Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

[ebelisha]

"Well, even if it was "about oil" that's a very good reason. The economy of the world would be terribly harmed if oil became hard to get."

Well, how does this scenario sound:

Americans eat lots and lots of bananas. We love our bananas so much that we don't restrict ourselves to eating the bananas we grow in california, but import them. Colombia has the best bananas around, so we buy them. Columbia has a somewhat unstable government, so Chiquita pays 25 million in the last few years to the local columbian thugs for "protection money".... so we can eat our bananas.

What happens if the "legit" government in Columbia says, "We are very, very angry and you are poopyheads. No more bananas for you, Yank!"

Is it appropriate for the American military to invade columbia, kill civilians, hire the same thugs to which we payed protection money as 'war contractors', and take the bananas by force because we love our bananas?

Who owns those bananas? Which part of property rights did you fail to comprehend?

[jordanz]

"Well, even if it was "about oil" that's a very good reason. The economy of the world would be terribly harmed if oil became hard to get."

Well, how does this scenario sound:

Americans eat lots and lots of bananas. We love our bananas so much that we don't restrict ourselves to eating the bananas we grow in california, but import them. Colombia has the best bananas around, so we buy them. Columbia has a somewhat unstable government, so Chiquita pays 25 million in the last few years to the local columbian thugs for "protection money".... so we can eat our bananas.

What happens if the "legit" government in Columbia says, "We are very, very angry and you are poopyheads. No more bananas for you, Yank!"

Is it appropriate for the American military to invade columbia, kill civilians, hire the same thugs to which we payed protection money as 'war contractors', and take the bananas by force because we love our bananas?

Who owns those bananas? Which part of property rights did you fail to comprehend?

I don't know too much about Columbia but their government is a democracy as far as I know. Therefore, it would not be moral to invade that country.

[Alfonso Jones]

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

Graham Paterson

The Sunday Times

September 16, 2007

From the article:

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush's economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam's support for terrorism.

Greenspan should know. He was on the inside.

Michael

I'm not arguing a position on the motivations of the Iraq war - whether motivated by oil or by something else.

But it's not at all clear to me that Greenspan would have been an insider with special knowledge of Bush's motivations.

Alfonso

[Brant Gaede]

Greenspan is not giving testimony. He is giving an opinion, not even much in the way of an analysis. It was not what Saddam would do to or with oil, but with the money he would get from oil. And a lot more was involved, so much more that you will find Greenspan's opinion in there as a fact--a relatively minor fact.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But it's not at all clear to me that Greenspan would have been an insider with special knowledge of Bush's motivations.

Alfonso,

I am almost finished with Maestro by Bob Woodward (which I had started without being aware of the release of Greenspan's book.

From the description, his relationship to the Presidents was on a one-to-one basis (and from the sound of it, Clinton owed a great deal of the financial successes during his Presidency to one-on-one lessons in economy with Greenspan), and he was excellent at constant political networking with top advisers and staff, in addition to the financial people.

I don't know how close he was to George W. Bush, but he most certainly had an insider's view from many angles.

For the record, though, his office always operated independently of Presidential pressure (which was usually great around election times).

Also, the more I learn about this man, the more I admire him.

Michael

[ebelisha]

I don't know too much about Columbia but their government is a democracy as far as I know. Therefore, it would not be moral to invade that country.

Are you saying that it is ethical to invade a country and take its bananas if we dislike their government, but unethical if they are a democracy?

Besides, the type of government has absolutely nothing to do with the question, "Who owns those bananas?"

[ebelisha]

Also, the US was supposed to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

[Aggrad02]

But it's not at all clear to me that Greenspan would have been an insider with special knowledge of Bush's motivations.

Alfonso

It seems to me that Gereenspan is about as inside as it gets. There are pictures in his book of Greenspan laying around the staff room at the white house with a young Cheney and a young Rumsfield in the '70's during the Ford Admin. Then they same guys in the Reagan Admin. and then the same guys in the HW admin, and then the same guys in the W admin. These guys "grew up" politically together.

