Obsidian community vs. Alan Greenspan

[Sand]

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet, Walshie.

 

Blank, then the sheeple who caved into that scaremongering are just as responsible for this crap as the president and his administration.

[Walsingham]

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet, Walshie.

 

What does that even mean? Where are you getting your facts from, anyway?

 

We can trade reading lists and first hand sources if you like. I even organised and hosted a mini conference on the region for press and military a couple of years ago. I'm more than happy about comparing notes.

[Sand]

Then you probably have more credible sources than mine, but still I do not trust the Bush Administration nor any of its media allies when it comes to the Middle East.

[Hurlshort]

Uh, is everyone forgeting that Saddam Hussein was a total prick? Seriously, he could have avoided the invasion by just being the slightest bit diplomatic. He had plenty of opportunities to work with the UN. He wanted to be secretive and coy about what he was doing behind his borders, he was egging for the fight just as much as Bush.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Hurlshot

[Rosbjerg]

Uh, is everyone forgeting that Saddam Hussein was a total prick? Seriously, he could have avoided the invasion by just being the slightest bit diplomatic. He had plenty of opportunities to work with the UN. He wanted to be secretive and coy about what he was doing behind his borders, he was egging for the fight just as much as Bush.

 

I think he realized that no matter the outcome he would lose - either we stripped him from power diplomatically or through military might. It was a lose-lose situation - unfortunately he was insane enough to take the path he did and dragged his country down the drain with him.

 

It's utter insanity that so few people hold so much influence.

[Laozi]

Then you probably have more credible sources than mine, but still I do not trust the Bush Administration nor any of its media allies when it comes to the Middle East.

 

 

So you admit that you were wrong and know next to nothing about what you're talking about?

[Azarkon]

My stance on the "links" between Saddam and Al Qaeda is that they are largely irrelevant to why we went to war with Iraq, at least in the judgment of intents. That is to say, I do not think they played a large role either in the top-level decisions or in the justifications given to the American people, which at the time was focused on Saddam's WMDs. If, in retrospect, there were some connections between Saddam and the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11, it was apparently not enough for the Bush administration to claim a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Given the otherwise lax attitudes this administration has taken with regards to "twisting the truth," this for me places in heavy doubt any argument otherwise, since I doubt the Bush administration would hesitate to take advantage of even the silghtest possibility of such a link. And in fact, reading the 2002 Iraq Resolution, I find that such a connection was painstakingly avoided, as if the government knew someone would call them up on their bulll****. Instead, Saddam was linked to "general terrorism" and "general terrorism" was linked to 9/11, in the usual roundabout manner of political speak.

 

All in all, nothing has swayed me as to the nature of our actions in Iraq, which was fundamentally one of aggression (and perhaps vindication). With regards to Greenspan, he's not a particularly untrustworthy fellow, but I doubt he was audience to all the top-level decisions of the Bush administration. Still, that he would come out and say that it was all about the oil speaks ill for all those who laughed at the idea off as tin-foil hattery at the beginning of the war.

[Laozi]

I think oil did play a part in it, but not in a conventional way. There is three things that make Iraq a good target for the U.S. Oil resources, one of the few places in the middle east with an abudance of water, and a large educated population that has no real want for westernization. There are only a handful of places in the world like that, and we'll see what American policy is like towards them in a few more years.

[Sand]

So you admit that you were wrong and know next to nothing about what you're talking about?

Opinions are neither right or wrong. They are just opinions. No WMDs were found. Bush Adminstration said that Iraq had WMDs. No conclusive links to Al Qaeda were found. Bush Adminstration said Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda. We invaded Iraq on false pretenses and because of that the only responsible thing to do is to leave, completely and totally.

[taks]

That is to say, I do not think they played a large role either in the top-level decisions or in the justifications given to the American people, which at the time was focused on Saddam's WMDs.

actually, if you recall bush's original speech on why we should invade iraq, WMDs were mentioned only sparingly (maybe even once, i can't recall the exact transcript). there were something like 17 total reasons, WMDs were one of 'em, and only mentioned in passing. the media jumped all over that point, and it became the sticking point, i.e, the media created the "WMDs are the primary reason" hype, and not surprisingly, that's what the bush PR machine chose to follow up on since it seemingly had the highest chance of getting everyone on board. he has become a victim of his own PR.

 

everyone forgets that saddam violated almost every clause of his surrender treaty, signed after the first invasion.

