It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kacou
How can it be about oil when Iraq has not met yet the production and refineries of the crude since the war started?
Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.
Originally posted by Regensturm
The NeoCons thought the Iraqis would welcome the bombing and invading of their country with the throwing of roses, and would be the perfect climate and enviroment to get oil out of.
Of course, the Iraqis actually greeted the invasion with molotovs, AK-K7's, RPGs, and roadside bombs, slightly unsettling the oil snatcher's ideal tranquility.