It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
You don't even know what the oil grab is all about, do you.

Is about profits for the oil barons, not for you or me or anybody else.

Yes the post came across as quite young and naive and not taking in the 'bigger picture' (no offence intended to prince of peace). There is more going on here than meets the eyes of 'ordinary citizens'. It's all about serving the military industrial complex, not the US people.




posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
So does this mean there's no Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or Tooth Fairy now?



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   
There is a subtle and simple part of Greenspan's quote that everyone, in their zeal, is overlooking. What he said was:

"the Iraq war is largely about oil"

What he did not say is:

"the Iraq war is largely for oil"

If he said it was FOR oil, than one could assume that this was a war to obtain control of large quantities of oil supply and reserves. However, he did not say that. he states that it was ABOUT oil. That tells us that this was economic in nature, and not material.

I've been trying to tell people for years that the Iraq War was an economic power play gone awry. But nooooooo everyone wants to use it as a reason to vilify the administration out of personal bias. I don't like the guy either, but use your heads people



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:37 AM
link   
If you have ever read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion it is very interesting to me when a statement is made such as what Greenspan is saying.

The protocols are so close to the current reality that the world is in, it makes a person wonder. In these protocols it mentions that NOTHING is said or leaked out unless there is a reason behind it. In fact this late into the game, you can expect that anything done to separate the people more than they already are from trusting in their government the better. It will be easier to usher in the NWO. By stating the war was for oil, it slaps every person who wanted to believe it was in the name of freedom, or democracy in the face. BAMM, yes that JUST HAPPENED!!! Pretty soon, I imagine more people will be waking up to the fact that many of the things on this "conspiracy" site aren't just conspiracy.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   
It is about oil, sure. But it has more to do with America Imperialism. We will do what we want, when we want it.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DocMoreau
One has to remember that the Bristish just drew lines in the sand when they created Iraq. No respect to tribal or cultural differences between factions then. And it is biting the US now...


Not true. The British were given the Mesopotamian Mandate from the League of nations. Iraq, as it is now known, was made up of three former Ottoman provinces of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul. we didn't draw any lines in the sand, but rather were given 3 provinces already drawn up by their previous owners.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I think Greenspan's statement is a gross oversimplification. Whether it was motivated by ignorance or cunning or something else, I have no idea. IMO, the invasion was all about opening the market to Western investment - it had little if anything to do with a need for the oil under the ground.


I disagree. The overwhelming problem facing the US is energy security. Therefore the principle element for invading was to secure the oil for the US and her allies. The other stuff you talk about like reconstruction etc is valid but in my opinion is the icing on the cake.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 04:47 AM
link   
I wonder how much of this statement will reach the military personnel in Iraq?

I spoke to a British soldier at a friend's wedding last year and he said to me the British army were told by their commanders that the reason they were going into Iraq was for weapons of mass destruction and to remove an evil dictator and free the people of Iraq.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chan
The protocols are so close to the current reality that the world is in, it makes a person wonder. In these protocols it mentions that NOTHING is said or leaked out unless there is a reason behind it.


Yes, don't forget Greenspan is an illuminati bankster. Anything he says - whether it's true or false, still has something to do with a hidden NWO agenda imo...



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 06:18 AM
link   
It's not a bad thing fighting for Oil. without it You have no food supplies,Medicines and You wont be able to go to work.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 06:23 AM
link   
This is not a surprise really, why else would the US invade Iraq? But you still should think of it this way, if it was for oil, then why is our gas very pricey? I mean surly after collecting all that oil our gas should drop a little bit. Since it will still be expensive, then we should be looking at gas companies as greedy crooks! But what else is new?



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DocMoreau

One has to remember that the Bristish just drew lines in the sand when they created Iraq. No respect to tribal or cultural differences between factions then. And it is biting the US now...

DocMoreau



What is biting the US right now is that they supported Saddam Hussein and his regime against Iran, and Iraqi Shias, Iraqi Sunnis, and Kurds who oppossed Saddam.