 

taks

[Azarkon]

everyone forgets that saddam violated almost every clause of his surrender treaty, signed after the first invasion.

 

Not everyone... Bush Jr., for example, always struck me as someone devoted to "taking care of family business." That his father had an old enemy in Iraq who was violating the terms of his defeat probably did not escape his notice.

[Blank]

Instead, Saddam was linked to "general terrorism" and "general terrorism" was linked to 9/11, in the usual roundabout manner of political speak.

That's the idea I was talking about. I suggest that this foggy linkage of the two partook in attempting to legitimize such a casus belli as there was. Invading Iraq appealed to people's hypersensitive anti-terrorism virtue at the time. I'm not saying it correctly appealed to it. I'm saying I perceive that it appealed to it.

[SilentScope001]

Uh.

 

Greenspan Backtracks On Iraq War Oil Claim

 

The Washington Post focused on the charge in Greenspan's book that "the Iraq war is largely about oil."

 

The fiscal guru backed off that assertion by suggesting that while securing global oil supplies "was not the administration's motive," it should have been.

 

He said than when he made the argument that ousting Saddam Hussein was "essential" because of the threat he posed to U.S. oil interests in the region, White House officials told him "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil."

Edited September 18, 2007 by SilentScope001

[Calax]

I think oil did play a part in it, but not in a conventional way. There is three things that make Iraq a good target for the U.S. Oil resources, one of the few places in the middle east with an abudance of water, and a large educated population that has no real want for westernization. There are only a handful of places in the world like that, and we'll see what American policy is like towards them in a few more years.

why did we decide to paint a big ol target on it because they had a large educated population that doesn't want us? its like telling an artist to do math.

[Pidesco]

Uh.

 

Greenspan Backtracks On Iraq War Oil Claim

 

The Washington Post focused on the charge in Greenspan's book that "the Iraq war is largely about oil."

 

The fiscal guru backed off that assertion by suggesting that while securing global oil supplies "was not the administration's motive," it should have been.

 

He said than when he made the argument that ousting Saddam Hussein was "essential" because of the threat he posed to U.S. oil interests in the region, White House officials told him "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil."

 

I wouldn't call that backtracking. It's more like, it was the reason for the Iraq war, but the administration didn't really want to mention it.

[taks]

btw, not surprisingly, greenspan's comments were taken out of context by the media.

 

here's a link to some of his quotes.

 

taks

[Hildegard]

That is to say, I do not think they played a large role either in the top-level decisions or in the justifications given to the American people, which at the time was focused on Saddam's WMDs.

actually, if you recall bush's original speech on why we should invade iraq, WMDs were mentioned only sparingly (maybe even once, i can't recall the exact transcript). there were something like 17 total reasons, WMDs were one of 'em, and only mentioned in passing. the media jumped all over that point, and it became the sticking point, i.e, the media created the "WMDs are the primary reason" hype, and not surprisingly, that's what the bush PR machine chose to follow up on since it seemingly had the highest chance of getting everyone on board. he has become a victim of his own PR.

 

everyone forgets that saddam violated almost every clause of his surrender treaty, signed after the first invasion.

 

taks

 

 

The media made the WMD's a sticking point???!!!!! You are so full of bullsh*t, more then Calcutta's sewage system.

[Walsingham]

Language, gentlemen, please. If you continue to raise the bar in fury then how are my addled tirades at Sand supposed to stand out?

[Sand]

Language, gentlemen, please. If you continue to raise the bar in fury then how are my addled tirades at Sand supposed to stand out?

YEAH! What Walsh said! Grrrr...

 

[Force Slayer]

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

Almost every single United States war was about oil. This is not a new concept. Even the Civil War was about the oil manufacturing in the south. Lincolin just used the premise of 'Civil Liberties For All' to bolster support for attacking the south. After our initial attack on Iraq, I knew we were going for the oil refineries. Iraq holds 20% of the oil supplies for the world. We should have seized them sooner.

 

Alan Greenspan Rules!

Edited September 23, 2007 by Force Slayer

[Walsingham]

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

Almost every single United States war was about oil. This is not a new concept. Even the Civil War was about the oil manufacturing in the south. Lincolin just used the premise of 'Civil Liberties For All' to bolster support for attacking the south. After our initial attack on Iraq, I knew we were going for the oil refineries. Iraq holds 20% of the oil supplies for the world. We should have seized them sooner.

 

Alan Greenspan Rules!

 

Granada was about oil?