The War in Iraq -- Who Is Profiting?

by **Dan Wishengrad** on Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:18 pm

Retired Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan wrote in his new book that the decision to invade Iraq was, simply, all about oil. The neo-cons have counter-attacked furiously, forcing Greenspan to retreat a little from his claim, but it is still there in his book for all to read. Was he correct? What exactly WAS the rationale for launching the war? We know now that is wasn't about WMDs poised to strike America, that even Cheney and Rumsfield knew this rationale was false and that they sought to manipulate the intelligence to justify a decision they had already made for some other rationale. So what exactly were the real reasons?

This new story out today from the Dallas Morning News is a fascinating read, and might be the tip of the iceberg:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... oil30.html

**Sponsor**

by **Beta** on Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:31 pm

Blackwater has made a few bucks on the Iraq situation.

Hahaha, thought this was funny:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306417,00.html

by **peterwho** on Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:51 pm

George Soros :oops:

He bought 1.9 million shares of Halliburton stock in the fourth quarter of 2006.

by **sohotrightnow** on Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:14 pm

We are all profiting from this war. We are doing a good deed, so in turn, the entire world profits. It's really quite simple.

by **LaxRef** on Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:26 pm

sohotrightnow wrote:We are all profiting from this war. We are doing a good deed, so in turn, the entire world profits. It's really quite simple.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm.

If not, the question would be why did we decide to topple the dictatorship in the country with heaps of oil rather than tackling one of the many other awful regimes in the world?

If our goals were altruistic, maybe stopping a genocide in Darfur would have been a better good deed?

by **Kevin OBrien** on Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:45 pm

stability of the region.

by **laxfan25** on Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:34 pm

Duh, it's all about the oil. The biggest bitch we have with the Iraqis right now is that they won't sign the oil agreement WE'VE drawn up. Theere is a lot more in there than just the sharing of revenues among the Iraqi factions.
Way, way back in the fall of '02 there was an article in our local paper, the Grand Rapids Press, that was an interview with William Seidman, a local businessman, friend of Gerry Ford and namesake of the Seidman School of Business at Grand Valley State University. Here is a short bio, so you can see what a left-wing radical he is...

L. William Seidman is an American economist and financial commentator. Seidman began working in United States government as an economic advisor to President Gerald Ford from 1974 to 1976, and later in a related capacity to President Ronald Reagan from 1982-1984. In 1985, he became the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and served until 1991, working extensively during the American savings and loan crisis to restore solvency to the failing savings and loan sector of American banking. He was the first chairman of the related agency, the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was created specifically to address issues arising from the savings and loan crisis, from 1989 until his retirement from active government in 1991.

The gist of the article was that he had just returned from a trip to DC whre he had sat in on a briefing about Iraq. In it he said that it is all about the oil, there was one line that was like "this is our oil and we need to control it!" I have looked in my local library but the archives don't go back that far. I'll have to go down to the Press and see if they have archives open to the public. The article was amazing in how openly he laid out the reason why we needed to invade Iraq, and yes, it was about the oil.
Much the same way as with Greenspan, he was obviously taken to the woodshed because a day or two later there was a follow-up where he said he was a little misquoted, etc. etc. But the actual interview was very telling, and since it was only in a small-town paper really didn't get wide exposure.

As far as who's profiting, if you're sitting on oil anywhere in the world you are reaping (or raping) a bonanza with the price up at $90 and climbing. American oil companies are doing quite well, thank you very much, but also Russia is pulling in bushels of rubles, which has appeased the population so that they're quite happy with Putin in spite of the major anti-democratic actions he takes (and the outright murders of dissidents that he is able to get away with!). The amazing thing in Russia is that there really aren't alot of "shareholders", so these oil profits are making a handful of people breathtakingly wealthy.
It has also enabled GWB's good friend Hugo Chavez to fund his altruistic activities in the region. At least somebody is spreading some of these windfall profits to the lower classes, even if it is to enhance his grip on power.
You can also bet that if there was a major oil discovery under the bloody sands of Darfur we'd be in there pronto.

by **Dan Wishengrad** on Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:39 am

As Peterwho noted, let's not forget Halliburton (and it's subsidiaries) which was awarded no-bid contracts -- nobody else was even allowed to be considered -- and has reaped billions of taxpayer dollars to re-construct Iraq after Saddam was toppled. If George Soros or any Democratic donors bought stock last year in Halliburton, well this was after that company has gouged the U.S. taxpayers for three previous years.

