Alan Greenspan\'s opinion on the Iraq War
 

I am sure this was already known by many people but for those still in denial, here is what Alan Greenspan says in his new book:

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

Re: Alan Greenspan\'s opinion on the Iraq War
 

the iran war will be largely about oil as well.

Re: Alan Greenspan\'s opinion on the Iraq War
 

[ QUOTE ]
the iran war will be largely about oil as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

So will WWIII

Re: Alan Greenspan\'s opinion on the Iraq War
 

My god, if only we had the technology to get off our oil addiction.

Also, I don't see why Alan Greenspan's opinion of the war is more respected than other public officials.

Re: Alan Greenspan\'s opinion on the Iraq War
 

On 60 Minutes, Greenspan looks like he is about 123 years old.

And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

[/ QUOTE ]
And his point is?......
The world is filled with pyscho-killer murderous thugs dictators. The USA can't go around playing sheriff righting every wrong and freeing every oppressed people. We simply do not have the resources so we must pick and choose our battles based on national interests.

If Iraq had no oil, it would just be another worthless Arab country like Jordan and the wouldn't have the money to invade their neighbors and sponsor terrorism.... Ergo, no one would give a damn about them. But Iraq did have oil which they chose to use to sponsor terrorism and other unpleasant things. Saddam also tried to assassinate Bush43 in 1993 while he was visiting Kuwait. The War against Iraq should have started that day but we had a coward-in-chief (aka a Democrat president aka Bill Clinton) so all we did was fire a few cruise missles. Greenspan has knowledge in economics and banking but with regard to foreign policy...he is a complete nitwit...
http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html

We are also not invading Darfur either. The reason is the genocide in Darfur has no affect on the security of the USA. If this was a region with lots of oil and the oil was being used to finance terrorism.....then they could be a target. I do think the attack on Serbia was a completely unjustified war by Clinton. The internal fight between Serbia and the Albanians had ZERO effect on the security of the USA....hence there was no reason to get involved. Clinton gave the pathetic excuse that WW1 was started in this region and no acting could result in WW3. The reasoning was complete masucline-bovine-fertilizer designed to fool the slow-witted and democrat rank-and-file. But I'm being redundent....

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

[/ QUOTE ]
And his point is?......
The world is filled with pyscho-killer murderous thugs dictators. The USA can't go around playing sheriff righting every wrong and freeing every oppressed people. We simply do not have the resources so we must pick and choose our battles based on national interests.

If Iraq had no oil, it would just be another worthless Arab country like Jordan and the wouldn't have the money to invade their neighbors and sponsor terrorism.... Ergo, no one would give a damn about them. But Iraq did have oil which they chose to use to sponsor terrorism and other unpleasant things. Saddam also tried to assassinate Bush43 in 1993 while he was visiting Kuwait. The War against Iraq should have started that day but we had a coward-in-chief (aka a Democrat president aka Bill Clinton) so all we did was fire a few cruise missles. Greenspan has knowledge in economics and banking but with regard to foreign policy...he is a complete nitwit...
http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html

We are also not invading Darfur either. The reason is the genocide in Darfur has no affect on the security of the USA. If this was a region with lots of oil and the oil was being used to finance terrorism.....then they could be a target. I do think the attack on Serbia was a completely unjustified war by Clinton. The internal fight between Serbia and the Albanians had ZERO effect on the security of the USA....hence there was no reason to get involved. Clinton gave the pathetic excuse that WW1 was started in this region and no acting could result in WW3. The reasoning was complete masucline-bovine-fertilizer designed to fool the slow-witted and democrat rank-and-file. But I'm being redundent....

[/ QUOTE ]
2 questions:
So terrorism is OK as long as its not being funded by oil? However, if it funded by oil, then you think the United States should invade that country and take over their oil reserves?

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
But Iraq did have oil which they chose to use to sponsor terrorism ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep repeating this lie and it still doesn't make it true.

Re: Alan Greenspan\'s opinion on the Iraq War
 

Cause he promoted two decades of economic prosperity (by devalueing out currency)

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
My god, if only we had the technology to get off our oil addiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were, why would the Corps. use it, that would compromise their profit.I say there is the technology, but a lack of desire on the Corps. side to make use of it.

And the fact that Alan Greenspan, one of the most significant figures in modern day, openly states the relationship between oil and Iraq has significant value IMO.

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
2 questions:
So terrorism is OK as long as its not being funded by oil? However, if it funded by oil, then you think the United States should invade that country and take over their oil reserves?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his point was that terrorists not funded by oil don't tend to have to resources to threaten U.S. interests.

