Jump to content

Obsidian community vs. Alan Greenspan


Meshugger

Recommended Posts

In his newly published book, he sadly admits, that he thinks that the war was about oil

 

And some other juicy tidbits from the book:

 

Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were the most intelligent, he wrote, while he found Ford the most normal and likeable. Ronald Reagan was the most devoted to free markets, though his grasp of economics "wasn't very deep or sophisticated.''

 

George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, was very cordial, though Greenspan's relationship with him was complicated by differing views on monetary policy, he wrote. Bush blamed high interest rates, in part, for his 1992 election loss to Clinton.

 

Harshest Criticism

 

Greenspan saved his harshest analysis for the current president. Soon after Bush took office in 2001, the president set about implementing a campaign promise to cut taxes, a policy Greenspan said he believed at the time wasn't well conceived.

 

"Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences,'' he wrote.

 

Let the drama........BEGIN.

"Some men see things as they are and say why?"
"I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Some guy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the only logical conclusion why the Bush Administration lied about the WMDs and Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda. They wanted justification to invade, any justification and they had no problems making it up if they needed to.

Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer.

 

@\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?"

Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy."

Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe what the goverment says, because they have no reason to lie to me >_<

DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself.

 

Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture.

 

"I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the only logical conclusion why the Bush Administration lied about the WMDs and Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda. They wanted justification to invade, any justification and they had no problems making it up if they needed to.

I wonder if, in addition to such a reason, one could factor in people having general, vengeful feelings about 9/11. I felt like at the time, people became bellicose and wanted to respond militaristically to an attack that had the face of militaristic action (i.e. explosions and many people losing their lives).

Edited by Blank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the question should be would you believe him if he said it WASN'T about oil? :down: I suspect the answer to that is that no-one would change their minds. Hence it's not that interesting.

"It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"."

             -Elwood Blues

 

tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the question should be would you believe him if he said it WASN'T about oil? :down: I suspect the answer to that is that no-one would change their minds. Hence it's not that interesting.

 

Depends on what he says - I'm much more inclined to believe anything he says than Bush or any of the upper cabinet of any goverment.

 

Incidently politicians have just scored lower on credibility than used cars salesmen in an European poll.

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh noes, say it ain`t so... You`re thelling me the Oscars are also political?! ZOMG!

 

 

Seriously, this debate is about 5odd years old... The fact that the invasion was/is about the strategical influence and so called "stability" aka introduction of *friendly* regime's and the destabilisation of *unfriendly* regime's in the oil rich region has been painfully obvious to anyone with a decent knowledge and uderstanding of the past/present internationall affairs since day one.

The fact that Alan`s remark raised some eyebrows is quite frankly sad cos it`s the indicator that those ppl now awed by his book actually bought the spins fed to them... Frankly if I was an average american watching CNN I`d find 90% of the stuff insulting to my intelect I would... As it stands I`d almost find it funny if it were not for the disturbing trend of disregarding fundamental international law, basic human rights and (as I know an average american joe couln`t frankly give a toss about these two heh) civil liberties...

There was a topic about UK Basra pullout and the author wrote "those who would trade freedom for tea deserve neither" wich is a vulgar violation of the saying best applied here, but I bit my toung... Personally I`m more terrified of the elements of police/terror state being introduced across the western world (particulary US), all in the name of security and fear, than islamic terrorism... (BL must be laughing his arse off in some cave watching what we`re doing to ourselves heh...) Terrorism that will only be "defeated" once the palestinians get their state and the world powers stop with their/our interventionst pollicies in the region... But that would mean relinquishing the control of oil lol... and the politicians for the past decades have been banking on the fact that we the poppolus, for the most part, prefer our big SUVs as opposed to pesky things like privacy, rule of law etc. etc. wich became expandable commodities in the "war on terror"... Sadly they don`t seem to be wrong heh.

He who gives into fear and trades his liberties for what ultimatly boils down to cheap/stable/controled oil prices deserves a home mede bomb under his ass...

Edited by Brdavs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I remember the discussions we had on this very board about the reasons for the war.. and if there were WMD's at all..

 

Back then I was pretty lonely in thinking it was about oil and that no WMD's would be found. I'm sure EnderWanker would blow a blood vessel in his brain from trying to defend the Bush administration if he was here today. Glad he's not.

Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bah. People are no better scaremongering about tyranny. It's a balancing act.

 

Anyway, saying it was 100% oil is to ignore the complexities of Blairism, and New Conservatism. Not to mention the change in US Security policy post 9/11.

