maqroll

U.S. Politics

Recommended Posts

Do you actually have any evidence that he was just a puppet for these people?

 

Less a puppet, more a willful child. A very polarised view of right and wrong coupled with a general ignorance of global matters.

 

The evidence was there for all to see at the time, there's plenty of stuff been written since, but now you can dip into the memoirs of his closest allies.

 

Try the Rice book 'No Higher Honour'. Take into account that they were very close and it's still relatively recent, so she's not going to blurt out "He's thick as pigshit".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrary to popular belief the Republicans aren't the only party that

block everything for the sake of it. That's what happens in a divided

government in America. Not saying I think it's right but that's just

what happens and the Democrats aren't saints either.

 

Only? No. But the Republicans of today have taken it to a new level, evidenced especially by the record number of filibustered bills in Obama's first term.

 

It's not just about being obstructionist per se, it's also about moving so far to the right relative to the general public on issues (in some cases, it's about the general public moving to the left) - on taxes, healthcare, LGBT rights, etc. - this means that even if both sides were equally intransigent and blocked each others' bills with the same frequency, the Democrats should not be blamed the way Republicans should, because they are blocking bills that are inhumane, anti-middle class, and anti-poor, while the Republicans are in general blocking bills that are good, that help create equality.

 

While it's true that Democrats, like Republicans, block legislation, they do not do it with the same frequency, and they (in general) do it for better reasons than the Republicans do. The Democrats are not saints, but the Republicans of today are **** devils.

Edited by legov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So because Greenspan says it, that makes it so? As far as I'm aware he wasn't involved in the planning of the Iraq war so he's not even in a position to "admit" the war was about oil. Bit of a misleading title that, but then again I expected no less from the Guardian.

 

Greenspan has admitted that he was personally involved in lobbying Cheney and many others to remove Saddam in order to stabilise the long-term supply of oil.  This article notes that a White House official told him that the case for war could not be made with explicit reference to oil.

 

Greenspan's comments include some references to denying that oil was the motive for the administration's invasion.  Politically, has has to say things like that.  No doubt he got some grief for his earlier injudicious remark.  Try to look beyond that, at the things he reveals as fact about what arguments were being made to whom and what he was told about which lines of argument could and couldn't be presented publicly.

 

Washington Post

 

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security  

By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, September 17, 2007

 

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

 

Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

 

"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." Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil."

Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."

 

Greenspan said he had backed Hussein's ouster, either through war or covert action. "I wasn't arguing for war per se," he said. But "to take [Hussein] out, in my judgment, it was something important for the West to do and essential, but I never saw Plan B" -- an alternative to war.

 

Greenspan's reference in "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" to what he calls the "politically inconvenient" fact that the war was "largely about oil" was first reported by The Washington Post on Saturday and has proved controversial.

 

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates took issue with Greenspan on ABC's "This Week" yesterday. "I wasn't here for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war," Gates said. But, he added, "I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't believe it's true."

 

Critics of the administration have often argued that while Bush cited Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and despotic rule as reasons for the invasion, he was also motivated by a desire to gain access to Iraq's vast oil reserves. Publicly, little evidence has emerged to support that view, although a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion -- listed as one of many objectives "to minimize disruption in international oil markets."

 

Though Greenspan's book is largely silent about Iraq, it is sharply critical of Bush and fellow Republicans on other matters, denouncing in particular what Greenspan calls the president's lack of fiscal discipline and the "dysfunctional government" he has presided over. In the interview, Greenspan said he had previously told Bush and Cheney of his critique. "They're not surprised by my conclusions," he said.

 

As for Iraq, Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something." While he was "reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon," he added, "my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon."

 

His main support for Hussein's ouster, though, was economically motivated. "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. 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 disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy.

 

Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.

 

"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."

 

Also see the personal connections of Bush, Cheney and others with oil firms and others which were looking to make a killing.