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2 questions:
So terrorism is OK as long as its not being funded by oil? However, if it funded by oil, then you think the United States should invade that country and take over their oil reserves?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his point was that terrorists not funded by oil don't tend to have to resources to threaten U.S. interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or chicken and the egg... maybe terrorists not funded by oil aren't threatened by the US whose foreign policy since WWII has been to secure foreign oil by any means necessary (except simply pay market price), even if that means backing ruthless dictators which naturally makes people not like us so much.

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
So terrorism is OK as long as its not being funded by oil?

[/ QUOTE ]
Silly question. It takes a creative interpretation to draw that conclusion from my post. Terrorism against the USA should be dealt with regardless whether the terrorism is funded by oil, diamonds, gold, or any other commodity....

[ QUOTE ]
However, if it funded by oil, then you think the United States should invade that country and take over their oil reserves?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes....if a country wants to sponsor terrorism against the USA or its allies, then **** them. If I had it my way we would bomb the Iranian refineries and their oil fields to shut off the flow of money sponsoring Shia terrorism. As for Saudia Arabia, their oil money is sponsoring Sunni terrorism and al Qaeda. It makes me sick when Bush calls the Saudis our allies. I would invade Saudia Arabia and take the oil. Legally the oil is 50% the property of the USA but it was stolen via nationalization during the Eisenhower administration. Time to take back our oil. This time all of it. Then there would be no more money sponsoring Sunni terrorism... Payback is a bitch...

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think his point was that terrorists not funded by oil don't tend to have to resources to threaten U.S. interests.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly....
Pew International polls have shown that roughly 60% of the Jordanian population supports Bin Laden and terrorism against the USA. There are MILLIONS and MILLIONS and MILLIONS of would be terrorists in the Arab world. But the average Jordanian can't afford a bus ticket accross town much less buying a plane ticket to realize their terrorist ambitions against the West... Muslim terrorists have ample manpower. Money is their main bottleneck from expanding terrorism. Oil is their primary source of money...

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2 questions:
So terrorism is OK as long as its not being funded by oil? However, if it funded by oil, then you think the United States should invade that country and take over their oil reserves?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his point was that terrorists not funded by oil don't tend to have to resources to threaten U.S. interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was referring to terrorist attacks. The estimated cost of executing 9/11 was 500k..chump change...no oil money needed.

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But Iraq did have oil which they chose to use to sponsor terrorism ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep repeating this lie and it still doesn't make it true.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy is an idiot. I challenge him to name one terrorist act that Iraq has commited against the United States.

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Keep repeating this lie and it still doesn't make it true.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are like a child that covers his ears and closes his eyes and says, "If I can't see the monster he can't eat me. If I can't see the monster he can't eat me......." I will post a few links of some facts but I suspect you will continue to close both your eyes and ears to these facts. People like yourself fear any truth which is in conflict to your make believe world....

Iraq has been on the US State dept list as sponsors of terrorism for YEARS. Saddam paid Arab suicide bombers $20,000 for every suicide mission against Israelis. Saddam gave sanctuary to terrorists. Iraq was not in the league of Iran or Saudia Arabia but they did sponsor terrorism...
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7702/

The word "lie" falls very easily from your lips. I was raised to take great care when to apply that word to another. Furthermore, I was taught that a person who uses that word too loosely is often guilty of what he accuses others of....

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
I challenge him to name one terrorist act that Iraq has commited against the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the 'hanging curve ball'. There are a lot of dead Americans who have been killed by terrorists sponsored by Iraq or given safe haven from American justice by Iraq.

"What kind of support has Iraq given terrorists?
Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:

Abu Nidal , who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas , who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.
Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
Abdul Rahman Yasin , who is on the FBI's "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000. Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may have hoped to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq."
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7702/

Does Iraq's 1993 attempted assassination against Bush41 qualify as terrorism in your book?

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are like a child that covers his ears and closes his eyes and says, "If I can't see the monster he can't eat me. If I can't see the monster he can't eat me......."

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes of course, the ole paint anyone that doesn't agree with you as purposely ignorant. We've all heard it before. Saddam was a very secular ruler. If stopping funding to terror was the chief reason for invading nations then Iraq would be pretty far down the list.

And I just LOOOVE that your link is from 2003 and from THE COUNCIL OF FORIEGN RELATIONS of all groups.

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I challenge him to name one terrorist act that Iraq has commited against the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the 'hanging curve ball'. There are a lot of dead Americans who have been killed by terrorists sponsored by Iraq or given safe haven from American justice by Iraq.