--Dustan

[Aggrad02]

Aggrad:

~ You say...

It is not our responsibilty to control what happens in another country.

~ If we have no citizens of *ours* there, true. Otherwise, this absolutist view is way off; we have a responsibility to our citizens re how they're treated there.

We certainly do not have a responsibility to how our citizens are treated in other countries. If you travel to another county you are taking a risk, and you must take responsibility for that risk. Now I don't have any problem with us "rescuing" citizens that are trapped or taken hostage, but that is about it. The laws of the US do not trump another country's sovereignty in that country.

~ You say...

If an American company [can we add 'person' here?] decided to do business in another country they have to be ready to play by the rules of that country and accept any consequences that follow.

~ As absolutistically asserted, without 'caveats', there's no reason a rational person/company would/could accept this. If the 'other' country/group is not decreed by our own govt/country as a threat, then, if a citizen person gets outside-of-our-country protection (such as within 'treaties') by our govt of what our govt recognizes as their rights, in dealing with said group/govt, *we* have a responsibility there.

You are right about economic treaties. They are similar to contracts between countries. But we should treat them as so and litigate them instead of attacking militarily. But our military are not hired henchmen for corporations or individuals. International dealing is not always safe and companies have to take that into account and pass the cost of the risk onto the consumer.

--Dustan

Edited September 21, 2007 by Aggrad02

[Brant Gaede]

But it's not at all clear to me that Greenspan would have been an insider with special knowledge of Bush's motivations.

Alfonso

It seems to me that Gereenspan is about as inside as it gets. There are pictures in his book of Greenspan laying around the staff room at the white house with a young Cheney and a young Rumsfield in the '70's during the Ford Admin. Then they same guys in the Reagan Admin. and then the same guys in the HW admin, and then the same guys in the W admin. These guys "grew up" politically together.

--Dustan

If you aren't a member of the National Security Council you are not inside regarding foreign relations and the use of the military. Greenspan may have been invited to this or that NSC meeting, but I doubt if he ever went to more than one or two if at all.

--Brant

Edited September 21, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[jordanz]

I don't know too much about Columbia but their government is a democracy as far as I know. Therefore, it would not be moral to invade that country.

Are you saying that it is ethical to invade a country and take its bananas if we dislike their government, but unethical if they are a democracy?

Besides, the type of government has absolutely nothing to do with the question, "Who owns those bananas?"

A dictator has no moral standing and no legitimate claim to sovereignty.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know too much about Columbia but their government is a democracy as far as I know. Therefore, it would not be moral to invade that country.

Are you saying that it is ethical to invade a country and take its bananas if we dislike their government, but unethical if they are a democracy?

Besides, the type of government has absolutely nothing to do with the question, "Who owns those bananas?"

A dictator has no moral standing and no legitimate claim to sovereignty.

Not necessarily, just probably. I mean, dictator of what and why?

--Brant

[Aggrad02]

A dictator has no moral standing and no legitimate claim to sovereignty.

Just because a dictator has no moral authority, does not mean that we do to go in a country and confiscate their property. Especially in countries where we "prop up" the dictator.

[ebelisha]

A dictator has no moral standing and no legitimate claim to sovereignty.

Define dictator and define legitimate.

[jordanz]

A dictator has no moral standing and no legitimate claim to sovereignty.

Just because a dictator has no moral authority, does not mean that we do to go in a country and confiscate their property. Especially in countries where we "prop up" the dictator.

A dictator cannot own property. That's a contradiction.

[jordanz]

A dictator has no moral standing and no legitimate claim to sovereignty.

Define dictator and define legitimate.

This is getting tedious. William Thomas wrote a great article a while back: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showconte...ct=586&h=54

[Brant Gaede]

A dictator has no moral standing and no legitimate claim to sovereignty.

