posted
Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil Graham Paterson 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.
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 Bush’s economic policies.
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.
Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.
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 Saddam’s support for terrorism.
IP: Logged |
posted
That's what we call a bunch of Bravo Sierra. If it were about oil, why wouldn't we just have taken the $750 billion that we've spent and dug up half of Alaska and built 100 new rigs out in the gulf of mexico. That we invaded for oil sounds convenient but it doesn't quite add up.
All the hippies wanted us out of Vietnam because we were "killing all the babies" and disrupting the peaceful commies and hindering their revolution. The problem with America is that we have too many damn idiots who accept whatever they happen to be seeing on TV as the absolute literal truth, nobody thinks for themself these days, at least it seems that way to me everytime I'm home on R&R. Bah, whatever
-------------------- Euthanasia? I'm American! Why should I care about kids over there??
IP: Logged |
posted
of course its about the oil!!...digging up alaska wouldnt have gotten any support from the american sheep(unless we said they attacked us...then,we would of bombed the crap out of them)... the hippies wanted out cuz they didnt want the Killing of babies. thats right, . is that wrong? ........... your tag line says it all...........
quote:Originally posted by Daddy Warbucks: That's what we call a bunch of Bravo Sierra. If it were about oil, why wouldn't we just have taken the $750 billion that we've spent and dug up half of Alaska and built 100 new rigs out in the gulf of mexico. That we invaded for oil sounds convenient but it doesn't quite add up.
All the hippies wanted us out of Vietnam because we were "killing all the babies" and disrupting the peaceful commies and hindering their revolution. The problem with America is that we have too many damn idiots who accept whatever they happen to be seeing on TV as the absolute literal truth, nobody thinks for themself these days, at least it seems that way to me everytime I'm home on R&R. Bah, whatever
Ummmm because there is probably more Oil in the Middle East and other parts of the world then there is in Alaska or Gulf of Mexico... would we rely on Middle East oil if we really had that much on our own continent? ...
As for no one thinking for themselves... that actually would be people who follow the right wing blindly with such issues as Iraq... among other things that are off topic in this thread...
So you are getting your panties in a bunch because a very prominent Republican called it like it is instead of a liberal who you would expect it from...
Sometimes people in the Military (and some have already admitted this Iraq thing was a mistake) have to admit that their Commander in Chief is not always right be it if he is right or left wing... and that it costs needless lives in our own military as well as innocent civilians... and for what? ... Democracy? ... oh please.. that is just another distorted word for capitalism and the companies we want to put in Iraq eventually when and if things do get in order... as well as the issue of oil...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by Daddy Warbucks: That's what we call a bunch of Bravo Sierra. If it were about oil, why wouldn't we just have taken the $750 billion that we've spent and dug up half of Alaska and built 100 new rigs out in the gulf of mexico. That we invaded for oil sounds convenient but it doesn't quite add up.
good question DW...
the simple answer is that you don't use up your OWN reserves when you can use up somebody elses first...
the Alaskan oil reserves already cost more to get than mideast oil anyway, so they aren't as profitable...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I remember a statement made over 30 years ago that the US would be the last to run out of oil if that ever came to be. We will never tap into our oil reserves in a big way unless we have no other choice.
As far as Vietnam War was concerned 58,000 dead, 153,000 injured, 1948 MIA's, 120 billion dollars spent was more than enough for one conflict with no end in site. Plus you can add a hugh number of delayed casualities caused by agent orange.
When it comes to americans handling the killing of children(16 and under) and woman, it does not seem to be the part of war many want to hear about even when they support a war. Unfortunately many times these killings are necessary by the soldiers to protect their own lives and fellow soldiers lives, this is a reality of war, but not one americans want to hear about.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Daddy Warbucks: That's what we call a bunch of Bravo Sierra. If it were about oil, why wouldn't we just have taken the $750 billion that we've spent and dug up half of Alaska and built 100 new rigs out in the gulf of mexico. That we invaded for oil sounds convenient but it doesn't quite add up.
good question DW...
the simple answer is that you don't use up your OWN reserves when you can use up somebody elses first... ;)
the Alaskan oil reserves already cost more to get than mideast oil anyway, so they aren't as profitable...
And the non-simple answer, for the non-simple minded that can count and can get 4 when they add 2 and 2.....there simply isn't that much oil in Alaska to get out......2 + 2 is 4, not some unlimited amount that pleases the republican's quasi-intellect (that's the same sort of intellect that, using trumped up charges and lies as justification, cheers invading innocent nations, getting thousands of young American military personnel killed, and spending the wealth of the nation for decades and generations to come in order to make the very wealthy more and more very wealthy indeed).
IP: Logged |
posted
that's correct iwish, war is hell. no matter how much you try to make it palatable for the masses.
when this war start ed? photographing caskets was banned by the pentagon...