"What kind of support has Iraq given terrorists?
Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:

Abu Nidal , who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas , who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.
Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
Abdul Rahman Yasin , who is on the FBI's "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000. Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may have hoped to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq."
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7702/

Does Iraq's 1993 attempted assassination against Bush41 qualify as terrorism in your book?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry FN, they can only drink liquids (mostly KoolAid) because their hands are surgically attached to their scalp covering their ears. Their myopia takes care of any vision they might have had.

Re: Alan Greenspan\'s opinion on the Iraq War
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the iran war will be largely about oil as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

So will the sino-russian war

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Barron

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2 questions:
So terrorism is OK as long as its not being funded by oil? However, if it funded by oil, then you think the United States should invade that country and take over their oil reserves?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his point was that terrorists not funded by oil don't tend to have to resources to threaten U.S. interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. His point is that oil rich countries have resources which are worth stealing, occupying, murdering, terrorizing. Countries that don't have such (or other meaningful) resources are worthless and any war among them would actually be in the US interest (wars weakening them by reducing other countries resources/funds/people).

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

Felix,

I really made an effort to read your posts and understand your points. But I just busted out laughing when you linked to the CFR as a source of information. They're about as reliable a source of unbiased info as Alex Jones, just with the opposite agenda.

Making Lucid Posts is TOOOO Much Work.....
 

Oh? The US State Department's decison to place Iraq on their list of nations that sponsor terror is not good enough for you?

Perhaps you are correct. The US State Dept is one of the worst and most incompetant departments in the US govt. 80% of what they say is crap. So perhaps their opinion on Iraq is crap as well. Regardless, I notice you were unable to refute one fact posted on Iraq's transgressions in the field of terrorism. Perhaps you are unable.....so you resort to the sophmoric tactic of dismissing the entire argument because you lack the basic reasoning skills to address these points directly.

I grant you it is a lot easier to make flippant remarks dismissing counter-arguments rather than engaging them directly. After all, using google to do basic research to support you arguments is just too much work. Yes? Please do *NOT* put too much effort in your posts in the political forum. I would not want you to over exert yourself....

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

The US State Dept put Iraq on their list of nations that sponsored terror. The link cited them as a source. Did you bother to read the link? Can you refute ONE the the facts they listed on Iraq's involvement in supporting terror?.... No? <Sigh> You are typical of the lazy posters in this forum....

The truth is you are unable to address any of these points so you make a flippant remark and run away from the argument as fast as you can. But perhaps my expectations are too high on this forum. Afterall, you were probably educated in the US public school system so I should not expect too much from you....

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nope. His point is that oil rich countries have resources which are worth stealing, occupying, murdering, terrorizing.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this were true....then the USA would take Kuwait's, Bahrain's, and Dubai's oil. Then the USA would be flush with cash. After all these countries don't have the military to stop the USA.... While we're at it lets take Indonesia's oil as well. But but don't let these facts stop you from continuing your self-hating American rhetoric...

Before the 1991 War, Iraq was a useful counter-balance to checking Iran's imperial ambitions. It was in many countries interests including the USA that Iraq be a strong country. However in 1991, Bush chose to engage in an optional war with Iraq. Countries like Saudia Arabia, Syria, et al ask the US to attack Iraq because they feared a strong Iraq that possessed Kuwait's oil. The peace treaty after the war was crap. It gave Iraq no honorable outs other than defiance of the treaty. But the 1993 assassination attempt on Bush41 was grounds alone for war.... The war should have started that day.... Saddam is a screw-up. If he played his cards right he could have gotten what he wanted without having a war with the USA....

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But Iraq did have oil which they chose to use to sponsor terrorism ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep repeating this lie and it still doesn't make it true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kaj, saddam paid rewards to the families of suicide bombers... its 100% true.

Re: Alan Greenspan\'s opinion on the Iraq War
 

[ QUOTE ]
the iran war will be largely about oil as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but don't worry the war on Venezuela in 2014 will be entirely about freedom and democracy and keeping America safe.

Re: Making Lucid Posts is TOOOO Much Work.....
 

"Oh? The US State Department's decison to place Iraq on their list of nations that sponsor terror is not good enough for you?"

Well, they only had to put them on because Reagan took them OFF in 1983 to give them weapons. They could have just left them ON the whole time, and saved some paperwork... but then the USA couldn't sell Sadaam Hussein weapons of mass destruction.