I'd love to see a comprehensive list of ALL the U.S. companies which have profited from the war in Iraq, and examine the ties of these same corporations to the Administration and the GOP. My guess is that there wouldn't be many (or any?) which are not tied to Bush and Cheney politically.

by **Beta** on Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:50 am

Dan you act like this isn't what causes essentially ever major decision to made. :lol:

by **Kyle Berggren** on Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:38 pm

If there was no oil involved, say it was Brazil... & their dictator put people into wood chippers & had a rape squad. Would similar "human rights violations" be enough to support the removal of the dictatorship?

by **KnoxVegas** on Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:19 pm

The president yesterday said that Congress was wasting his time with oversight investigations and the like. So this is moot because if you are for oversight, you are against the health of children and obviously on the side of the terrorists. Remember that it is impossible to think, so says the president.

by **Zeuslax** on Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:33 pm

When your goal is to privitize everything controlled by gov't the core of this approach is profit. I'm not sure what is so hidden about that. Of course profit makes everything better, right?

Russia is pulling in bushels of rubles, which has appeased the population so that they're quite happy with Putin in spite of the major anti-democratic actions he takes (and the outright murders of dissidents that he is able to get away with!). The amazing thing in Russia is that there really aren't alot of "shareholders", so these oil profits are making a handful of people breathtakingly wealthy.

In addition, I would have to say that Putin wants to create and continue fueling turmoil in the Middle East and other parts of the world. By doing this and keeping America entangled he is able to stay in power and ensure that oil prices stay high. High oil prices = Putin's power. Unfortunately the Kremlin has amassed a nice "bankroll" of hard cash, which means that even if prices plummet (ain't gonna happen) they still have operational funds. This is why Europe is not going to stand up to Iran, they can't, unless they want Putin turning the valve off on their heating oil. See the Ukraine last winter. Europe is not going to freeze to death.

I would be a little sceptical of saying that Putin has high approval numbers. I know the people like some of his power plays and they are little pissed off at "Democracy", but approval numbers in a police state are manipulated frequently and easily. Who know's though. Maybe Bush? He looked deep into Putin's soul!

by **BucLax13** on Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:02 pm

kyle it depends,

Did we sell or give the brazilian dictator weapons in the past?
Has a high ranking defense official shaken his hand on camera?
Did he try to kill our president's daddy?

If yes to all I believe we need to let freedom ring

by **laxfan25** on Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:27 pm

Zeuslax wrote:I would be a little sceptical of saying that Putin has high approval numbers. I know the people like some of his power plays and they are little pissed off at "Democracy", but approval numbers in a police state are manipulated frequently and easily. Who know's though. Maybe Bush? He looked deep into Putin's soul!

Anthony, here is a recent article from my favorite mag, The New Yorker, on Gary Kasparov and Vlad "The Impaler" Putin. Long, but you'll be up to date on a lot of stuff about Russia. If you're interested inthe topic, worth a read.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007 ... ct_remnick

by **Zeuslax** on Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:10 am

Thanks Laxfan. That article along with the mag is about 3rd on the stack in the living room right now. I'm looking forward to reading it.

The question related to money and the war I would like answered is what happened to the 9 billion dollars that no one can seem to find?

Lets see that's.......

36 thousand 250 thousand dollar houses
2000000000 packs of cigarettes (in the US)
3600000000 beers at the bar @ 2.5 a beer
That's $65,217.39 that could of been given to each soldier
616 F-16 fighter jets
265486725.7 gallons of milk @ 3.39/gal
450,000 Honda Civic Hybrids