Greenspan Says Hussein's Removal Was 'Essential' »
Posted by: SonOfTheMask 11 months, 3 weeks agoAlan 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.
Read Full Story at washingtonpost.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 72
-
-
0%
Matteu0011 months, 3 weeks ago
Keep drinking the coolaid but don't expect everyone else has.
CIA Factbook:
Iraq's economy is dominated by the oil sector, which traditionally provided 95% of foreign exchange earnings.
Iraq was allowed to export oil in exchange for food, medicine, and some infrastructure spare parts. In December 1999
-Notice they weren't exporting watches, TVs, SlimFast, or toys made with lead.
Attacks on key economic facilities - especially oil pipelines and infrastructure - prevented Iraq from reaching projected export volumes, but total government revenues have been higher than anticipated due to high oil prices.
-Notice they don't have revenues unless it came from oil.
Exports - commodities:
crude oil 84%, crude materials excluding fuels 8%, food and live animals 5%
Industries:
petroleum, chemicals, textiles, leather, construction materials, food processing, fertilizer, metal fabrication/processing
Oil - proved reserves: 112.5 billion bbl (2006 est.)
Reply -
0%
spkguy11 months, 3 weeks ago
Not about oil? Right! April 16, 2003
"Baghdad. Iraq's scavengers have thieved and destroyed what they have been allowed to loot and burn by the Americans and a two-hour drive around Baghdad shows clearly what the US intends to protect. After days of arson and pillage, here's a short but revealing scorecard. US troops have sat back and allowed mobs to wreck and then burn the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Information. They did nothing to prevent looters from destroying priceless treasures of Iraq's history in the Baghdad Archaeological Museum and in the museum in the northern city of Mosul, or from looting three hospitals.
Continued:
Reply-
0%
spkguy11 months, 3 weeks ago
The Americans have, though, put hundreds of troops inside two Iraqi ministries that remain untouched and untouchable because tanks and armoured personnel carriers and Humvees have been placed inside and outside both institutions. And which ministries proved to be so important for the Americans? Why, the Ministry of Interior, of course with its vast wealth of intelligence information on Iraq and the Ministry of Oil."
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Ite...
Reply
-
-
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.4 Replies
-
MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
0%
djn3nunez311 months, 3 weeks ago
Be careful about bringing up such truths here. It might make some of their heads explode.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
SonOfTheMask11 months, 3 weeks ago
Well, Greenspan did say this specifically:
"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.""
But, to each their own interpretation...
Reply
-
-
0%
Natureboy11 months, 3 weeks ago
Right. Removing Saddaam was only coincidentally essential to secure world oil supplies. Silly to think that would influence a Texas oil man in the White House.
Our real motive was help the Iraqis be free by means of blitzkrieg and occupation. But we were always altruists...
Reply-
0%
nakedtruth11 months, 3 weeks ago
{{Saddam used WMD against Shiite Kurds, Shiite Arabs, and Shiite Persians within his own borders, as well as outside of his borders.}}
Most Kurds are not Shiite. According to the Army War College report Iran gassed the Kurds. Saddam got the poison gas from America and used it with America's blessing.
{{Saddam attacked Iran.}}
Using satellite intelligence provided by America.
{{Saddam was going to kill the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia during the previous gulf war.}}
LOL. Bullsh*t.
{{ Stabilizing the nation is the next process.
More building has happened since Saddam has been resolved than during all of the years of his racist national terrorist organization took over the Iraqi government and started his escapade of regional terror.}}
Utter nonsense that you just made up.
Reply-
0%
crghss11 months, 3 weeks ago
Most Kurds are Sunni with a minority that is Shia.
So who gassed the Kurds, Iran or Saddam?
Saddam didn't get the Gas from the USA. It's easy to make and has been around since WWI. Why would Saddam need or want our blessing to gas the Kurds? Why would we want the Kurds gassed?
There is absolutely no proof of the US giving satellite intelligence to Iraq. Besides they fought a low tech war it wouldn't have been much use.
So it would seem that you make up the naked truth as you go along. You seriously need a history lesson.
Reply
-
-
0%
djn3nunez311 months, 3 weeks ago
-Saddam used WMD against Shiite Kurds, Shiite Arabs, and Shiite Persians within his own borders, as well as outside of his borders.
