High Profile Libertarian Republican says Iraq invasion motivated by oil

[Papewaio]

Alan Greenspan says Iraq invasion motivated by oil

FORMER Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, in his new book, says the US went to war in Iraq motivated largely by oil.

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

His book also criticises US President George W. Bush for not responsibly handling the nation's spending and racking up big budget deficits.

A self-described "libertarian Republican," Mr Greenspan takes his own party to task for forsaking conservative principles that favour small government.

Apologies if this is old news already. May the hatchet jobs commence...

[Boyar Son]

As long as I dont have to pay high prices for gas, and America becomes richer, then

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

As long as I dont have to pay high prices for gas, and America becomes richer, then

You don't mind if thousands of people die so your gas prices are lower, when they're already among the lowest in the western world?


If you really meant that, and I am not misunderstanding, then I'm disgusted.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

By the way, it seems like America is becoming poorer as a result of this war. I'm not going to quote the spending figures - the rough estimates should be well known enough.

[Papewaio]

As long as I dont have to pay high prices for gas, and America becomes richer, then

Considering that prices have gone up and the US government is running towards a record deficit... that has to be one of the most ironic posts and pictures in the backroom ever.

[Xiahou]

Weird how different sources spin the same story differently..

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive."

Personally, I don't understand his argument. We were going to get Iraqi oil no matter what. Saddam would sell it and he'd sell it at the going rate- he needed the money.

Edit:

Considering that prices have gone up and the US government is running towards a record deficit...

Not true.

[Beirut]

As long as I dont have to pay high prices for gas, and America becomes richer, then

Would you be so kind as put arrows pointing to the expendable American "I died for cheaper gas" soldiers on that APC?

They all just look like young guys with families to me, but what do I know...

[Lemur]

This means that Alan Greenspan is really a liberal Democratic stooge. Duh.

[HoreTore]

Would you be so kind as put arrows pointing to the expendable American "I died for cheaper gas" soldiers on that APC?

They all just look like young guys with families to me, but what do I know...

That's the reason why professional armies are superior to conscripts. Important people are conscripted, but they won't enlist. So, with a professional army, only poor people dies, and they're expendable. As long as we rich, important people lives and gets richer, the world is good.

[Ice]

Who cares what the former FED Chairman thinks about the war?

[Papewaio]

Amateurs talk tactics.
Professionals talk logistics.

Methinks that Mr Coal Train is a specialist in logistics.

[Ice]

As long as I dont have to pay high prices for gas, and America becomes richer, then

Except, we haven't become richer, and gas prices aren't lower.

[econ21]

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday...

I am not sure what he was saying, but I suspect it is something along the lines of:

"If Iraq had not had oil, or neighboured big oil producers, then the war would not have happened."

If so, I suspect most people would agree with that even though it does run counter to the whole WMD/terrorism rationale.

[HoreTore]

Who cares what the former FED Chairman thinks about the war?

No-one, I suppose. However, if he enlists or is conscripted and dies in the war, then his family will react to that, and they have the means to change the will of others(and the right ones). A poor mans family does not(with a few exceptions, of course).

[InsaneApache]

You mean the war wasn't about WMD; Regime change but about Haliburton oil?

Well I'll go t'ut foot of our stairs!

[Zaknafien]

Noooo! And here we all thought it was about "spreading the light of democracy" in the Middle East?! LOL

[Ice]

No-one, I suppose. However, if he enlists or is conscripted and dies in the war, then his family will react to that, and they have the means to change the will of others(and the right ones). A poor mans family does not(with a few exceptions, of course).

What?

Enlists? Conscript? The man is in his 70s, not to mention that the government has not and most likely will not conscript anyone.

[Zaknafien]

But its still the same principle: Poor people dying for no reason that involves them, for the benefit of a few wealthy individuals. Been the same throughout history.

[HoreTore]

Enlists? Conscript? The man is in his 70s,

I was talking generally, not about him specifically.

not to mention that the government has not and most likely will not conscript anyone.

They won't, as I said, that would mean that important people died instead of poor people nobody cares about...

[Ice]

But its still the same principle: Poor people dying for no reason that involves them, for the benefit of a few wealthy individuals. Been the same throughout history.

Simple solution if you believe something like this: Don't join the military.

They won't, as I said, that would mean that important people died instead of poor people nobody cares about...

I wouldn't say all soldiers are poor and no one cares about them. Besides, like I said before, they volunteer. When you volunteer to serve in a nation's armed forces you are pretty much agreeing to be deployed wherever they might see fit. If you don't like this, then don't join.

[Crazed Rabbit]

But its still the same principle: Poor people dying for no reason that involves them, for the benefit of a few wealthy individuals. Been the same throughout history.

