Greenspan Spills the Beans

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 10-15-2007, 23:49

Can't say I like the authors style. It's like a barely concealed rant, he goes to lengths to seperate "us" from those tards who watch football on sunday.

Not that I disagree overmuch with his conclusion.

**Xiahou** · 10-16-2007, 00:42

Teh old- we already had a thread on this.

Greenspan was saying he thought oil was reason enough to invade Iraq, not that it was the administration's reason.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 10-16-2007, 01:11

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Teh old- we already had a thread on this.

Greenspan was saying he thought oil was reason enough to invade Iraq, not that it was the administration's reason.

I wonder if that's why the writer only quoted one sentence from his book...

**rotorgun** · 10-16-2007, 01:47

Originally Posted by [B

Sasaki Kojiro[/B]]I wonder if that's why the writer only quoted one sentence from his book...

A good point, but as he says in his article, "Why Are Americans Silent?" Does anyone really care that our people are dying and being maimed for life merely to keep the supply and demand price where the oil folks want it?

That's where I disagree with Fragony who claims that Kuwait was flooding the market. I think it was Iraq who wanted to flood the market, and the good ole' Texas boys just couldn't stand someone keeping the price per barrel low. That's just my humble opinion, but look at the price now, what is is? $80.00 per barrel and still climbing?

**rotorgun** · 10-16-2007, 01:54

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Teh old- we already had a thread on this.

Greenspan was saying he thought oil was reason enough to invade Iraq, not that it was the administration's reason.

I realize that it's an old topic for some, but I think that no one seems to care. Well I do, because many of my good friends are being asked to bear the brunt of a war based on a false premise. That sort of pisses me off, that some are too shallow to think their lives aren't worth at least a little moral integrity.

Here is what Greenspan actually says. "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." That's a bit different from your interpretation. You see, he's saddened, which is more than I can say for many.

**Xiahou** · 10-16-2007, 02:09

Originally Posted by rotorgun

Here is what Greenspan actually says. "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." That's a bit different from your interpretation. You see, he's saddened, which is more than I can say for many.

It's not my interpretation, it's Greenspan's. After this 1 sentence excerpt made all the headlines, Greenspan went out of his way on numerous interviews to clarify his remarks to the effect of what I said above.

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

“My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day” passing through,” Greenspan said.

Given that, “I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” he said. But he added he was not implying the war was an oil grab, the Post said.

link

He's restated that time and again in various interviews- all you have to do is look.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 10-16-2007, 20:12

To state that the Bush administration began the current conflict in Iraq as a means to secure oil or "corner the market" or some-such is tinfoil hat stuff. We sought a linch-pin around which to alter the Middle East. We have altered it -- though I do not know if anyone can yet see the results that will be. The Neo-Con formula of reverse domino democracy appears unlikely.

To state that oil was or is irrelevant in the strategic considerations leading up to the decision to invade Iraq would be fatuous. If the primary strategic resource of the region were pomegranates, their would have been little to commend Iraq as a target over Libya, Syria, or Somalia.

**rotorgun** · 10-16-2007, 22:09

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's not my interpretation, it's Greenspan's. After this 1 sentence excerpt made all the headlines, Greenspan went out of his way on numerous interviews to clarify his remarks to the effect of what I said above.

link

He's restated that time and again in various interviews- all you have to do is look.

Thanks Xiahou, I appreciate your taking the time to provide a useful link. I am not saying that it was the only reason for going to war with Iraq, but it was certainly among the most important strategic reasons. It is that some wish to dismiss it out of hand that rattles my cage. I still cannot bring myself to trust the motives of an administration that has so readily taken the people for granted so-as if we are not bright enough to contemplate going to war for resources being strategically important. That's my real beef.