You know the old joke :

Q : "How does the USA know IRAQ has weapons of mass destruction"

A : "They checked the receipts."

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Afterall, you were probably educated in the US public school system so I should not expect too much from you....

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, nope. Talk about flippant remarks...

What fine neo-con institution educated you?

Re: Making Lucid Posts is TOOOO Much Work.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Oh? The US State Department's decison to place Iraq on their list of nations that sponsor terror is not good enough for you?"

Well, they only had to put them on because Reagan took them OFF in 1983 to give them weapons. They could have just left them ON the whole time, and saved some paperwork... but then the USA couldn't sell Sadaam Hussein weapons of mass destruction.

You know the old joke :

Q : "How does the USA know IRAQ has weapons of mass destruction"

A : "They checked the receipts."

[/ QUOTE ]
do you have any facts to back this assertion, because once again, its not true

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I challenge him to name one terrorist act that Iraq has commited against the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the 'hanging curve ball'. There are a lot of dead Americans who have been killed by terrorists sponsored by Iraq or given safe haven from American justice by Iraq.

"What kind of support has Iraq given terrorists?
Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:

Abu Nidal , who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas , who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.
Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
Abdul Rahman Yasin , who is on the FBI's "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000. Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may have hoped to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq."
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7702/

Does Iraq's 1993 attempted assassination against Bush41 qualify as terrorism in your book?

[/ QUOTE ]

From that link on the CFR site:
Was Iraq the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism?
No, according to the State Department, which gives that title to neighboring Iran. The State Department has listed Iraq as one of seven states that sponsor terrorism, but experts say Iran, Syria, and, at least in the past, Pakistan, all surpassed Iraq in support for terrorists.

If you believe that the USA's goal was to eradicate regimes that support and/or condone terrorism, why did the USA go after Iraq first and not Iran or other countries deemed to be more of a threat? Because this had nothing to do with terrorism. It had to do with oil, like almost all of the wars of the past 150 yrs.

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I challenge him to name one terrorist act that Iraq has commited against the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the 'hanging curve ball'. There are a lot of dead Americans who have been killed by terrorists sponsored by Iraq or given safe haven from American justice by Iraq.

"What kind of support has Iraq given terrorists?
Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:

Abu Nidal , who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas , who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.
Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
Abdul Rahman Yasin , who is on the FBI's "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000. Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may have hoped to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq."
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7702/

Does Iraq's 1993 attempted assassination against Bush41 qualify as terrorism in your book?

[/ QUOTE ]

From that link on the CFR site:
Was Iraq the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism?
No, according to the State Department, which gives that title to neighboring Iran. The State Department has listed Iraq as one of seven states that sponsor terrorism, but experts say Iran, Syria, and, at least in the past, Pakistan, all surpassed Iraq in support for terrorists.

If you believe that the USA's goal was to eradicate regimes that support and/or condone terrorism, why did the USA go after Iraq first and not Iran or other countries deemed to be more of a threat? Because this had nothing to do with terrorism. It had to do with oil, like almost all of the wars of the past 150 yrs.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was just about oil we would have invaded Iran, Saudi Arabia, or even Canada before we invaded Iraq.

Re: Making Lucid Posts is TOOOO Much Work.....
 

Felix, what do you think about the lies about WMDs, 9/11connections, AQ connections, and the cost of the war?

We were told Saddam had WMDs, we found none. We were told they were building a nucleur program, we found none. We were told they had connections to Bin Laden, we found none. We were told the war would be a slam dunk and that the little amount of money the war would cost would be paid for in oil. Now the war is basically guarenteed to cost over one trillion dollars. They said we would be treated as liberators, people try to kill us daily and Iraqi polls indicate they want us to leave (as well as American polls).

Now, knowing what we know now, that all Saddam did was not exile a few obscure terrorists and had no connections with AQ or Bin Laden, do you honestly still think invading Iraq, spending over a trillion dollars just to invite a bunch of terrorists into the most secular state in the middle east was the right decision? If so I think if you do you need your head examined.

Re: Making Lucid Posts is TOOOO Much Work.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Oh? The US State Department's decison to place Iraq on their list of nations that sponsor terror is not good enough for you?"

Well, they only had to put them on because Reagan took them OFF in 1983 to give them weapons. They could have just left them ON the whole time, and saved some paperwork... but then the USA couldn't sell Sadaam Hussein weapons of mass destruction.

You know the old joke :

Q : "How does the USA know IRAQ has weapons of mass destruction"

A : "They checked the receipts."

[/ QUOTE ]
do you have any facts to back this assertion, because once again, its not true

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean?

