[Vision2020] Federal Reserve Head Greenspan: Iraq Invasion For Oil
vpschwaller at gmail.com
Mon Sep 17 15:55:13 PDT 2007
The US net petroleum imports for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 amounted
to 4208, 4476, 4811, 5055, and 4968 million barrels per year, and 2454
million barrels from January through June of 2007. Over the same period of
time the Iraqi contributions were 168, 176, 240, 194, and 202 million
barrels per year, and 86 million barrels from January through June of 2007.
). This constitutes 4%, 3.9%, 5%, 3.9 % 4.1% and 3.5% of our total oil
imports. A case for going to war if I've ever seen one.
The current cost of the war is around $455 billion give or take, and if we
were to defray this cost by levying an excise tax on Iraqi oil imports from
2003 to the present, it would amount to around $507 a barrel. Assuming oil
imports remain steady over a 10 year period this would be about $51 a
barrel, and over 25 years, a little more than $20 a barrel. How can anyone
possibly justify paying an excise tax of $20 per barrel for 25 years simply
to ensure a cheap supply of oil from Iraq? Ludicrous! War for oil – total
nonsense. War for Israel – the real fulcrum of the Iraqi conflict.
"The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to
the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state. . . By defending the
freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, (we are) also serving the
cause of America." (President Bush: address to the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee, Washington DC, May 18, 2004).
We have paid a high price in dollars, international prestige and in the
lives of our soldiers for the interests of a foreign state, and we will
continue to do so until the Jewish-Zionist hold on US political life is
On 9/17/07, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark et. al.
> Greenspan is obviously speaking more "freely" regarding his opinions about
> the Iraq war, than he was before retiring as chairman of the
> Federal Reserve. He has even recently spoken critically regarding some
> aspects of the Bush Administration's economic policies. But Krugman's
> dismay at Greenspan's "silence" (my wording, not Krugman's) regarding
> aspects of the Bush Administration's economic policies while they were
> being implemented when he was Fed. Reserve Chairman, also applies to his
> silence regarding the invasion of Iraq before the invasion.
> Nonetheless, I am pleased Greenspan is now speaking out on the rationale
> for the invasion of Iraq. His voice helps to reinforce the astonishingly
> disturbing conclusion that appears inescapable: that the rationale for
> invading Iraq that was sold to the American public was based on deception.
> Of course this silence, and thus complicity, with the invasion of
> Iraq, regarding those who did not engage in aggressive public critical
> scrutiny of the Bush Administration rationale for invading Iraq, applies
> across the board: the US Congress, the US media, and most of the American
> The media especially failed in it's role as one of the pillars of our
> Democratic system. The media, the Fourth Estate, as it is called, with the
> other three pillars of our Democratic system being the
> Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government, served often as
> cheerleaders for the invasion. The media's role as the Fourth
> Estate obligates it to expose government lies or deceptions of the public
> about critical issues; and invading another nation, thus taking the US to
> war, must rate as one of the most profound and important decisions.
> However, many in the media at the time of the Iraq invasion had valid
> worries about their careers being in jeopardy if they appeared in the least
> bit "unpatriotic." Thus their failure in some cases to be responsible
> journalists fulfilling their critical role in the Fourth Estate. And many
> journalists fell prey to the blinding effects of fear and group think
> patriotism. They did not deliberately remain silent. They really believed
> the invasion was the correct action based on what they were being told by
> the Bush administration.
> Ted Moffett
> On 9/17/07, Mark Solomon <msolomon at moscow.com> wrote:
> > Paul Krugman, University of Chicago economist and NYTimes columnist has
> > a scathing piece on Greenspan and his revisionist history of his involvement
> > with the Bush tax cuts.
> > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2170661,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12>
> > m.
> > *OPINION* | September 17, 2007
> > *Op-Ed Columnist: Sad Alan's Lament*
> > By PAUL KRUGMAN<http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17krugman.html?ex=1190692800&en=d32c2835aba6487a&ei=5070&emc=eta1>
> > If Alan Greenspan wasn't intending to lend crucial support to the Bush
> > tax cuts, he had ample opportunity to set the record straight when it could
> > have made a difference.
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2170661,00.html?gusrc=rss&
> > feed=12
> > ...Mr Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an
> > interview with the Guardian that the invasion of Iraq was aimed at
> > protecting Middle East oil reserves: "I thought the issue of weapons of mass
> > destruction as the excuse was utterly beside the point."
> > In the book Mr Greenspan writes: "Whatever their publicised angst over
> > Saddam Hussain's 'weapons of mass destruction', American and British
> > authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbours a
> > resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am
> > saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone
> > knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
> > -----------
> > Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Vision2020