This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Iraq was about oil: Alan Greenspan

Jump to new

IMO "learning lessons from the past" has been off the human race's agenda for millenia and is off the current world's political curriculum for the foreseeable future.

Apart from Vietnam, I can think of just a few of the many major human endeavours involving the use of massive military occupying forces that could not stay the course and who crumbled economically and socially for many, many years afterwards (listed in no particular order)...

- Persian Empire
- Turkish Empire
- Mayan Empire
- Greek Empire
- Egyptian Empire
- Roman Empire
- Spanish Empire
- French Empire
- British Empire
- Gaul Empire
- Japanese Empire (WW2)
- Third Reich (WW2)
- Russian Empire
etc...etc.....

I wonder what the total "innocent civilians" death toll for all "occupations" over time by one form of "humanity" over another would amount to? Must be in the Billions....

Oh well, that's the price of being civilised beings I guess.

AJ
 
chops_a_must said:
Yes... Cleopatra.
Click to expand...

Sure, but Cleopatra was merely defending her right as leader of Egypt from her relatives who thought, because they were male, had more entitlement to rule Egypt. Defending one's birth right - that doesn't count! And on other fronts, she decided to make strategic alliances with those men who were susceptible to her charms!

chops_a_must said:
There were a lot of female led allies involved with the Greeks at various times as well. Especially to do with naval engagements.
Click to expand...

Interesting that History remembers the men and not the women then! Names?
 
Greenspan was just stating the bleeding obvious. Infact, I reckon that he's been a bit slow in saying this when others have been saying this for years. Perhaps he should stick to economics.
 
queen isabella of spain and victoria of england also oversaw empires.

a big problem with civilised nations conducting modern war is the "softly softly" approach to civilians. as recently as world war 2 an army would rock up to a town, slaughter the population (or at least the able bodied part), scorch the earth and move on. very effective at denying guerilla fighters their home territory advantage while also inflicting huge morale hits on the civilian population. terrorism with teeth.

instead now (and there have been some grumblings by american generals about this) the allies can't fire on mosques where the enemy is holed up, or they have extremely strict rules of engagement with regards to where you can and cannot shoot. the enemy knows this and uses it to full advantage.

in ancient times, empires such as the romans would butcher massive armies then enslave the rest of the population guaranteeing a very docile conquered populace. that is how to conduct wars of conquest. no its not civilised, yes its brutal and, from a modern standpoint morally wrong, but that is the point of war. a country goes to war when diplomacy, civility and morals have failed.

IF you wish to conduct a softly softly war / police action / whatever then you must have civilian authorities, policies and contingencies in place which america did not have. so now they are mired with little option but to keep bleeding or pull out and let the country decend into chaos, increasing the influence of iran, the lure of the fundamentalists and destabilising the entire region.

great. /golfclap american foreign policy.
 
Yes, that Isabella was a tyrant, wasn't she:

Also in 1492, Isabella was convinced by Christopher Columbus to sponsor his voyage of discovery. The lasting effects of this were many: by the traditions of the time, when Columbus discovered lands in the New World, they were given to Castile. Isabella took a special interest in the Native Americans of the new lands; when some were brought back to Spain as slaves she insisted they be returned and freed, and her will expressed her wish that the "Indians" be treated with justice and fairness.

I am thinking these days, they would have ended up in Guantanamo!

Of course there have been many female Leaders, but how many of them ruled with unwarranted agression?
 
Prospector said:
Of course there have been many female Leaders, but how many of them ruled with unwarranted agression?
Click to expand...

margaret thatcher? depends on your view of the falklands. while i think aggression is far more masculine a trait, aggression is a necessary trait for any leader as people are not easy beasts to lead. whether male or female a leader must be aggressive at times both towards their own people to keep them in line and outsiders to draw boundaries.

it has been hypothised by some anthropologists that for a large part of human history we were a matriarchal (or at least matrifocal) society. fertile women were the most highly prized asset a small group of humans could possess in neolithic societies as evidenced by early art and folklore. whether early matriarchal societies were a golden age of peace remains doubtful as it is in our nature to expand, consume and conquer.

