Jump to content

Obsidian community vs. Alan Greenspan


Meshugger

Recommended Posts

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.

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

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. :ermm:

"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

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.

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

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 by Hurlshot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

There are doors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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

comrade taks... just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

There are doors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by SilentScope001
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition!

 

Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

"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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

"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

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... ;):bat:

 

:brows:

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

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 by Force Slayer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? ;)

"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...