Define dictator and define legitimate.

Define define.

--Brant

[Aggrad02]

A dictator has no moral standing and no legitimate claim to sovereignty.

Define dictator and define legitimate.

Define define.

--Brant

From Wikipedia:

A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term, word or phrase. The term to be defined is known as the definiendum (Latin: that which is to be defined). The words which define it are known as the definiens (Latin: that which is doing the defining).[1]

[Aggrad02]

A dictator has no moral standing and no legitimate claim to sovereignty.

Define dictator and define legitimate.

This is getting tedious. William Thomas wrote a great article a while back: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showconte...ct=586&h=54

The article is discredited for me when he wrote the following:

The Objectivist view of foreign policy derives from its view of morality. Just as each person should pursue his rational self-interest in his personal matters, so should a proper government uphold the interests of its citizens in its conduct toward other nations

Further:

In effect, it unites the best aspects of the conservative emphasis on national interests with the best liberal human rights internationalism.

A government exists to protect and serve the rights of its own citizens.......But our individual interests are also served by the positive goal of creating and supporting a society of traders

One basic tenet, then, of Objectivist political philosophy is that the only just governments are those of the free countries—and all the free countries are natural allies

And who decides this?

After all, we have no blanket duty to rescue oppressed and suffering foreigners, and sometimes even bad governments can reform, with the right encouragement. But our reasons will be based in the practical costs and benefits of war and other policies in the particular case.

What price, victory? The Iraqi military is fairly negligible and the Baathist dictatorship there is widely loathed. Precision U.S. weapons can hopefully avoid massive civilian casualties. U.S. casualties may be worse than in the Gulf War, but if in the end they number more than a few thousand, it would be a surprise to pre-war assessments. Various officials and experts have bruited financial costs on the order of $50 billion to $120 billion.

How can you trust anyone who went along with those figures?

What those principles teach us is that a free people should be unembarrassed about defending liberty and the modern, Enlightenment values that underlie it. Ultimately, war must be a weapon we are willing to use against illiberal despotisms. But war itself is only a means of changing foreign government policies. We cannot lose sight of the fact that political policy is a symptom, but culture is the root cause. There would have been no 9/11 without Islamism and the Middle Eastern culture of resentment. There will be no end to such attacks without religious toleration and a culture of reform. We should seek whatever realistic means we can find to keep ideas and business flowing. While in the short range we act to maintain our interests, in the long run those interests require that we build up a world society of individuals living by their own choices and thinking their own thoughts. Being willing to fight for our interests will not ensure that great goal, but being unwilling to fight will surely doom it.

And this total last paragraph is a contradiction. You want to change Islamic society of hating America by beating them over the head. Hmmmm.....

I am sorry but I never inferred or read any of these foreign policy positions from reading Ayn Rand. This essay seemed very fascist and the author did even know he was being fascist. :sick:

--Dustan

Edited September 21, 2007 by Aggrad02

[Brant Gaede]

The war in the Middle East seems to be expanding with the Sept. 6 Israeli air strike against Syria's nuclear assets imported from North Korea on Sept. 3. This was in Northern Syria, a long, long way from Damascus. Again, apropos an earlier post, this has nothing to do with oil. Eventually oil will be affected. It will spike up in price when Israel and the United States attack Iran. The military option is being inexorably reduced to necessity because of fear of Iran getting a nuclear device and because of the feckless way the U.S. has been dealing with Iran to date. Iran will initially be helpless against this assault. If Iran is effectively disarmed nuclearly then the general conflict will be about oil exclusively, leaving Pakistan as the wild card.

This whole thing is a tar-baby of insanity. Iran cannot be defeated or effectively dealt with by air power alone unless the country is obliterated by nuclear weapons. This will mean continuous, on-going conflict on a much broader scale than what is happening today.

