Obsidian community vs. Alan Greenspan

[Meshugger]

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.

[Sand]

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.

[Hurlshort]

Actually, if Greenspan says it, I'm pretty likely to believe it.

[Kaftan Barlast]

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

[Atreides]

Greenspan has credibility to me.

[Tigranes]

Who is he?

[Pop]

Former fed chairman, perhaps the most respected and deferred to ever. His very word could dynamically change the face of the stock market.

 

He totally did this many chicks last nite.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Pop

[Blank]

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 September 17, 2007 by Blank

[Walsingham]

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

[Rosbjerg]

I think the question should be would you believe him if he said it WASN'T about oil? 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.

[Brdavs]

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 September 17, 2007 by Brdavs

[Hurlshort]

Reading that hurt my brain and my mind at the same time.

[mkreku]

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.

[Walsingham]

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.

[Sand]

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.

[Tale]

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 September 17, 2007 by Tale

[Sand]

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.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Sand

[Pidesco]

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

[Sand]

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

[roshan]

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.

 

 

At the time the Philippines was an American colony.

[Sand]

At the time the Philippines was an American colony.

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGH!

 

CHINA DAMMIT! CHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINA!

 

[Azarkon]

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."

[Sand]

Azarkon wins.

[Blank]

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 September 17, 2007 by Blank

[Walsingham]

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.