Comments on: Greenspan Backtracks On Iraq War Oil Claim

The Skinny: Former Fed Chief Now Says Oil Wasn't The Reason For U.S. Invasion.

[toolmangler-2009]

Begin part two;

At this same time, the planet was racked by devastating events like droughts, earthquakes, extreme temperature changes and all forms of illnesses. Water was in such short supply that individuals were being killed and the water recovered from their bodies was sold by robber barons and other gangs. You might ask what happened to the water and receive this answer. "the energy companies pumped it into the ground to take the place of the liquid fuels they were extracting so that the surface of the world would not crash into the gaping holes left when the earth was sucked dry." Now the planet is so parched that nothing can grow. Billions have already died and now they have only a few hundred left to propagate the species. Then they all boarded the only means of escape and rocketed into the skies hoping against hope that the third Planet might be able to provide a place to live. They all vowed with one voice to "Never destroy their world again".

GOD slumped and said to himself,"WANNA BET! and a tear fell as he looked at Mars and saw the red dust covering all he had made for them?"

[toolmangler-2009]

I have a fable for you;
Once upon a time there was a planet that had a thriving civilation. the inhabitants were very intelligent but somewhat short sighted. The industrial moguls were a bit on the greedy side and only looked at the bottom line and not very far into the future. The peoples of this world worked hard and learned everything they could about the world around them. As they advanced, their need for power grew exponentially and they searched the entire planet for more resources of energy but one day, they realized that the reserves were exhausted and they became frantic because no more liquid energy could be found.
End part one;

[ronbelknap]

If the desire of a large % of the Mexican people is to reside in the US, then it seems to me that a solution to this problem? would be to make claim to Mexican teritory for the % of mexicans that relocated to the US. This would place the responcibility of border control on Mexico where it should be placed. If part of Mexico would rather be US than let it.

[gretagreen]

I don''t understand why he thinks Dems are moving "in the wrong direction." In general, the Dems we are electing seem so much more conservative than the Dems of a decade ago. I don''t have the impression they are big government big spender types . . .

[azmka]

jimfinster:
that''s very cool I hope the rest follow suit.

[jimfinster]

If oil companies were not so short sighted they would be spending some of their trillons of dollars on developing alternative fuels not looking for more oil wells, realizing that oil won''''t last forever.
Posted by azmka

Take a look at BP Oil. They are a BIG manufacturer of solar panels, and are also getting into wind power. They are preparing for life after oil, and will continue to be an energy company due to foresight and planning.

[jimfinster]

Well, we still have oil here in the US. It''''s just that we aren''''t going after it, and we shouldn''''t.
Posted by rangerdahl

Yes and no. We hit Peak Oil here in the 1970''s, which means production peaked at that time due to available reserves. It has been decreasing every since, and will continue to do so. Peak Oil has also occurred in a number of other countries. And probably has occurred in terms of global supply.

[azmka]

If oil companies were not so short sighted they would be spending some of their trillons of dollars on developing alternative fuels not looking for more oil wells, realizing that oil won''t last forever. They have the resources to do so and would still be in control because they would own the industry. So why won''t they? Because money NOW is their logic.

Lumber is another example. Trees take hundreds of years to grow and when regions are left devoid of trees mud slides, erosion and a slew of other unwanted effects are seen.

If I were a lumber company owner I would push for growing hemp. It can do everything lumber can and then some. It is replenishable in six months. All that junk mail we get every day would not be so bad if I knew they were not ultimately desroying the only place humans have to live. Same with coal and oil!

[nyckate]

themurph2000

You''re right - Greenspan isn''t the "tool" of either Bush or Clinton.

I got a weird feeling watching him last night - it''s like he''s waiting for someone to ask him the right question, in exactly the right way, using exactly the right words.

If you read his testimony before Congress he doesn''t say that he agrees with Bush or that Bush is right - what he says is he can''t respond. There was no followup question to it: Is that because you feel that in your position you shouldn''t give an opinion or because you don''t'' want to.

It''s clear that he''s disappointed in Bush''s handling of the economy - it''s also clear that Bush didn''t give a *** about what anyone other than his inner circle''s opinion so he wasn''t going to listen to Greenspan anyway - but some in the GOP might have and might have been persuaded to not go along with Bush - though that''s doubtful too as they''ve all acted in concert together lock, stock and barrell.

[themurph2000]

Pretty scary the arguing back and forth here. Some of you are saying Greenspan was a puppet for Bush, some say Clinton. Um, all of you are aware he was Chairman of the Fed since 1987, right? In other words, he was appointed by a far-right conservative Republican (Reagan), went through a moderate Republican (old-man Bush), a moderate-to-liberal Democrat (Clinton) and another far-right conservative Republican (Dubya). Therefore, it seems pretty silly to accuse the man of leaning towards one side or the other, given how long he survived. I''m can''t really say whether he deserves credit or blame for our economy for those 19 or so years, but I can think of more than a few situations that had more influence (eg: old man Bush''s laizzez-faire philosophy, overinvestment of venture capital during the Clinton years, and Bush''s "tax like a conservative, spend like a liberal" policies.

