Why Did Alan Greenspan Say That The Iraq War Was Largely About Oil Does Anyone Know The Details Of

What does Alan Greenspan mean when he says that the Republicans have been spending more than the Democrats in the last half century?

Alan Greenspan is neither a Democrat nor a Republican. He is an opportunist., snake oil salesman. The reason for the “opportunistic” is that he took the praises, allow for a bubble to grow (supporting the current President George Bush) at the cost of future generations and the many folks who lost their life savings. Other selling out examples are related with this statement that you can’t fix the economy until you fix entitlements.The cost of entitlements pales in comparison to the cost of George Bush’s Wars, the debacle George Bush and Alan Greenspan created in the Real Estate through deregulations. Just there there was a $10 trillion dollars dissipation. If you add the two wars - you reach $20 trillion.So, on the tab of Republicans, it shouldn’t only be their current budget deficits. They should be credited with the full blown cost of their mismanagement.Saint Ronald Reagan doubled the debt to bankrupt the USSR, which Donald Trump will help resurrect now, in exchange of personal gains and Russian Oligarch debts repayment… Just take a look on Donald Trump Tax Filings to confirm!If you do that, it is obviously clear that Republicans contribute to the Spending (Debt) more than Democrats. In fact, it is unpatriotic and electoral malpractice to vote Republican.There is nothing wrong with Republican slogans of Fiscal Conservativeness. The reality is that they are not fiscally conservative. There are no taxpayer’s savings if you lower the current tax rates and increase the deficit. This is the same thing as taking money from your credit card to pay your bills - and in the process allowing you to put little money in your savings account. One day your kids will have to pay that credit card bill or conversely the bank will own all your assets.So, what Alan Greenspan said is not really important. What he allowed to happen is. AND the Democrats are the ones really fiscally conservative AND the Republicans are Penny Wise, Pound Foolish by $20 trillion dollars.

What role does the military play in the 21st century?

The military does not play the same part in the 21st century as it did in the 19th century. Why did I skip the 20th century?Because starting in the early 20th century and carrying over into the 21st century, and some will argue the late 19th century the military has been used by governments on behalf of corporations to help form multinational corporations.The CEO's have replaced the Generals, the managers have replaced the junior officers, and the employees have replaced the enlisted. All we have to do is look at the Gulf Wars and the OIF's to see this. Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms. From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq.Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007,Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny thatFormer Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir,I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel,People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are.The Iraq Hydrocarbon Law gave U.S. oil companies complete control over the vast majority of Iraq’s oil [ . . . ] Exploration and production contracts allowed foreign companies to take ownership of Iraq’s oil fields.

Why is the USA and UK invading countries for Oil and natural gas in Middle East ?

You cannot explain wars costing trillions by wanting to avoid a few routine transit fees.Any conceivable pipeline idea has probably been discussed somewhere. This does not mean they were practical or influential.Nobody really wants to bet a lot of capital on a pipeline that can be shut off in any transit country, especially since the 2009 Georgia war and 2014 Ukraine war. Instead Europe has expanded LNG receiving terminals. Qatar has always been the world’s largest LNG producer. US producers are also eager to sell LNG to Europe.The only landlocked region is Central Asia and there China is easily capable of buying all its output. Turkmenistan’s reserves are so massive there is little reason to extend pipelines further to Iran. Oil flows from Kazakhstan and Russia to China. Unlike the 1990s there is now little reason for the West to get involved in Central Asia.North America is now 90% self sufficient in oil and has a surplus of gas. Gas prices have crashed in Europe. Flooding European markets with cheap gas also limits Russia’s gas profits.The net oil flow between Atlantic and Indo-Pacific basins has changed to eastbound. The US is trying to sell its oil and gas to Asia and Europe, not secure imports.

What is the reason that George Bush can't say to the American public that the reason why we had to go into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein was for the sake of oil markets?

This is rather a disrespectful question...and one based on the ancient Democratic Party "Oil Baron Republican" narrative. Most of the free world, including the U.N., thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You may or may not choose to remember that he also invaded a sovereign state, Kuwait. He used chemical weapons on citizens within his own borders. There were plenty of reasons to list him among the 'baddies". Plenty of reasons why he was a threat to the rest of the world. George Bush had many sessions with other government officials ( Senate and Congress ) and showed them in detail the evidence related to his weapons stash and other things that Hussein was up to. They COULD HAVE voted against allowing him to go into Iraq. They did not. They voted to leave the decision up to him....you know HIM, the guy that all Democrats claimed was the largest idiot ( at that time anyway ) ever elected to office. They voted to leave the decision up to him. He went. At the start of it no one complained. The complaints began as election time grew nearer and the patience of the American people had time to grow a little thinner. As for the 'oil'. Oil is without a doubt a vital commodity and without it much of the world would fall into violent chaos. However, that would likely not include the U.S. We had the ability to supply ourselves with oil from many other sources, and it has been proven that Americans continue to buy oil/gasoline at pretty much the same volumes despite the price. So we would have been just fine with a certain amount of inconvenience. For the rest of the world at that time the sudden loss or lack of availability of Iraq's oil might have been a problem for sure. So if oil was part of the motive, it was a humanitarian issue carried out on the behalf of other parts of the world, and not one of greed. We put out the oilfield fires that Mr. Hussein started intentionally and made that oil available to those that wanted it. We did not take it. We did not take control of it. We did not charge the world for our services. AGAIN. If you suggest that the U.S. should sit out such issues and let all the players over there sort it all out, I will listen to your explanation of how much better off the world would be if Hussein, Putin, and China had been left to fix the mess.

How can I join the US military quickly?

From experience i can tell you, you can enlist and be in basic in less than a month, though its not as common. I enlisted out of highschool July 11th and i was in Ft. Sill by Aug 6 . I didn't even know what hit me when i was running off the bus with Drill Sgts yelling and soldiers running everywhere all frantically. Never really learned much because of the short time, never had the future soldier program or did study groups with other recruits, so i was hella behind when i got to basic. And you have to think, there are some people like those who joined the Puerto Rican/ Hawaiian national guard had already went through a mini basic at their respective homes states. Anyways, to answer your question. The army is by far the easiest branch to get into, and depending on your MOS you choose, will affect your queue to go to basic. Talk to a recruiter and let him know your situation (why you want to leave so quickly). From what i can remember, they can look into the system and see the estimated wait time. I told him i wanted to be a combat Engineer, but he told me that the earliest that i would be shipped off was in February. Which actually in hindsight wasn't that long of a time. So he gave me a small list of jobs that the army had openings for within the next few months. I signed up for 91b mechanic, and to my surprise, he told me i was going to ship off in 3 weeks. (which was way shorter than i was planning for).But listen to these guys. They aren't saying this stuff to annoy to or to talk down to you. Joining the military under the right conditions can give you a good start and set you up for a good career. When i went, i was clueless. Didn't know shit. The people who had the opportunity before shipping off to learn the things like Drill and Ceremony, the Soldiers Creed, General Orders, Ranks were the ones who would lead the platoons as well as excel in PT. Some of them got promoted at the end of basic. Not to say you would be hopeless, but it would be stupid to join on impulse if its not at all necessary.