What is biting the US in terms of Iraq right now is that the US waged war on Iraq in 1991, but left Saddam in power afterwards, thus abandoning and betraying the Shias, Kurds and indeed, Sunnis of Iraq whom Saddam slaughtered when good old daddy Bush told them to rise up against Saddam.


What is biting the US in terms of Iraq is that following this, the US via the UN imposed a siege on Iraq via inhumane sanctions which denied vital medical supplies and aid to the people of Iraq, denied the means for Iraqis to rebuild after a devastating war, leaving the Iraqi people to suffer and wither away.


What is biting the US in terms of Iraq is that following 13 years of inhumane sanctions which killed maimed and indiscriminately in Iraq, the US waged an illegal, barbaric war upon Iraq for the quest of oil and geopolitical positioning, destroyed Iraq's remaining civillian infrastructure such as electrical and water supplies and sowed the seeds henceforth, to plunge Iraqi into chaos and murderous rampage.


What is biting the US in terms of Iraq is that following this war, the US has occupied Iraq, saw to it the creation of an Iraqi government of Shia dictatorship over Sunnis and Christian Iraqis, as opposed to a Baathist dictatorship over Shias, Sunnis and Kurds and Christians, and has overseen this Iraqi government replacing Saddam's secret police with Shia Death Squads who kill political opponents and others they take a disliking to.


What is biting the US in terms of Iraq is that the US has now begun to support Sunni militias against the very government they helped install by ensuring the Shias got the tyranny by majority rule.



The imperialism of the British did indeed have a heavy hand in Iraq's misery and past, but I think it's high time the US took responsibility for their imperialist actions in Iraq in the very recent past and present don't you?


It's no use saying "Oh well, all those Kurds, Sunnis and Shias never got on."


Who armed one faction to ensure they did not, then years later arm another faction to prolong the hatred further?







[edit on 16-9-2007 by Regensturm]

[edit on 16-9-2007 by Regensturm]

[edit on 16-9-2007 by Regensturm]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
admit to a lesser lie to cover up a bigger lie is common practice.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   
i read it today.. my forst thought is that this is now the starting tactic many of you and others told us about:
if they get caught - they tell a little bit of the truth, just enough to calm things down.
i dont like this guy and he and other might as well jump from the wagon thats named bush because he is stalling..
unfortunately many people will stop thinking and stop asking questions because they like it as easy as it gets and stop using their minds because someone like kissinger will make it come out gooood.
NOO, i don't think so! they just sacrifice those they can't use anymore.
kissinger is in my opinion way above bush. but not as high as not to know that he might as well face such a downlfall someday.. the rats are leaving the ship..



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Hey, you can not blame him for trying to make a buck while he can, after all it seems that everybody else in the ruling elites are making a killing.



Hey Marg, yes; I feel I can blame Greenspan for wanting to make a buck. The man allowed things to happen and didn’t do a damn thing to stop it or bring it to light when it could have made a difference in the direction of American foreign policy. (meaning: outting what he knew, knowing it wasnt ethically or morally right.) Now he wants to make millions saying things most people already knew, so now its official why we really went into IRAQ stop traffic!!!!. Greenspan IMHO is nothing more than a yes man and leprechaun for the oil elite. I think his immorality and blatant attempt to pack his bank coffers is the same "in your face America" criminality that most administrations have been practicing for a long time. Seems they have perfected it. Isnt it a bit Hypocritical to be in a position to make a difference but dont do it until it allows you to make alot of money?



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimjamjerry
I think there's something else going on besides just oil here. can't put my finger on it, but I'm just not satisfied with the oil reason


It's about oil, but not just the revenue from oil. The whole idea is about CONTROLLING the oil, and who gets it. If the USA can control the flow of oil to China and India, the USA can effectively control those two countries. Remember that China is widely slated as being the nation most likely to succeed the USA as the world's main superpower. 9/11 was (partly) about getting the mechanisms in place to:

a) increase funding for Space Command, so that the USA can dominate Earth from space

b) dominate the midEast (probably from the "superbases" being constructed in Iraq) in order to control the access to the oil and other resources in the midEast and Caspian Basin area