an interesting theory i read once is that the development of the original greek gods was a masculine revolution over the original female dominated spirituality. women priests oversaw pagan rites (sometimes including human sacrifice) and the men developed the idea of zues etc. to wrest spiritual control from the women. sacrifice victims were also mostly male so they probably got jack of that as well
 
greenspan has been around long enough to know all about what america is doing and why.. but each time they invade,, they never leave the country with a stable armed force to keep law and order, and chaos or anarchy always follows.. i care more about the deaths than the oil,, the oil funds the australian and US invasion.. that part i cant stomache,, but the US has been leading the world in invasions.. australia is now joining them in an uncomfortable alliance.. the prime directive of the invasion was to secure the oil fields.. nothing else mattered.. once the fields were secured the US announced its successes.. as it had a self funded war from that point on and couldnt see militarily how it could lose.. here we are seeing greenspan talk about iraq in a way that the world sees it.. its no big announcement anyone else didnt understand.. but the deaths of the tens of thousands for the oil is my biggest problem



Deaths In Other Nations Since WW2 Due To US Interventions
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/371890.html
 
The US have totally misjudged the situation in Iraq. I'm glad that they got rid of Saddam, a ruthless dictator, but Iraq is now a mess. The US should cut their losses and gradually move out. Lets hope they've learnt a lesson here and tread more carefully before embarking on a similar mission. Iran no doubt would be a much tougher opponent.
 


if the saudi's want the US to invade Iran then so be it, i think the notion that the saddam was a dictator that needed removing was a beat up.

i think there are dictators in africa / sudan that are in need of serious incinerating, just one well aimed missile would save millions of lives. the world turns its back on africa again.

we dont have balance in the world, and the fantasy world of justice that we see on tv series and movies, should you be the ilk that watches those shows, is not the real world of the US economic machine. it needs the oil, its totally hydrocarbon dependant.. lets hope the saudis dont make the US invade iran.

i am more concerned with isreal and their plans with syria.. that story is harder to follow as the media has a black out on it,, but it deadly serious there and potentially a state of war in the making.
 

Saddam was a brutal dictator that deserved to be removed. He killed many thousands of people who didn't agree with him. If this wasn't barbaric enough using chemical weapons on his own people (the Kurds) was absolutely disgusting. No one I know has any sympathy for him.
I just feel that the situation in Iraq is now a "no win" situation and that our troops should come home. The Iraqi people now need to take control of their own destiny. This will be no easy task.
 

There have been many nasty dictators and the U.S. has not intervened.



Modern conquest is with greater difficulty as countries have/are becoming closely connected and the `sensitivity` of nuclear is and will be always there.
Conquest, with all the modern rules of engagement, is near impossible but influence can still be applied.
 
Yes, Iraq was for oil,... but also to get rid of a mad man.

But take it easy on our soldiers, my mate has just lost an arm a leg and his eyesight in afganistan.
 
I put my hand up as being ignorant about them going too war. At the time, given the so-called evidence, I thought it was the right thing to do. But I think it shouldn't have been done without the support of the UN.

I figured that Saddam should have been removed first time and that a dictator like him was only going to harm the majority of it people. I still do believe that but I now believe that a large reason for the US going to war was oil.

I makes me sad because imagine if they had spent that money on alternative fuel research I've no doubt both the US, Iraq and the planet would now be much better off. Sadly I don't think the Democrats would have or will do any better.

Finally, leave Howard's eye brows alone! Physical qualities shouldn't have any bearing on who we vote for. Just look at the US and the moron actors they vote for. Lets face it, both Rudd and Howard are both geeks but I'd rather have a nerdy, clever geek running my country than a handsome puppet like bush.

My 2c
 
I wasn't aware that the White House consulted the FOMC before making national policy decisions.


Either way, nothing wrong with a bit of blood for oil. It just depends on the exchange rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
The Financial Endgame
Replies
18
Views
9K
qldfrog
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...