As for the war being for oil, if that''s the case, the government isn''t at fault: THE PEOPLE ARE. Who do you think USES all that oil?!?!?!? We can protest all we want, but until we''re truly willing to change our ways, we have no right to complain about it. I once saw two protesters carrying a "No Blood for Oil" placard leave from the rally and get into a mid-1980''s Chevy Suburban! Yikes!!!

[rangerdahl]

Well, we still have oil here in the US. It''s just that we aren''t going after it, and we shouldn''t. I say let''s use up all the oil in the middle east and when it''s gone, we jettison them as friends and disregard that area. By then, we can come up with other energy sources. They need us to pump money into them as much as they need us...but when they run out of oil, all they will have is sand.

[feelfree1]

ttinsly,

Re: "I''m officially disconnecting from politics in every way and manner except for my voting."

I am sorry to see you go, but I wish you well. I have enjoyed your insights and contributions to the discussion.

Take care!!!

[nerfff-2009]

antoniof123
Do you really think you''re the only person in the world capable of interpreting the lessons of history. I swear, some people are so dense!

[antoniof123]

It was said a long time ago that the rich were the guardians of freedom because they stood the most to lose. But it was also shown in history that each new breed of rich believes they will not make the same mistake as the last. Tell that to the French and the Spanish, and the Italians, and the Chinese, and Germans and maybe soon to the Americans. God people never learn from history nor do they understand it. This why we have the problems because of Greed you know what the bible says love of money.

[jimfinster]

teflonnads:

A very good post! As a geologist, I have followed Peak Oil since the 1980''s. This is essentially the reason for the Iraq invasion, plus the activities of many other countries in recent years. China for one has been quietly locking up oil supplies.

The actions of Bush are rational from a Peak Oil viewpoint. However, I for one wish Bush had spent all that money and effort on an alternate energy program for the USA.

[feelfree1]

teflonnads,

Nice wrap-up!

[jimfinster]

"I was not saying that that''s the administration''s motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I''m just saying that if somebody asked me, ''''Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?'''' I would say it was essential."

Of course. How could we gain control of Iraq and the oil without "taking out" Saddam? Duh.

[teflonnads]

As many observers would agree, the neo-conservative foreign policy would advocate military force to ensure unfettered control of energy supplies to the %u201Cwise ruling elite%u201D (that would be the US/UK conglomerates and other %u201Cinterests%u201D). The grim reality of Peak Oil depletion coupled with the neo-con%u2019s cynical world view is why we are in this Iraq mess today%u2013 all complements of the ambitious strategies of Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others.

The reality is that the world%u2019s total oil output has already begun its precipitous drop (there is only so much crude left in the ground), yet global demand continues on its steady climb. This is fueled by unprecedented affluence and economic expansion in China & India. Limited carbon supply will only continue to pit the world%u2019s economies against one another. This unavoidable conflict between the world%u2019s economic superpowers will only become more aggravated and contentious as supplies dwindle over the coming years. Unfortunately, we chose war over continuing a successful Iraq containment strategy and instead focusing effort on reducing national debt and curbing our appetite for foreign oil.

[teflonnads]

I%u2019m sure Greenspan realized the dire consequences of the world%u2019s oil producers accepting Euro%u2019s instead of greenbacks, as Saddam did when he opened a French bank account in 2000 to trade his %u201Coil for food%u201D in Euro. This news never made prime-time coverage, but was an important catalyst for declaring %u201Cenemy of the state%u201D status. No coincidence that Iran is also on the road to developing an oil bourse to trade in Euro%u2019s (due this year) and Hugo Chavez has also thumped his chest with the similar threat to disrupting US petro recycling hegemony. This is a big deal, but NEVER was it implied as a war strategy. Instead, Colin Powell was trotted out in front of the UN with joke of a WMD dog and pony show. Let%u2019s face facts kids: The US %u201Cinterests%u201D in the region is the ONLY reason we are there. Texas gold.

[lars008-2009]

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, ''We''ve got to protect the oil supplies of the world,'' but that would have been my motive." Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can''t talk about oil." Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."

Greenspan said he had backed Hussein''s ouster, either through war or covert action. "I wasn''t arguing for war per se," he said. But "to take [Hussein] out, in my judgment, it was something important for the West to do and essential, but I never saw Plan B" -- an alternative to war.

Greenspan''s reference in "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" to what he calls the "politically inconvenient" fact that the war was "largely about oil" was first reported by The Washington Post on Saturday and has proved controversial.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates took issue with Greenspan on ABC''s "This Week" yesterday. "I wasn''t here for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war," Gates said. But, he added, "I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don''t believe it''s true."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html