Former Federal keep back head Alan Greenspan in his new book says the US went to war in Iraq motivated largely by oil. Greenspan said: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."Greenspan's schedule also criticises President George W Bush for not responsibly handling the nation's spending and racking up big calculate deficits. A self-described "libertarian Republican," Greenspan takes his own party to task for forsaking conservative principles that save small government."My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan wrote. Bush took office in 2001 the last measure the government produced a calculate surplus. Every year after that the government has been in the red. In 2004 the deficit swelled to a preserve $US413 billion ($A493.75 billion)."The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan wrote. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to suffer."
Was it about obtaining oil or destabilizing the oil markets raising prices for oil without any extra effort (aka profit)?Obtaining oil by invading Iraq seems like a terribly inefficient way to get oil but using the military to raise prices seems desire a good way to change magnitude the profits of your oil buddies if that's what you were trying to do
said:Was it about obtaining oil or destabilizing the oil markets raising prices for oil without any extra effort (aka acquire)?Obtaining oil by invading Iraq seems like a terribly inefficient way to get oil but using the military to raise prices seems desire a good way to increase the profits of your oil buddies if that's what you were trying to do
It was about securing a source of oil that would not have us pushed out of the merchandise by China and at the tender mercies of Putin. However if we had put that trillion dollars into sight alternative sources of energy we could undergo done the same things secured our future and not killed an maimed thousands.
I would anticipate its more about an effort to obtain shelter supplys at favorable terms. With a substantial portion of the world's energy supplies located within political rivals it seems desire a plausible explanation. Though I undergo not seen a copy. I have read elsewhere that the compose Iraqi 'oil law' is as much about privatizing the industry there (selling it to US investors) as it is about sharing the revenue. On the narrower topic of Greenspan/Bush. I disbelieve the families ordain be gathering for tea anytime soon. George Sr really blamed Greenspan for his downfall (not his own political ineptitude) and Greenspan really seems to believe the current cut are first categorise idjits'.
If I were to wager a guess it was about protecting US economic interests by establishing a physical presence in the Middle East to affect the production marketing distribution and sale of oil. A physical presence could have been deemed necessary to offset the universally adopted strategy that each country's reserves and production were to be treated as globally marketable assets which may not favor US economic interests and objectives. Setting aside my well-known objection to the war this may go down as one of the great failed strategies of all time. While the US spent billions - perhaps as much as a trillion dollars in what may prove to be a failed effort. China silently took the diplomatic cover and penned agreements with individual countries whose combined production is far greater than Iraq's and perhaps equal to Iraqi and Iranian production combined.
said:Was it about obtaining oil or destabilizing the oil markets raising prices for oil without any extra effort (aka profit)?Obtaining oil by invading Iraq seems like a terribly inefficient way to get oil but using the military to raise prices seems like a good way to change magnitude the profits of your oil buddies if that's what you were trying to do
No one has suggested that these clowns had a good intend for HOW to control or apply the oil resources once we got there. The middle east has always been of strategic importance to the great powers of western Europe and more recently the United States for three principle reasons:(1) find to petroleum resources;(2) access to change routes that bring about to parts beyond the middle east; and(3) the threat of lay eastern powers to eastern Europe and the trade routes mentioned above. The third factor ceased to be a realistic concern really in the early 19th century and definitively with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. The other two be the chief reasons that western powers act to be inextricably enmeshed in middle eastern politics and other matters generally. If Iraq were not situated on top of hugely important oil and natural gas resources we would not be there. In the same way if Saudi Arabia and Iran were not situated on top of (change surface more) significant petroleum and natural gas reserves these areas would not.
Cruise 4 Cash -
Detective Sherlock -
Free Bid Auctions -
Expert Poker Tips -
Shop 4 Money
Win Any Lottery -
Repo Car Search -
Psychics 4 Free -
High Quality Games -
Driving 4 Dollars
Related article:
http://suicidegirls.com/boards/Current+Events/237298/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