What was the Americans role in those attacks? Didn't we sell him the equipment necessary to make such weapons while our good freinds in Germany suppled him with the pre-cursor chemicals? Didn't we supply him with intel on the Iran troops and weather, so he could plan his gas attacks better. Didn't Reagan also block congressional efforts to sacntion Iraq at the time it was using chemical weapons on the Kurds?
Yeah the Saddam problem was solved by destablising the entire area, breaking Iraq into three parts.
Iraq was once the most modern and secular of all Arab nations.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
nakedtruth11 months, 3 weeks ago
LOL. Anyone with at least half a brain knows this war was partly about oil. It's doesn't matter if you're "left" or "right". Greg Palast's book "Armed Madhouse" explains that there were two plans for Iraq's oil. One administration group wanted the oil to flow. The other group wanted the oil to STOP flowing in order to drive up prices.
Reply
-
-
0%
greenmac11 months, 3 weeks ago
Let me see now...A country has a resource you require and maybe the government of this country might make it unavailable, so you invade and secure the resource. Its much like stealing isn't it. I see why countries are a bit wary of the US. Who is next on the list.
Maybe it is time to acquire the products needed domestically ...find new methods...new resources... to power the economy.
Reply-
0%
SonOfTheMask11 months, 3 weeks ago
Hey GM, how goes it? I think it is a valid concern. I would differ with you to the extent that you could characterize it as "much like stealing". The revenue-sharing agreement has been both maligned and defended.
I will wholeheartedly agree that alternative energy should be a major priority.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Dicax_Maximus11 months, 3 weeks ago
Israel as is, supported by the west.
Any of the nutters actually get hold of a nuke, remove it from their control (before Israel does), however that removal is effected..... They have not shown much sanity with non-nuclear weapons, why should any sane person believe they would show sanity with nukes ?
Reply
-
-
-
ranchhandComment removed: User banned.10 Replies
-
0%
Rinaldi10011 months, 3 weeks ago
Thank you again Mr.
A. Greenspan for clearing things up, now the reason for war is much clearer, I knew it was about oil, but I just did not understand how, thank you for clearing this detail up, I however would have appreciated, and I'm sure along with me, the rest of Americans, that this explanation come directly form the White House.
Reply -
0%
stephen-johnson11 months, 3 weeks ago
"Greenspan Says Hussein's Removal Was 'Essential'"
That seems like tacit support for a war to remove Hussein - other than assassination, how do you remove him?
I wonder what the leftists who have turned Greenspan into an icon lately think about these words from their new "hero"?
Reply -
0%
simonsez11 months, 3 weeks ago
A legitimate question, Stephan.
What confuses me is that Hussein had no choice other than to sell oil as this was his only source of income. He had nothing else that he could sell and at the time of his demise, he was selling his oil, primarily to TOTAL, the French oil company, but many others were getting oil as well including BP, Shell and Chevron. Some was going to Russia.
So ... how could he withhold oil from the market without draining his own resources?
Reply-
0%
4cprocess11 months, 3 weeks ago
Valid point. I think you answered your own question though. Those same countries you mentioned are exactly the ones supplying him with the technology that would be required to become the most dominant power in the region which in turn would only increase the possibility of disrupting oil supplies world wide.
And let's not forget also that it is truly our allies who are more dependant (some of who import upwards to 90%) on these supplies.
In God We Trust
Reply
-
-
0%
disraeli11 months, 3 weeks ago
It's not all that well known in the USA but the single largest source of petroleum imports for the US is Canada at an average of 2.4 million barrels per day. Mexico is second at 1.6 million barrels per day, then Saudi. Iraq is 8th on the list.
Given the backdrop of Greenspan's ecomomic rationale for removing Saddam, whether that rationale is publicly embraced by the Bush administration or not, might give both America's neighbors, northern and southern, cause for concern.
Reply -
-
0%
miklkit11 months, 3 weeks ago
How on earth could Hussein do that? Our military had him on a short leash and would never allow him to develop that capability. He didn't even have control over all of his own country, much less be able to project power past our military.
Reply -
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
Truzseeker11 months, 3 weeks ago
Oh yes, and lets not forget to add that Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil ...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/art...