It's all about maintaining the US' status as the world's only superpower. Read Zbigniew Brezinski's The Grand Chessboard, which seems to have been condensed into the PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defences; it's spelled out loud and clear. And like 9/11, Iraq served a multitude of purposes:

1) it allowed the USA to control access to the oil

2) it gave the USA the perfect excuse to build their "superbases"

3) it's a perfect jumping-off point for the Caspian region, as a base to keep an eye on China, and maybe also for Russia and Africa in the future

4) it's also the perfect staging post for an attack against Iran, which I think will unfortunately be necessary at some point - the USA doesn't want to control SOME of the oil, it wants to control ALL the oil. Iran is too powerful as an oil-producing nation, and the USA has next to no influence there after the Islamic Revolution, and, because of its oil resources, has powerful friends in China and India

among many others.

Incidentally, the idea that Greenspan was "widely respected" is pure bunk; anyone who knows anything about economics knows the man presided over at least 2 massive financial crashes (the very thing the Fed was brought into being to prevent) and did nothing until it was too late. Many economic analysts off the mainstream path are as certain that Greenspan and the Fed were as actively responsible for those crashes as the Fed was for the 1929 Wall Street crash. I.e.; 100% certain.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   
it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows

I'm glad I'm not in politics.

The Iraq war was about Zionism. Maybe not everyone knows it but those at the top sure do.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Thats simply not true. Percy decided where the line was drawn. And he openly admitted that Kuwait was created because they thought there was a lot of oil there.

Don't blame yourself. Your media and education system does not allow the Brits to be blamed for imperialism.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
For oil... to rise the price of oil certainly, plus killing people, plus making money in contracts, plus using Iraq to launch an attack against Iran and finally to be closer to China and Russia for the final showdown...

But only for oil is just a complete lie. Greenspan... we already know you're a traitor, so please, don't add to your case.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
It's not a bad thing fighting for Oil. without it You have no food supplies,Medicines and You wont be able to go to work.


It has been demonstrated that you can electrolyse hydrogen from water inside of an engine, thus effectively fuelling the engine from plain old H2O. Engines based on nothing more than inertia have been demonstrated, with power outputs over 20 times those of modern jets. There are many other viable forms of cheap, easy and even free energy - and that's without even tapping the Zero Point, which many theorists believe is possible. The problem is with all of these things, the "powers-that-be" can't profit from them - and so they refuse funding to research and develop such technologies, as happened with Tesla when he approached JP Morgan for funding. Morgan said words to the effect of "I can't put a tap on it and charge people, so I'm not going to invest in it." This pretty much says it all.

Therefore, the idea that "it's not a bad thing to fight for oil" is overly simplistic - without the current status quo exerting massive downward pressure on anything that would break their monopoly on all energy (and thus, our pockets!) there would be no need to fight for oil. The people of the midEast could stay in their stone-age societies if that's what they wanted, and we wouldn't be trying to tell them how to live their lives - we'd have no reason to be there. If our society was as advanced as we erroneously believe, about the ONLY things oil would be used for would be for things like fertilisers and the manufacture of plastics and chemicals. It is immoral on an almost inhuman scale for us to be "fighting for oil" so that we can leave cities full of lights burning all night long; people are DYING on a daily basis, in unimaginably horrific ways, so that we can BURN the effing stuff for no reason whatsoever. WTFF!!!?!?!

That more people (as in, ALL people) are not equally outraged at such egregious waste and hypocricy displays, to my mind, a chilling lack of understanding of the real issues facing mankind, and an equally chilling inability to follow logical problems through to their conclusion. Just more proof, I'd say, of the stranglehold that the "power-elite" have on our education system and yet more evidence that, rather than the human race getting more intelligent as the years go by, we are being deliberately dumbed down exactly so that people cannot challenge their insatiable lust for power, control and by extension, wealth - OUR wealth.

I'd exhort people to "wake up" but I've been doing that for 10 years now, and people just aren't for waking up; they nod their heads sagely, agree to things they really don't understand rather than put the effort into learning and thinking for themselves, then they turn back to the TV and switch their "brains", such as they are, off again.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join