--Brant

Edited September 22, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Aggrad02]

The war in the Middle East seems to be expanding with the Sept. 6 Israeli air strike against Syria's nuclear assets imported from North Korea on Sept. 3. This was in Northern Syria, a long, long way from Damascus. Again, apropos an earlier post, this has nothing to do with oil.

It also has nothing to do with the US.

This whole thing is a tar-baby of insanity. Iran cannot be defeated or effectively dealt with by air power alone unless the country is obliterated by nuclear weapons. This will mean continuous, on-going conflict on a much broader scale than what is happening today.

Your right that it is turning into insanity. Iran maybe able to be defeated by ground troops, but how can we hold Iran, we are having a hard enough time holding Iraq and Afghanistan. There would certainly be a draft to do this, it would also send the deficit through the clouds (it is already through the roof), killing the dollar even further (for those of you who don't watch the markets; gold is at $731, the euro is at $1.41, the canadian dollar is at par, oil is at $82/barrell and corn is at $3.50/bushel). I think we would have a violent revolution here if we go into Iran.

--Dustan

Edited September 22, 2007 by Aggrad02

[BaalChatzaf]

Your right that it is turning into insanity. Iran maybe able to be defeated by ground troops, but how can we hold Iran, we are having a hard enough time holding Iraq and Afghanistan. There would certainly be a draft to do this, it would also send the deficit through the clouds (it is already through the roof), killing the dollar even further (for those of you who don't watch the markets; gold is at $731, the euro is at $1.41, the canadian dollar is at par, oil is at $82/barrell and corn is at $3.50/bushel). I think we would have a violent revolution here if we go into Iran.

--Dustan

Then what do you propose that we should do? Killing our enemies in sufficient numbers has an elegance and simplicity to it, in spite of some of the difficulties. If we do not slaughter our enemies, then what should we do about them? I like the idea of killing. It is straightforward.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Aggrad02]

Your right that it is turning into insanity. Iran maybe able to be defeated by ground troops, but how can we hold Iran, we are having a hard enough time holding Iraq and Afghanistan. There would certainly be a draft to do this, it would also send the deficit through the clouds (it is already through the roof), killing the dollar even further (for those of you who don't watch the markets; gold is at $731, the euro is at $1.41, the canadian dollar is at par, oil is at $82/barrell and corn is at $3.50/bushel). I think we would have a violent revolution here if we go into Iran.

--Dustan

Then what do you propose that we should do? Killing our enemies in sufficient numbers has an elegance and simplicity to it, in spite of some of the difficulties. If we do not slaughter our enemies, then what should we do about them? I like the idea of killing. It is straightforward.

Ba'al Chatzaf

How about creating more friends and less enemiess. Or how about making our enemies our friends by leaving them the hell alone.

--Dustan

BTW: Bob I believe your military solution is the only military solution that would be successful.

[ebelisha]

I am sorry but I never inferred or read any of these foreign policy positions from reading Ayn Rand. This essay seemed very fascist and the author did even know he was being fascist. :sick:

--Dustan

I have to agree. I read Ayn Rand's works years ago. I have not kept up with the various objectivist schools of thought. I haven't read Piekoff since I read 'Ominous Parallels'.

However, I have been readfing the news. I have been amazed at the slow march of Ayn Rand's ideas into society. However, her ideas have teen twisted into a corrupt, fascist version due to fuzzy thinking. I keep wishing her ghost would descend and start whacking people on the head.

[Brant Gaede]

The war in the Middle East seems to be expanding with the Sept. 6 Israeli air strike against Syria's nuclear assets imported from North Korea on Sept. 3. This was in Northern Syria, a long, long way from Damascus. Again, apropos an earlier post, this has nothing to do with oil.

It also has nothing to do with the US.

--Dustan

The U.S. was involved by making sure Israel had the means to turn off all Syria's air defenses. Everything in the Middle East geo-politically speaking has U.S. involvement or is heavily influenced by same.

--Brant

Edited September 22, 2007 by Brant Gaede