[Vision2020] Federal Reserve Head Greenspan: Iraq InvasionForOil

[Kris Freitag]

If you read the entire article Greenspan wasn't talking about Iraq's
production of oil but controlling the Straits of Hormuz which would allow
Saddam to control Middle East oil shipments.

"Mr Greenspan said it was clear to him that Saddam Hussein had wanted to
control the Straits of Hormuz and so control Middle East oil shipments
through the vital route out of the Gulf. He said that had Saddam been able
to do that it would have been "devastating to the west" as the former Iraqi
president could have just shut off 5m barrels a day and brought "the
industrial world to its knees"."

Kris Freitag

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Sunil Ramalingam
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 4:26 PM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Federal Reserve Head Greenspan: Iraq
InvasionForOil

I disagree Glenn.  I think that many advocates for the war did think it 
would benefit Israel (though there are many Israelis who disagree with their

position) but I don't think this was the main reason for the war, though 
some in the administration may have viewed it as a side benefit.

I used to think the war was launched in order to control Iraq's oil reserves

to boost production, but now I'm more persuaded by Greg Palast's argument 
that the reason was to control Iraq's reserves to prevent Hussein from 
producing more and destabilizing the market.  For me this comes closer to 
answering the question 'Why did Cheney change his mind about invading Iraq?'

than the other theories.

Ted's comments about the press failures prior to launching the war against 
Iraq are equally true when it comes to uncritical coverage of the current 
statements about Iran.

Sunil


>From: "Glenn Schwaller" <vpschwaller at gmail.com>
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Federal Reserve Head Greenspan: Iraq Invasion 
>ForOil
>Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:55:13 -0700
>
>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.
>(
>http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.ht
m
>).  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
>finally broken.
>
>  GS
>
>
>On 9/17/07, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >