible cause, nor even discuss it on or off the record.

The question you're asking... assuming Bush and Cheney started a war to profit oil companies, is actually very different. Check the price of a barrel of oil. It just broke $80. That's 4 times what it was in 2000. If you hold access to large quantities of crude oil, like most American oil companies, even though your volume has decreased somewhat, your revenue has increased substantially. I'd say that in your not-so-hypothetically-posed scenario, the war has been a stellar success. In your scenario, Bush and Cheney don't answer to the American people, nor do they care about the global economy as a whole. They're simply high-level mercenaries in the pay of Exxon and Texaco.

As for paying for everything for the Iraqis, no, this small c conservative is not very happy about it. But let's not forget the years of neglect of the infrasctucture of Iraq by Saddam after the first Gulf War. There's a lot there to fix, and a lot of it isn't even of our making.

All that being said, if your scenario was even remotely true, why is Europe's favorite Western Hemisphere leader out having tea with Ajay, thumbing his nose at the US on his way to address the UN again instead of languishing in a Miami prison with Noriega as a cell-mate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Really now?

How many tours in Iraq or Afghanistan have "u" done?

---

You mean going, to since pathetic crybaby idiots (which people seem to be today) CANNOT be DEPENDED on.

But being on ur knees for the rest of ur life seems to be "ok" since it doesnt cost anything.

EDIT: how many have u done? lets compare....

---

This isn't about measuring penises; rather my question was posed in response to you talking a tough game about how you were willing to sacrifice lives in order to take what you believe your country "needs." Given that you were so willing to make that kind of sacrifice, I was simply wondering whether or not you had ever put your own life on the line to achieve your country's goals. Given your previous comments, my question could have been legitimately asked by anybody on these boards, notwithstanding their own soldiering experience (or lack thereof).

But to answer your question, I have done tours neither in Afghanistan nor Iraq. Only Yugoslavia so far. But if I can sell my wife on the idea, I may be able to squeeze in a tour in Afghanistan before Canada's committment there expires.

But that is neither here nor there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Wow, Im sorry, Im actually in the military, and I see what the recruits are these days. Take your military sponsored propaganda BS and get rid of it. :laugh4:

---

Look, I respect you for joining the military, but that doesn't make you all knowing about its demographic composition.

Why should I listen to anecdotes when I have access to statistical data?

I do find it funny you call everything that disagrees with you 'propaganda'.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

All that being said, if your scenario was even remotely true, why is Europe's favorite Western Hemisphere leader out having tea with Ajay, thumbing his nose at the US on his way to address the UN again instead of languishing in a Miami prison with Noriega as a cell-mate?

---

Well, justifying a war against Saddam was easier. The entire US hated Saddam, and so did almost every other country. And to top it off, you've already fought him once, and you could link him to 9/11, which you would be hard pressed to do against Chavez.

Compared to Chavez, Saddam was the easy target, and with the perfect opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The question you're asking... assuming Bush and Cheney started a war to profit oil companies, is actually very different. Check the price of a barrel of oil. It just broke $80. That's 4 times what it was in 2000. If you hold access to large quantities of crude oil, like most American oil companies, even though your volume has decreased somewhat, your revenue has increased substantially. I'd say that in your not-so-hypothetically-posed scenario, the war has been a stellar success. In your scenario, Bush and Cheney don't answer to the American people, nor do they care about the global economy as a whole. They're simply high-level mercenaries in the pay of Exxon and Texaco.

---

While there is little I'd put past them, a more benign (relative, of course) reason could possibly be to simply occupy the oil-rich Iraq to offset declining US wells in the light of its importance to the US economy. I wouldn't necessarily say they did it to directly support oil companies, but perhaps their past in the industry biased them to overestimate the importance of oil in their global policy and the means necessary to acquire it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

As for paying for everything for the Iraqis, no, this small c conservative is not very happy about it. But let's not forget the years of neglect of the infrasctucture of Iraq by Saddam after the first Gulf War. There's a lot there to fix, and a lot of it isn't even of our making.

