<p>AMERICAs elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.</p>
<p>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 Bushs economic policies (edit: He praises Clinton though)</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 Saddams support for terrorism.</p>
<p>Do folks see the potential contradiction here?</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>There are two questions here: 1) the original motivation for the war (which ended in 2003); and 2) the motivation for the continuing hostile, aggressive occupation. They don’t have to be one and the same thing. The earlier Clinton genocide and the Christmas bombings of December 1998 were likely about oil, but not necessarily about Iraq’s oil, but the need to have permanent military beachheads in the Middle East to secure the long-term stable flow. This seems to have motivated the invasion as well. Now, however, much of the occupation is about keeping the flow (and money) from Iraqi oil out of the hands of “our enemies”. This is already failing in the south. In the north, there is already a power grab for the oil among Bush’s cronies. Ultimately, however, the geopolitics are such that, without the hostile, aggressive occupation, Iraq will eventually cut a deal with Iran that will allow the latter to refine its own oil supplies, and make for a very influential bulwark against the Saudis.</p>
<p>This War will end when the people and countries, who have buying US’s debt, either stop buying the USA’s accummulated War Debt or demand a higher risk premium. They will sooner or later will come to the point where the damage to their own economies would be greater if this financing continues. The Presidential candidates know that a shift in financing will occur but when and how severe that shift is unknown. Has the US already lost this race to head it off financial collapse??</p>
<p>Believing the war was for oil shows how stupid Greenspan is. If the war had been for oil, we would be keeping all of it rather than permitting the Iraqis to sell it and keep the profits. </p>
<p>Greenspan was a truly horrible fed chairman. In the late 90s, he decided he did not like irrational exuberance in the stock market so he raised the federal funds rate to 6.5 percent even though there was no sign of serious inflation. After the market crashed due to Greenspan’s mistakes and Clinton’s harmful strong dollar policy, Greenspan dropped the federal funds rate to 1 percent. That was way too low and it created irrational exuberance in the housing and lending markets. The subprime meltdown we are witnessing was bought and paid for by Alan Green span. Greenspan is a bonehead and I say good riddance.</p>
<p>You would hardly go to war in order to obtain expensive oil. Americans (I remember) paid $1.41 for unlead regular before the current Iraq war. Now it teethers around $2.60 - $3.00.</p>
<p>Like I said one would hardly go to war in order to pay more for oil. Greenie’s lost it.</p>
<p>At any rate, now we have private citizens (who just happen to be Bush’s cronies) making foreign policy. It is the official policy of the U.S. that an oil-sharing agreement needs to be reached by the three major parties in Iraq (with a rake-off to U.S. oil companies, of course.) It is the private policy of Bush’s friend Hunt that such an agreement can be subverted for his own personal profit through a non-government agreement with the Kurdish Provincial Government. </p>
<p>"You would hardly go to war in order to obtain expensive oil. Americans (I remember) paid $1.41 for unlead regular before the current Iraq war. Now it teethers around $2.60 - $3.00.</p>
<p>Like I said one would hardly go to war in order to pay more for oil."</p>
<p>In case you haven’t noticed, the hostile, aggressive occupation isn’t about “you” at all.</p>
<p>(The funny thing about Greenspan’s statement is that - regardless of whether we agree or disagree - it is probably the clearest thing he has ever said in his life! ;))</p>
<p>I’m still going to get the book. Its going to be fun to see what he did and what resulted. Economics is still a black science and unknown consequences can happen, according to my even older economics practicing brother.</p>
<p>Of course you would, if you are Cheney/Bush and their oil company/Halliburton cronies. Prices at an all-time high, and profits at an all time high.
And once the oil contracts they are working on are completed, US (and British) companies will control the wells in Iraq, as well.
Mission accomplished.</p>
No company called Exxon exists today. The new company approved by the oil barrons’ Bill Clinton and Al Gore is called ExxonMobil. The Clinton administration’s decision in 1999 to have the number one and number two oil companies merge was about oil – all about oil.</p>
<p>Why do folks assume that the general understanding of oil policy on the part of the Clinton and Bush Administration’s is all that different? I see much more in the way of continuity than difference.</p>
<p>“Why do folks assume that the general understanding of oil policy on the part of the Clinton and Bush Administration’s is all that different? I see much more in the way of continuity than difference.”</p>
<p>“Believing the war was for oil shows how stupid Greenspan is. If the war had been for oil, we would be keeping all of it rather than permitting the Iraqis to sell it and keep the profits”</p>
<p>And let me add to your post… believing that “you” are part of the “we” shows you aren’t the brightest blub in the box either.</p>
<p>Some of you always thought you were part of the “we” but never were. Unfortunately, “you” are over here with the rest of “us”. Who are trying to survive and get by with what the “we” allows us to. The “we” sits at a much nicer table than the rest of “us”.</p>