Reply -
0%
4cprocess11 months, 3 weeks ago
The way I see it is this man simply understood (knowing most Americans to be at best naive) that our economy plays a major role in global economy and that in reality it is so large and complex that to disrupt even just one large aspect of it (oil supplies) if for only a short time would in turn disrupt the whole apparatus. That's exactly why when they change interest rates they come in small increments and even with such small increases or decreases it can sometimes take months to see the actual results.
So many people today think we can simply make wholesale changes overnight in this country when in fact the change itself can sometimes lead to more chaos than positive results.
In God We Trust
Reply -
0%
PsychoHosebeast11 months, 3 weeks ago
So much for "bringing democracy to the Iraqi people..."
Reply -
0%
truthiness11 months, 3 weeks ago
since all the other reasons given before the war started turned out to be not only false but that the admin had info saying it was , I guess that only leaves one conclusion...this was the reason.
if starting a war for oil isnt a crime, I dont know what is.
Reply -
0%
sotiris-k11 months, 3 weeks ago
Greenspan is very old (in his way of thinking and also his lack of idealism) and has always been overpriced as a contributing factor to US growth. In the end he was irrelevant to it. High tech and scientific innovation was the reason of growth. It is also the reason of no spectacular current growth that the emphasis went back to oil.
If the intention was to secure oil reserves then hahahaha. THEY WERE SECURED AT 60-80$ A BAREL FOR A DECADE NOW DIDNT THEY? GOOD JOB. I suppose Mr Greenspan was good enough to be chairman of the FED but lacking in spine to stand up against current republican traitors and their bankrupting of America and that makes his intellect and ethics rather questionable. His lack of vision regarding the implications of the Iraqi campaign leaves hims neither a true patriot nor a citizen of the planet. I suppose we should all take a look at what nasdaq the stock market for the next 100 years or the $ has done while Bush is in the neighbourhood unchecked.
Reply -
0%
hkeltsch11 months, 3 weeks ago
Finally...some one tells the truth. There was problems in the housing market in 1990 when I first purchased a home in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Business Section of the Albuquerque Journal reported in 1991 that "...47% of home ownwers were three ot more months behind on their mortgage payments". Why! Why didn't the Housing and Banking commitees in Congress do something back then. Why? didn't some one say there is going to be trouble with the mortgage lenders back then. The house I was sold had $40,000.00 in code violations on it when I brought it. I told the VA to take it back since they were supposed to inspect the home before I brought it. Turns out...the VA did what they call a drive-by inspection (plus the real estate agent had over priced the home and took a kick back from the owner) She is serving time for embelselment and fraud. This mortgage crisis started under the sitting President during the 1980s. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole housing market implodes
Reply -
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
healthydog11 months, 2 weeks ago
Basically a clarification by the author on the wholly unbalanced reporting on the quote from his book.
Reply -
0%
sotiris-k11 months, 3 weeks ago
What is the current flow out of Iraq? And what was the problem regarding flow if Saddam was still in power in a relatively war free area under tighter inspections. If Only 20% of the assets devoted to the iraqi campaign(an astronomical expense of 200 bil which is comparable to the current oil company profits/2yrs by the way ) had been invested in finding alternative sources (and methods) of energy, oil would have been irrelevant at the end of this decade.
No securing took place. None. In fact the ultimate result was the elevation of oil prices with the permanent crisis intact to $80/barel. The only thing secured was an accelerating trajectory towards climatic change while oil companies continued to accumulate wealth in the back and at the expense of real high technology worldwide. We secured a mediocre future pretty well with the lack of vision spectacularly demonstrated by the inability os someone like Greenspan to simply find himself outraged at the turn of events past 7 years.
Reply -
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
Submitted By:
SonOfTheMask
"I often wish that I could rid the world of the tyranny of facts. What are facts but compromises? A fact merely marks the point ...
Also submitted:
- 1.0 - P. Diddy, Obama Zealot, Hates Alaska?
- 1.0 - Foolishness? Dems Attack Palin on "Troopergate"
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
TimALoftis
wayjer
coreyspring
Helixbuilder
stephen-johnson- guscuz
mdvaldosta
rockman069
joeeddie
loverman
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
