IS KISSINGER LYING AGAIN?
I would like to offer another reason as to why Kissinger, and Greenspan, claim that oil is the reason for invading Iraq, and soon Iran. The real reason for the turmoil in the Middle East is beginning to be realised by a large number of powerful Americans: Pike's WW3, in which possibly billions will die, but it is guaranteed the USA will no longer exist in the form we know today. These patriotic men and women, getting cold feet for more war, need a little encouragement, a little persuading, to carry on the good fight. So why not feed 'em the peak oil/America needs oil line?
The oil grab is a profitable sideline for certain people, and is probably what drives Cheney. But even Cheney does not know what others higher up in the food chain plan and discuss behind closed doors. Perhaps he doesn't care. He sees big $'s dripping in oil.
Major world events do not occur for one reason only. On September 11th 2001 nearly 3000 people died. It was on a scale comparable to Pearl Harbour. That led the USA into 3 1/2 years of bloody war ending with the unnecessary dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan.
Are we to believe that the NWO executed 9/11 simply for oil? I don't.
Alan Greenspan had acknowledged what is blindingly obvious to those who live in the reality-based world: the Iraq War was largely about oil.
Meanwhile, Henry Kissinger says in an op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post that control over oil is the key issue that should determine whether the U.S. undertakes military action against Iran.
These statements would not be remarkable, but for the effort of a broad swath of the U.S. political establishment to deny the central role of oil in U.S. involvement in the Middle East.