---

That's partially the reason I'm wondering about this side of things. Going for and protecting the oilfields is perfectly legitimate in the sense that the oil infrastructure needs repairing and is crucial to allowing Iraq to start financing itself. Of course, a prerequisite of that is that Iraq is actually the one running the oil supply, which right now its incapable of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

All that being said, if your scenario was even remotely true, why is Europe's favorite Western Hemisphere leader out having tea with Ajay, thumbing his nose at the US on his way to address the UN again instead of languishing in a Miami prison with Noriega as a cell-mate?

---

Because like Ahmadinejad he's playing the his cards far more cannily than Saddam ever did. Iraq was weak but defiant while possessing what are possibly the greatest undiscovered oil reserves, a tempting target; Iran is for the moment safe through virtue of being a larger and more imposing state than Iraq was (certainly while the US is overstretched), Venezuela by saying a lot of things which strike a chord with a large number of left and left-leaning people without providing a direct excuse for attack.

Whatever a lot of Europeans said, very few was truly sad to see Saddam go (sure, expressing anger at the invasion, but they were more than willing to reap the rewards if things turned out okay) and it'd be far tougher unless they do something stupid to similarly attack Iran or Venezuela with enough force to occupy oilfields.

All hypothetical, of course. ~;)

Checks sig...

K COSSACK ever considering a political career? I think you'll fit right in. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

He was actually quoted as saying that when he was discussing Iraq in the run up to the war, when HE raised the point about securing oil supplies, the staffers from the Defense and State Departments he was meeting with explicitly told him they were not allowed to consider oil supplies as a possible cause, nor even discuss it on or off the record.

---

Interesting that it then came up as a way to finance the rebuild later on then? And how the oil was then handled? Or how the other financial contracts were handled for that matter?
That said, I'm very much doubting that there's only one reason for the invasion. It's atleast 4-5 very important aspects that needs to be considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

As for paying for everything for the Iraqis, no, this small c conservative is not very happy about it. But let's not forget the years of neglect of the infrasctucture of Iraq by Saddam after the first Gulf War. There's a lot there to fix, and a lot of it isn't even of our making.

---

Fixing infrastructure is one thing, seeing the money that was supposed to go there disappearing into new American mansions for the entrepeneurs is another.


To get somewhat more in line of what the Swedish media has focused on, how're people considering Greenspawn's worries about the current risk of economical recession and poor budgets by the Bush administration? How is the American economy running currently as a whole?

lol:laugh4:

Ok back to topic, if the war had made us richer and given us more influence, I would think its a good idea. And yeah I would fight for that.

After all we have before...no expansion into indian lands means a very different future for USA. no war with mexico and none of their lands, not much gold will come in to fort knox.

but the thing I dislike was the " High Profile Libertarian Republican says Iraq invasion motivated by oil".

Oh and to the rest of you people, can words or mistakes passed on as fact (Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is comprised of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, the Principality of Wales and the Province of Northern Ireland.:laugh4: )

really hurt you guys?:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Ok back to topic, if the war had made us richer and given us more influence,
I would think its a good idea. And yeah I would fight for that.

---

So you would support an aggressive military action in pursuit of your nation's glory, even if it meant destabilization, loss of life, and increased hatred of your country? Wonderful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

After all we have before...no expansion into indian lands means a very different future for USA. no war with mexico and none of their lands, not much gold will come in to fort knox.

---

If the US would try any of those adventures today, it would be seen as a gross abuse of human rights and... ah screw it.

Aw bleeding hearts get ahead in life today dont they?

(not really or not much)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Aw bleeding hearts get ahead in life today dont they?

(not really or not much)

---

...Yes?

:yougotmail: K COSSAK

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:lam:

Do you seriously believe in what you are saying or are you arguing for the sake of arguing.

:logic:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Ok back to topic, if the war had made us richer and given us more influence, I would think its a good idea. And yeah I would fight for that.

After all we have before...no expansion into indian lands means a very different future for USA. no war with mexico and none of their lands, not much gold will come in to fort knox.

but the thing I dislike was the " High Profile Libertarian Republican says Iraq invasion motivated by oil".