Oil reserve estimates are ideally a measure of geological and economic risk — of the probability of oil existing and being producible under current economic conditions using current technology. The international authority for reserves definitions is generally the Society of Petroleum Engineers. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission demands that oil companies with exchange listed stock adopt reserves accounting standards that are consistent with common industry practice. However these standards are based on historical production practices and are not always meaningful in dealing with deep-water and non-conventional oil fields that are becoming the source of more and more of the world's oil production. In addition, many of the world's largest oil-producing countries do not follow normal industry standards in estimating their oil reserves and do not publish any data which would allow their estimates to be verified.
Canada actually has the second largest PROVEN oil reserves on the planet...
the mideastern areas have the LOWEST PRODUCTION COSTS... the Russkies PROBABLY have more oil than anybody, but their reserves are unproven....
the war in Iraq has shifted the "playing feild quite a bit in terms of how you define proven reserves, because of the way you define what a proven reserve is: Oil in the ground is not a "reserve" unless it is claimed to be economically recoverable, since as the oil is extracted, the cost of recovery increases incrementally as the amount of oil remaining is reduced.
at 28$ a barrel there is alot less "proven reserves" worldwide than there is at 80$ a barrel...
this just one more reason i would like to see the notes from Cheney's energy policy meetings in spring '01....
my recollection is that Shell and at least one other major oil company was REDUCING hteir proven reserves on their books when the Iraq war started...
Shell cuts oil reserves for 4th time Published on 24 May 2004 by Seattle Times. Archived on 24 May 2004. by Beth Gardiner LONDON � The Royal Dutch/Shell Group downgraded the size of its proven oil and gas reserves yesterday for the fourth time this year as the oil giant continued to stumble over a scandal that shocked the markets and forced the resignation of three top executives.
The company, which stunned shareholders in January when it announced it had reduced confirmed oil and gas holdings by 20 percent, or 3.9 billion barrels, said that it was downgrading an additional 103 million barrels from "proven" to less-certain categories.
The company said it was continuing negotiations with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which has been investigating its restatements. It also is being investigated by European regulators and may face lawsuits from investors.
quote:Originally posted by Daddy Warbucks: That's what we call a bunch of Bravo Sierra. If it were about oil, why wouldn't we just have taken the $750 billion that we've spent and dug up half of Alaska and built 100 new rigs out in the gulf of mexico. That we invaded for oil sounds convenient but it doesn't quite add up.
good question DW...
the simple answer is that you don't use up your OWN reserves when you can use up somebody elses first...
the Alaskan oil reserves already cost more to get than mideast oil anyway, so they aren't as profitable...
And the non-simple answer, for the non-simple minded that can count and can get 4 when they add 2 and 2.....there simply isn't that much oil in Alaska to get out......2 + 2 is 4, not some unlimited amount that pleases the republican's quasi-intellect (that's the same sort of intellect that, using trumped up charges and lies as justification, cheers invading innocent nations, getting thousands of young American military personnel killed, and spending the wealth of the nation for decades and generations to come in order to make the very wealthy more and more very wealthy indeed).
Welcome back old man. ABOUT FRIGGEN TIME
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: I remember a statement made over 30 years ago that the US would be the last to run out of oil if that ever came to be. We will never tap into our oil reserves in a big way unless we have no other choice.
As far as Vietnam War was concerned 58,000 dead, 153,000 injured, 1948 MIA's, 120 billion dollars spent was more than enough for one conflict with no end in site. Plus you can add a hugh number of delayed casualities caused by agent orange.
When it comes to americans handling the killing of children(16 and under) and woman, it does not seem to be the part of war many want to hear about even when they support a war. Unfortunately many times these killings are necessary by the soldiers to protect their own lives and fellow soldiers lives, this is a reality of war, but not one americans want to hear about.
We'll said though I don't agree with it entirely. I think a soldiers job or one of them is to protect civilian lives at all cost even if it means sacrificing their own lives.
I read a disgusting article by Bill O'Reilly of course in that he criticizes Hollywood for making light of some of the crimes and/or atrocities that our own soldiers commit. That Hollywood should never come out with such movies and that it's anti american etc.. etc. you know the right wing rhetoric already especially from him.
He especially criticized Brian DePalma (of Scarface/Al Pacino fame) the director because I think he is coming out with a movie in which American soldiers raped a Iraqui girl and slaughtered her family. I'm sure you have heard this case in the news and such. Anyways such things should not be swept under the rug and not told to the American people. War is hell and we create it sometimes. But the American public should know about such things so they see that it's not all pretty over there and that we as well commit crimes at the same time we accuse others of doing such things.
But then again O'Reilly accuse the Jason Bourne movies of being anti american as well
I'm glad he got caught trying to obtain Jenna Jameson DVD's... show's he's a closet perv and hyprocrite...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
Let's not forget that O'Reily had to buy his butt out of a serious sex scandal just recently. Is he really someone the Party wants expousing their stance? (Of course, O'Reily is quite clearly embedded within the norm for this current cadre of claimers of understanding of the heart and soul of the republican party. God I miss the real republicans!)
IP: Logged |
posted
He has an out with his constant claims that he's a libertarian. More bs shenanigans. The whole political show is just amazingly witless. I would never have imagined that a ruse so ineptly conceived and produced would ever work...
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