 

But more than the immediate profits of these firms, the bigger picture was securing a long-term, stable supply of oil.

 

In the UK, the oil firms were dealing with Blair behind the scenes.  This was at the time denied both by the firms and by Blair.  Both parties lied, as is shown by documents released under FOI, referred to for example here.

 

The British daily, The Independent, has been given 1,000 documents detailing talks between the British government and oil companies such as BP and Shell in fall of 2002 about their share in Iraqi petroleum. The memoranda were gained through Freedom of Information requests over five years by the activist Greg Muttitt, who has a book forthcoming. The documents flatly contradict denials 1) by Shell that its representatives met with the Blair government on Iraq at that time; 2) by BP that it had “no strategic interest” in Iraqi petroleum, and 3) by Tony Blair himself that it was a “conspiracy theory” that he was interested in Iraq’s petroleum as a motive for war.

 

It is evidence like this which underpins the view that the war was about oil.  In the face of that, your view that is wasn't appears to rest on accepting what proven liars like Blair were saying.

 

There's a line beyond which being trusting starts to look more like being wilfully blind.  You may have crossed that mark.

 

And now we are on to Iran, which has even greater reserves of oil than does Iraq.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really think that article proves anything. Greenspan is giving his own motives for going to war with Iraq had he been in a position to instigate it.

 

I'm not doubting that the war in Iraq benefited certain people, I just don't believe that it was the motive for the war. It's got nothing to do with simply believing what Bush and Blair said but rather a lack of evidence. I also don't think it's logically sound either. Why not simply fake evidence of WMDs or come up with a better pretext that will stand after the invasion is over?

 

Iran? People have been saying for years and years that a war in Iran is coming yet it never does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran? People have been saying for years and years that a war in Iran is coming yet it never does.

 

Obama will announce they have WMDs and have to invade ;)

That's what they said about Bush, and that's no doubt what they'll say about Obama's successor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US wont ever directly start a conflict with Iran, if it arises, it will be due to Israel kicking shit off.

Or Iran kicking shit off with Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They won't go for Iran. Their control on the region is slipping and they know it.

 

Too many theirs and theys to know what point you're making. I assume you mean Iran's control on the region is slipping and the US know it??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure about that...you could make an argument for the US having less influence/grip in the Mid East, but I don't think Iran is getting that much stronger tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, remember that the American public is far more war-weary than they were 10 years ago (wow, **** me it's been long!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, remember that the American public is far more war-weary than they were 10 years ago (wow, **** me it's been long!)

 

Lets hope they stay like this.

 

I fear another terrorists attack and they will change their minds.

Edited by AVFCforever1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is evidence like this which underpins the view that the war was about oil. In the face of that, your view that is wasn't appears to rest on accepting what proven liars like Blair were saying.

There's a line beyond which being trusting starts to look more like being wilfully blind.

You may have crossed that mark.

And now we are on to Iran, which has even greater reserves of oil than does Iraq.

I also have trouble believing the oil was the only reason for the Iraq war. I think it was one of 3 reasons. The removal of a dictator who was harming sections of the population and blunting a threat to the wider region being the other two. Securing oil stability would have been just a helpful bonus to the whole thing.

The reason being that they didn't seem to have a plan for actually stabilising the country once Saddam was removed. If oil was the primary objective then you need a stable environment to begin processing it. Looking back however, the plan seemed to just be to remove the government of Iraq and leave the Iraqis to get on with things afterwards.

To be honest, I think I would have preferred securing oil supplies to be the primary objective because the humanitarian aspects probably would have been better dealt with by creating the stable environment required for business to be successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20111228132834721734_20.png

That is the otheer thing against oil being the primary motive.

In the years since the contry has calmed down and the oil production has started up again so much of it has gone to forign companies especially China being a massive player.

The US and the UK suffered all the casulties, apparently they were doing it to secure oil, but loads of the contracts have gone to China, Russia and other countries.

It just doesn't stack up as an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites