It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:32 AM

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

Would you care to expand on that? I'm not disagreeing, I'd like to know exactly how you think Zionism fits into the picture as far as Iraq is concerned.

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Malichai

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.

Indeed. Kuwait was carved out of what is now Iraq, to enable a small oil rich territory to be controlled more easily.

This is why Saddam saw Kuwait as part of Iraq, and was one of the contributing reasons given by him into invading, and claiming it as a lost province of Iraq.

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

It depends on the school, and the teacher, but generally from my experience, you are right in your statement, although the slavery debate and the anniversary of Wilberforce's campaign to abolish it has marked the beginnings of change.

Equally, I would say the media and education system in America does not allow America to be blamed for imperialism either.

Probably could be said to be true for many nations in the world in regards to past, or indeed, present imperialist deeds.

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Malichai
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.

Go and look at the Maps of the Ottoman Empire prior to WW1, especially in relation to the three provinces of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul. They are virtually identical to modern maps. The Ottomans named the whole region Mesopotamia, which was handed over to the British at the end of WW1 and the signing of the armistice.

Kuwait was a semi-autonomous Emirate prior to WW1 under the Anglo-Ottoman Convention and after, they were made a British protectorate.

Next time you feel the need to insult me, my education, or my country, please try to be correct, at least. Also, perhaps try not to make assumptions about me, whom you do not know. It only makes you look an idiot.

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:03 AM
reply to post by Reality Hurts

One needs only to look at a map for why Iraq was invaded when looking at the larger picture beyond the obvious oil grab.

Geopolitical positioning.

Iraq has oil, Afghanistan, the capabilities of being route for a gas pipe, but these two countries also border who?


And the US is on the doorstep east and west of Iran, in an attempt to box Iran in and intimidate them.

Iraq (and indeed Afghanistan) is also one base closer to Russia and China, just to let them know US troops are there and can be close to them.

Russia and China do not like this stance by the US.

Unfortunatly for the NeoCons, the insurgency in Iraq and in Afghanistan has undermined that stance.

Why do you think Chinese weapons have been reportedly found to be used by the Afghan insurgents?

Why do you think Russia is arming Iran and Iran is reportedly arming Iraqi insurgents.

Because Iran wants to get the US off it's doorstep, and Russia and China want To get the US out of their region of the world.

It's all part of what is known as The Great Game.

A game of energy reserves, compliant client governments and locations for military bases.

The world is nothing to those who play it but a chessboard.

We, all of us, and the agents of the players of The Great Game, are nothing but Pawns to be played.

Played by Kings.

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:07 AM

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.

So your ok with your government lieing about why we pre-emptively invaded Iraq based on there weapons of mass destruction uh reason 1 or that they helped bin laden and 9/11 was this 1 or 2.... Oh well, or we invaded because Saddam was a evil doer reason 3, or It could have been for those Bagdad batteries.

Anything but oil!!!!!

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:21 AM
reply to post by franzbeckenbauer

Western Iraq is part of the land promised to Abraham. Zionists, both Jewish and Christian, believe that all of this will come under Israels control along with the other areas.

Israel was the only nation in the world, other than America, where war against Iraq was strongly promoted.

Zionists from all sides promoted anti-Iraqi propaganda, true or not.

And the war started on Purim, the Jewish holiday where they celebrate victory over their enemies.

The most extreme Zionists believe Iraq must be cleansed. All not Jews to be driven out. From the Nile to the Euprhates. And yes, I know people who have said just this. 'If they won't run kill them!'

[edit on 16-9-2007 by Malichai]

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:23 AM

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

Go back in history, and look at all of England and America's - LAND GRABS.

China, Africa, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the list goes on. When we grab those lands - we grab them for their resources. A masters plan hatched at the very foundation of this country, to SET UP MILLITARY BASES AROUND THE WORLD, to put men of Caucus Mountains in the ultimate power seat --- to rule the world.

It's a power thing, and who got the biggests gun thing ---- Lets face it.

We conspiracy guys call it - "New World Order"

America's Goverment calls it - "the Constitution"

America's People call it - " the American Dream"

The Global community looking at this foolishness call it - "Crazy"

*** THIS IS ALWAYS THE (if it ain't broke dont's fix it) PLAN: ****

1. Missonary Priests... to distabilize, undermine and heathenize the population.

2. Millitary presence... to control, subjigate the native peoples with the showing of overwhelming force.

Native -- "Mister GI JOE ... why are there 1000 aircraft carriers on our beautiful ocean and 3000 soldiers staying in our countries palace - huh?

GI --- " You're seeing things... here's some chocolate... now get back!"

3. Misinformation... this is where America tells the people of your country your king or president is a bad-bad person and we are here for "YOUR" benefit. ----- All while the land grabbing twins cart off your country's (oil, ancient artifacts, beach front real estate, sugar cane, minerals, diamonds, exotic woods, animals, water, and poppy fields, etc...)

4. Walla!! - Almost there... You've successfully taken over a region and have a governing American presence... But you have too -

5. Sell the oil to finance and justify your take over back home.

Bush -- "Weez ah-ah havin great success.... we're own track I tell yah, oil... ooops... I mean victory is around the bend. Lets get some more ah these 18 year old mall recruits tah throw in the fight..."

Over and Out.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by Level X]

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:30 AM
I agree with what some of you are saying, but we have no proof that the war in Iraq is all about oil and nothing else. Alan Greenspan said that oil was a factor in the Iraq Invasion, nothing else. It would be obvious to most people that oil would be a factor, as Iraq is a haven for oil. However, we cannot take what Greenspan said and go further, saying that this is evidence that Bush is a cold hearted tyrant that went into Iraq soley for oil.

Now, oil may have been an important factor when it comes to the invasion of Iraq, and I am not saying that I agree with that. But we need to realize that all it is is pure politics. Politics will always be a huge factor when huge decisions are supposed be made and it will always be that way. Why did we invade Vietnam? To 'liberate' the people from an evil regime, or was it because the USSR had a presense there and the US wanted to beat them out of them as part of their petty rivalry? If Vietnam had another country supporting them I'm pretty sure the US wouldn't have tried half as hard to 'liberate' them.

Bush probably say Iraq as a win-win situation for everyone. He saw Saddam's tyrany and the possible links to terrorists, and he had a possible suspicion of nuclear and chemical weapon testing in Iraq. He also saw the possible gains the US could get from invading Iraq and making them an ally. Yes, it is possible Bush exagerated his claims so he could invade Iraq. However, that has occured throughout history many times and is nothing new. So, how about we stop ragging on Bush and his adminstration by saying that he is some destroyer of peace that is money and oil hungry. All Bush did was use politics as an advantage for war. It is a regular political tactic many people do. Do I like Bush? No, not really. But that doesn't mean I think he is some leader of an impending NWO and that there is some giant conspiracy in Iraq.

The US Government cannot hide a huge conspiracy. They always get busted. From Watergate to wiretappings to attourney scandals to this, the government always gets ccaught in one way or another. There is simply to many people involved in a conspiracy that it is guaranteed to enevitably be leaked out to the public.

That my take on this anyway.

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:39 AM
reply to post by Malichai

Ok, thanks. Again I don't totally disagree, but don't you think there may be a little more to it than just that Zionists believe Iraq (or Babylonia, whatever) is some kind of promised land? In my experience, most "conspiracies" (9/11 as an example), whilst having one main motivation, generally aim to fulfill a number of concurrent goals. I mean, WHY exactly do Zionists believe Iraq should be cleansed of non-Jews? I know there are historical reasons - not least because the Tribes of Israel supposedly originated in Mesopotamia, but in this day and age there is ALWAYS (or nearly always) more to the picture than just a historical context. I can't believe for one second that the whole point of the invasion of Iraq was just so that Zionists could eventually cleanse Iraq of non-Jews (or maybe, even non-Zionists!) - after all, the oil angle CANNOT be ignored. It is approaching serendipity too closely to assume that Zionists "want Iraq back" (intentional over-simplification, don't dwell on it!), oh, and it just happens to be sitting on top of some of the world's biggest oil supplies!

What I'm saying, in short, is that maybe you haven't thought it all the way through? I don't disagree that Zionism played a big part - like you said the main cheerleaders were Israel (and Britain, essentially an outpost of Israel!) but I'd suggest there is a lot more to it than just that...

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by 5aret

Bush is not the leader of his own underpants, never mind anything else. When people say "Bush", they mean "the Bush Administration" - which can often be interpreted as Cheney! No, Bush is NOT the leader of the NWO, and no, the NWO cannot be dismissed just because you think the USA cannot hide a conspiracy. The USA CAN hide conspiracies - look at JFK, to this day we don't know the real truth, if officially released information can be accepted as truth (although many of us are pretty sure what the truth is - and it has nothing to do with the Mafia!)

"Bush" (ie, the Bush Admininstration) knew perfectly well there were no WMD in Iraq. Many of us watched them in real time cooking the intelligence, and the evidence is manifold, from the Downing Street Memo to the lack of WMD found! That there was a massive conspiracy to invade Iraq for nefarious reasons not told to the public is undeniable - we watched it happening. A conspiracy doesn't have to involve cloaked men hiding behind walls whilst desperately trying to decipher one-time pads. Conspiracy is part and parcel of government; without conspiracy government (and politics in general) would not happen. The existence of a conspiracy simply means that 2 or more people got together to plot something; the Downing Street Memo PROVES that this happened. Ergo, the US government conspired with the UK government, and others, to lie to the world in order to invade Iraq. That they never had any intention of leaving is apparent from the refusal of the conspirators to plan for the aftermath. Make of that what you will; what is happening seems to confirm the suspicions of many of us who predicted exactly this in advance - that the USA wanted to get into Iraq to stay, as a jumping off point for the rest of the mid-East, China, the Caspian basin, etc etc. The prediction by many was that the USA would invade, carry out false-flag terrorism within Iraq to give it the excuse to stay (this happens on a daily basis; many of the "suicide car-bombers" are nothing of the sort but US/UK set-ups to justify their own presence), and eventually lead to the "Balkanisation" of Iraq which would decrease the potential for the Iraqi people to a) form any kind of threat in the region and b) form any kind of cohesive voice to hang on to their own oil resources. All of these predictions have so far come true. It's not that difficult when you study history and put current events into the same perspective. We are also seeing the same tactics used against Iran; ignore them and deny the existence of any "conspiracy" at your peril and at the peril of your children or grandchildren and the state of the world they will have to live in...

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

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.

Yes and an economy and its growth can only be achieved with supplies of energy, hydrocarbon energy.

No hydrocarbon energy, no economy.

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:19 AM

Originally posted by marg6043

The New York Federal Reserve Bank made 21 shipments of currency to Iraq totaling $11,981,531,000. All told, the Fed would ship 281 million individual banknotes, in bricks weighing a total of 363 tons.

That's how they funded the insurgency.

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:20 AM

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.

You know what. I wouldn't put it past them actually trying to spin this line. In a sort of "well you wouldn't have understood if we tried to explain it to you. The public don't want to hear the ugly truth so we gave you the 'WMD/hate freedoms' story".

If you think fighting for anything let alone oil is good I ask you to watch this video:

Rob Newman's "A History Of Oil"

We've been fighting for oil for many years now. How many millions of lives will it take to stop?

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by franzbeckenbauer

The Zionists want Iraq because both Jewish and Christian Zionist prophecy says that it will be theirs. Not that it could or that it might, but that it WILL!

And if it doesn't happen then the foundation of all they believe is uprooted. Their God would be destroyed.