 

Incidentally, did anyone else notice France ahs suddenly weighed in to the Iranian problem? Looks like Sarkozy is the first gallic politician in 100 years to realise annoying America isn't always a good thing.

"It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"."

             -Elwood Blues

 

tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if, in addition to such a reason, one could factor in people having general, vengeful feelings about 9/11. I felt like at the time, people became bellicose and wanted to respond militaristically to an attack that had the face of militaristic action (i.e. explosions and many people losing their lives).

 

Osama Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, not Saddam Hussein and Iraq. That is like saying we should have attacked New Zealand when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer.

 

@\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?"

Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy."

Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the only logical conclusion why the Bush Administration lied about the WMDs and Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda. They wanted justification to invade, any justification and they had no problems making it up if they needed to.

 

It's not "the only logical conclusion" nor is it even A "logical conclusion." I have serious doubts that any conclusion you've ever made on this forum has ever been logical. There are several other rational explanations for why the Bush Administration misled the public about the reasons for invading Iraq, not the least which among them being that IT'S FRICKIN' IRAQ.

 

Osama Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, not Saddam Hussein and Iraq. That is like saying we should have attacked New Zealand when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

No, it's like saying we should have attacked another opposing power in the asian sphere when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. At least make a reasonable analogy. Al Qaeda and Iraq are at least based within the same relative area on a globe.

Edited by Tale
"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's like saying we should have attacked another opposing power in the asian sphere when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. At least make a reasonable analogy. Al Qaeda and Iraq are at least based within the same relative area on a globe.

 

FINE. The Phillipines. Sheesh. :lol:

Edited by Sand

Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer.

 

@\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?"

Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy."

Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And don't forget that Al Qaeda isn't a sovereign nation, which makes the whole analogy silly.

"My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian tourist
I am Dan Quayle of the Romans.
I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands.
Heja Sverige!!
Everyone should cuffawkle more.
The wrench is your friend. :bat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It pretty much was the backbone of Afganistan's government prior 9/11. Without Al Qaeda the Taliban was nothing.

Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer.

 

@\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?"

Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy."

Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's like saying we should have attacked another opposing power in the asian sphere when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. At least make a reasonable analogy. Al Qaeda and Iraq are at least based within the same relative area on a globe.

 

FINE. The Phillipines. Sheesh. :ermm:

 

 

At the time the Philippines was an American colony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the time the Philippines was an American colony.

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGH!

 

CHINA DAMMIT! CHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINA!

 

:ermm:

Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer.

 

@\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?"

Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy."

Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no perfect analogies, mainly because we never did something like this before. Iraq is not VIetnam. It is not Korea. It is not WW 2. It is not the Gulf War. In all of those cases we were the defenders, if not of our own country then of someone else's country (or half-a-country). Iraq, on the other hand, is self-righteous US aggression. It is just not the same, and the best analogy I can come up with is China going into Tibet to "liberate" the Tibetans from their feudal overlords and into the joy of Communism, except instead of Communism, we're pushing democracy, and instead of absorbing Iraq as a US state, we're putting up a "government favorable to US interests."

There are doors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Azarkon wins. :ermm:

Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer.

 

@\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?"

Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy."

Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if, in addition to such a reason, one could factor in people having general, vengeful feelings about 9/11. I felt like at the time, people became bellicose and wanted to respond militaristically to an attack that had the face of militaristic action (i.e. explosions and many people losing their lives).

 

Osama Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, not Saddam Hussein and Iraq. That is like saying we should have attacked New Zealand when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

Read what I said. I wasn't saying it made sense to do it. I am saying I think the terror and scaremongering contributed to people's willingness to allow an invasion of Iraq to happen.

Edited by Blank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It pretty much was the backbone of Afganistan's government prior 9/11. Without Al Qaeda the Taliban was nothing.

 

Don't be ridiculous. Al Qaeda were a powerful legion in the Talib war machine, and a useful source of authority "Look at us, we're part of a global Islamic revolution". But Al Qaeda were not the whole government. Saying so betrays a complete misunderstanding of Afghan power politics. As usual you are painting everything with your 'I've read about this on Wikipedia and in the papers' brush.

 

On the subject of Al Qaeda in Iraq, since their involvement is a legitimate casus belli,

http://www.regimeofterror.com/

 

Goes into quite some detail about Saddam's links to Al Qaeda. I've said efore that I didn't think there were any links, but this site has made me think again.

"It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"."

             -Elwood Blues

 

tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...