---

Why do you dislike the title, it is accurate. Greenspan is a high profile individual who is a Libertarian Republican...

Given your own statements in the same post it would seem that "High Profile Backroomer says an Iraq invasion motivated by profit is a good idea." should be a good spin off title...

Why do I imagine an eleven-year-old typing away when I read K Cossack posts?

Which brings into question: did you just lie about serving in the military earlier in the thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Why do you dislike the title, it is accurate. Greenspan is a high profile individual who is a Libertarian Republican...

---

Well, technically, it should say "High Profile Libertarian Republican says Iraq invasion should have been motivated by oil. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Well, technically, it should say "High Profile Libertarian Republican says Iraq invasion should have been motivated by oil. :wink:

---

\
Um...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Greenspan

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

---

nope did not lie about serving in the military.

was it the way i came off or was it that u cant handle seeing true opinions of other posters than "I think iraq is bad because............................"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

\
Um...

---

Instead of basing your entire position on one single line extracted from a book he wrote, why not listen to what he's said in the numerous interviews since then? He thinks oil was a valid reason to invade Iraq. He's been quite clear about saying that it does not mean that it was the administration's motivation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

was it the way i came off or was it that u cant handle seeing true opinions of other posters than "I think iraq is bad because............................"

---

Most likely, it was because of the fact that you are ignorant on almost everything you are talking about, and your debating skills rival those of a rock. Other than that, nothing is really wrong.

im ignorant of my own opinions?

oh and congrats for basing my argument on 1-3 threads, i'm sure yours are at least above mine......(a bigger rock?)

I'd say it usually starts when you do at least try to spell correctly...
After that, a nice step would be not trying to live up to your signature and maybe remove said signature.
Then somewhen in the future, you might try to at least appear like you know what you're talking about.
And then I'd say that people who don't care about others aren't always welcome in a community and this forum is a community so when you like to see others die to get lower oilprices, you shouldn't expect a lot of open arms, especially from those who risk their life for your oil.

That said, I have no idea about the topic itself.:sweatdrop:

spell correc..

Remember that flame we had? plz dont actually start that again.

also, i think i lost all credibility, but it was worth it...i had my reasons...done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Well, technically, it should say "High Profile Libertarian Republican says Iraq invasion should have been motivated by oil. :wink:

---

Actually the conspiracy theory version that should have been said is:

"High Profile Libertarian Republican says Iraq invasion should have been motivated by pushing up oil prices so that oil companies such as KBR can make a nice profit for when they leave office."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Actually the conspiracy theory version that should have been said is:

"High Profile Libertarian Republican says Iraq invasion should have been motivated by pushing up oil prices so that oil companies such as KBR can make a nice profit for when they leave office."

---

Oh lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

im ignorant of my own opinions?

---

:help:

Quote:

---

oh and congrats for basing my argument on 1-3 threads, i'm sure yours are at least above mine......(a bigger rock?)

---

I'm sure also. :yes:

I am going to throw in a torch here...

The war on Iraq was not about oil but about the currency oil is traded in. Yes about $...
Saddam was threathening to demand € for his oil like Chavez did. That would have put pressure on the other oil nations in the region to do the same, and that would spiral to other nations. USA would have had to buy her oil using € and you all know the consequences that would bring.

Ok.. I am not saying I totally agree with this opinion as I am with Redleg on this and have been since the start of GWII. There was a ceasefire... the GWI never ended. The demands from the winning faction was not met within the time limit set. The ceasfire should have been cancelled 12 years before it finally did.

Sigurd:

You need to print your caveat in even smaller text next time.

Modern practice is to disregard the outmoded notion that the defeated party in a war must abide by the terms of the peace imposed or face a resumption of conflict.

Instead, the mere cessation of violence itself is the goal. Once violence has been curtailed, it is finished. Any new effort at violence must considered as a new case and must be justified independent of any abrogation of previous agreements.

In reality, I agree with Redleg and yourself. Don't tell anyone.