The oil motive is cover for Zionism. 'They want the oil'. But who is getting the oil?

How much oil did you get? More than me?

The one who pays for it will get the oil. The power will be deciding who gets to buy the oil and collecting the profits.

The oil only doubles the Zionist motives. Certainly there are individuals who are themselves motivated by profits generated in the Iraqi oil sector, but they alone can do nothing more than support the effort.

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:27 AM

Originally posted by uknumpty
If you think fighting for anything let alone oil is good I ask you to watch this video:

Rob Newman's "A History Of Oil"

We've been fighting for oil for many years now. How many millions of lives will it take to stop?

An excellent video, which makes some disturbing points. And sadly, I think it'll take many more millions of lives - because people can't or won't learn from history, and refuse to accept that they have been conned into fighting for centuries simply in order to put more of their own money into other people's pockets, and more control over their lives into the hands of people who care nothing for them.

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough money to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they OUGHT to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money." - Sir Josiah Stamp, former Director of the Bank of England, 1940

The quote is very apt; on a daily basis we give away our hard-earned money to people who are using it to build a prison of our society - simply so that we cannot argue when they take even more money off us, or order us to go and fight and die for things they themselves don't believe in.

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Malichai
The oil motive is cover for Zionism. 'They want the oil'. But who is getting the oil?

How much oil did you get? More than me?

Again, I think you're slightly missing the point. It's not about actual revenue from oil, or who profits from it, although I'm sure that is a minor motivating factor. It's about CONTROLLING the flow of oil, and by extension from that, dictating who can live and who can't. If the USA can control the worldwide flow of oil, it can stop China from ever challenging US hegemony. This is a motivation which has been expressed in writing by real insiders, people like Brezinski (founder of the Trilateral Commission for David Rockefeller) who has more power than George Brush will ever have simply by being a real insider.

It's a subjective point and I don't want to argue about it; suffice to say that I disagree with your point that Zionism is the main motivation. I agree it is A mitigating factor, but in my opinion Zionism is only a small part of the puzzle. It's essentially a chicken-egg scenario.

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:35 AM
reply to post by WyrdeOne

Yes we can not forget the industrial complex that is profiting for the reconstruction or lack of it, but also we can not dismiss when the first thing Bush order the military to do after the invasion was to guard not the infrastructure but the oil fields, until this day that is the most guarded areas of Baghdad, second the Green Zone.

Funny those in order to push agendas a war most be keep fueled until the goals are met.

That is why Iraq cannot find peace is not its government fault, is not the people fault is the occupation and its greedy goal fault. Iraq had been turn into a profitable war zone.

The control of the top oil producing countries in the globalization agenda is the most important goal of the Bush administration either by war or by forced friendship and protection.

The only thing between Bush oil barons and cronies and the oil in Iraq is the now government in charge that do not want to give away the rights of the Iraqis oil to US, but that can be corrected it only needs more insurgency to make the Maliki leadership as a failure and have the right groups to take over after him.

The oil barons’ wants 25 years of all the profits from Iraq, in my books that is call slavery and pure greed.

Future of Iraq: The spoils of war

[edit on 16-9-2007 by marg6043]

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:45 AM
Reality check


Mod Edit: Removed graphic image

[edit on 9/16/07 by FredT]

Link to picture replaced by original poster.

With warning: Graphic image

[edit on 16-9-2007 by In nothing we trust]

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:45 AM

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.

You're missing the entire point. It's not about getting the oil or stealing the oil. Read PNAC's documents about the middle east. It's about maintaining ACCESS and CONTROL of the market of oil. The U.S. will not allow the oil reserves to fall into hands that will not freely sell it to us. And they don't care if it's for big bunches of money either because the higher the oil price the more the majors's just about maintaining the ability to buy the oil.

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:46 AM

Perhaps some sort of link with a warning would be better?

I see what you were trying to do, but I wasn't quite in the mood to be seeing a boy with his leg blown off.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in