Nope. In reality, you are wrong:

These results have been confirmed in recent editions of this report, which portray a socioeconomic composition of enlisted accessions similar to the population as a whole, but with the top quartile of the population underrepresented.(6) While the socioeconomic status of recruits is slightly lower than the general population, today's recruits have higher levels of education, measured aptitudes, and reading skills than their civilian counterparts.

http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/po...chapter_7.html

That oft-repeated belief that only the poor enlist is wrong, like so many other things.

CR

[Xiahou]

That oft-repeated belief that only the poor enlist is wrong, like so many other things.

You'd think he'd know better....

And Greenspan has explicitly said that he never heard oil used as justification- what he is saying is that he personally felt that the importance of oil would justify the invasion. I don't really understand that notion personally.

[Geoffrey S]

The top quarter? That's a curious measurement to use, since it hides the rich among those with merely a reasonably high above average income. While I don't think the statement that the army consists of the poor can be correct, I do think the rich are underrepresented. And to be honest, why shouldn't that be the case?

[Boyar Son]

LOL!! you guys really disliked that huh?

Whats the matter aint got the balls to fight for what you need?

EDIT: dammit than what will you guys fight for? oh ok lets all talk this over guys, yeah right talking is for the civilized, WAR is for all else.

[Ice]

LOL!! you guys really disliked that huh?

Whats the matter aint got the balls to fight for what you need?

EDIT: dammit than what will you guys fight for? oh ok lets all talk this over guys, yeah right talking is for the civilized, WAR is for all else.

Cossack, what are you talking about?

[Goofball]

LOL!! you guys really disliked that huh?

Whats the matter aint got the balls to fight for what you need?

EDIT: dammit than what will you guys fight for? oh ok lets all talk this over guys, yeah right talking is for the civilized, WAR is for all else.

Fighting for something you "need" when you are taking that something from somebody else who also needs it isn't brave. At best, it's bullying. At worst, it's Lebensraum.

It's humanity taken to its lowest common denominator.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

LOL!! you guys really disliked that huh?

Whats the matter aint got the balls to fight for what you need?

EDIT: dammit than what will you guys fight for? oh ok lets all talk this over guys, yeah right talking is for the civilized, WAR is for all else.

I'm not sure exactly what you meant, but I'll give it a go anyways.


You don't need to fight for your oil. You need to:

A) Cut your dependence on oil.
B) Trade for it. As somebody pointed out earlier, Saddam would've, and so would other countries.
C) Both. Sounds like a smarter option to me.
D) Fight for it. You lose young Americans, spend a ton of money that you could've actually used elsewhere, and your gas prices still climb, along with the rest of the world's.

My point is that you don't need oil just as much as you think. It is possible to cut down, even by a few barrels, it's just that nobody is willing to go for it. I could understand going to war if somebody had a resource you desperately needed for survival, but oil...come on. You can get it through trade anyways.

[Boyar Son]

I'm not sure exactly what you meant, but I'll give it a go anyways.


You don't need to fight for your oil. You need to:

A) Cut your dependence on oil.
B) Trade for it. As somebody pointed out earlier, Saddam would've, and so would other countries.
C) Both. Sounds like a smarter option to me.
D) Fight for it. You lose young Americans, spend a ton of money that you could've actually used elsewhere, and your gas prices still climb, along with the rest of the world's.

My point is that you don't need oil just as much as you think. It is possible to cut down, even by a few barrels, it's just that nobody is willing to go for it. I could understand going to war if somebody had a resource you desperately needed for survival, but oil...come on. You can get it through trade anyways.

That made sense.

@goofball-It's humanity taken to its lowest common denominator.

Bet ya wouldnt say that about Cyrus the great would ya?

EDIT: other posts directed to me, well arent you all a bunch of peaceful people....you know....somethin like....TIBET.

[Pannonian]

LOL!! you guys really disliked that huh?

Whats the matter aint got the balls to fight for what you need?

EDIT: dammit than what will you guys fight for? oh ok lets all talk this over guys, yeah right talking is for the civilized, WAR is for all else.

Are you another of those chicken hawks?

[Boyar Son]

Are you another of those chicken hawks?

u sir are mistaken. I'm the Hawk, ur the chicken.

[Zaknafien]

Nope. In reality, you are wrong:

http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/po...chapter_7.html

That oft-repeated belief that only the poor enlist is wrong, like so many other things.

CR

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.

A large majority of the privates that come in these days are under-educated or mere high school diploma or GED holders who join for 'benefits' because they have no other options. Not to mention that military pay is below the poverty level in the first place if you're not an officer.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Get a clue.

You think an 18 year old kid from a poor town in Iowa gets any benefit from going off to Iraq or wherever and killing people for no reason, because a guy in a suit said they were "evildoers"?