Chronology of the United States sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized this way:
- The US used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel.
- The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians.
- The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was known that Saddam is using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens.
- The US supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents.
- The US blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

Chronology of US involvement

so, what is not true here?

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I challenge him to name one terrorist act that Iraq has commited against the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the 'hanging curve ball'. There are a lot of dead Americans who have been killed by terrorists sponsored by Iraq or given safe haven from American justice by Iraq.

"What kind of support has Iraq given terrorists?
Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:

Abu Nidal , who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas , who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.
Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
Abdul Rahman Yasin , who is on the FBI's "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000. Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may have hoped to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq."
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7702/

Does Iraq's 1993 attempted assassination against Bush41 qualify as terrorism in your book?

[/ QUOTE ]

From that link on the CFR site:
Was Iraq the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism?
No, according to the State Department, which gives that title to neighboring Iran. The State Department has listed Iraq as one of seven states that sponsor terrorism, but experts say Iran, Syria, and, at least in the past, Pakistan, all surpassed Iraq in support for terrorists.

If you believe that the USA's goal was to eradicate regimes that support and/or condone terrorism, why did the USA go after Iraq first and not Iran or other countries deemed to be more of a threat? Because this had nothing to do with terrorism. It had to do with oil, like almost all of the wars of the past 150 yrs.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was just about oil we would have invaded Iran, Saudi Arabia, or even Canada before we invaded Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. We couldn't as easily fake a premise for war against Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Canada. The administration quite successfully sold the American people with lies regarding Big Bad Saddam, however.

Re: And His Point Is?.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But Iraq did have oil which they chose to use to sponsor terrorism ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep repeating this lie and it still doesn't make it true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kaj, saddam paid rewards to the families of suicide bombers... its 100% true.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a paltry drop in the bucket in the world of terrorism. The US support of terrorists in Central and South America and Indochina makes those measly payments look like child's play. And of course, not one of those suicide bombers paid by Saddam attacked America.

Re: Making Lucid Posts is TOOOO Much Work.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Felix, what do you think about the lies about WMDs,

[/ QUOTE ]
Personally I thought we should have invaded Iraq for:
1. Violating the terms of the armistice
2. Trying to assassinate Bush41 in 1993 while he was in Kuwait

All the WMD stuff was just icing on the cake. But...I'll play your game. We know Iraq had WMD because they used them on Iran and the Kurds. After the first Gulf War, small amounts were discovered by weapons inspectors. After the 2nd Gulf War we have found small caches of Chem/Bio weapons, The last cache was 500 rounds. WMD have been found. The mystery is why have not more been found and what happen to these stockpiles. Iraq provided no proof the WMD stockpiles were destroyed. All we have is Saddam's word which is worthless. Former Iraqi General George Sada claims Saddam sent his WMD stockpiles and mfg equipment to Syria before the war.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182932,00.html
The mainstream media largely ignored General Sada. They will spend 4+ years covering Bush's national guard service but Sada gets one day and then his story is buried.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/159...qid=1140254994
Sada made the Talk radio circuit promoting his book. Sada was one of the few generals that Saddam would listen to. He was ordered to execute American prisoners in the first Gulf War and he refused the order....and survived (he was dismissed from the military). He is a fascinating man...


[ QUOTE ]
Felix, what do you think about the lies about .....9/11connections,

[/ QUOTE ]
Show me ONE quote where Bush or his admin say Saddam was behind 911.... They did say words to effect that Saddam had talks with Al Qaeda but they hardly qualifies the claim your making. Show me *ONE* quote.

[ QUOTE ]
Felix, what do you think about the lies....AQ connections,

[/ QUOTE ]
I was not aware this was a lie. Al Qaeda is in the USA, Europe, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Africa, Middle East,....BUT...they were not in Iraq? Saddam was not a close ally of al Qaeda nor is there proof they sponsored AQ. But to say there was no connection is not true. We do know there were talks between AQ and Saddam's govt. But this is a red herring...Bush never said Saddam was responsible for 911.

[ QUOTE ]
We were told Saddam had WMDs, we found none.

[/ QUOTE ]
Small caches of mustard and Sarin gas rounds have been discovered. The biggest cache was 500 rounds. Again according to Gen Sada the stockpiles were moved to Syria.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20060621e.html

[ QUOTE ]
Now, knowing what we know now, that all Saddam did was not exile a few obscure terrorists and had no connections with AQ or Bin Laden, do you honestly still think invading Iraq, spending over a trillion dollars just to invite a bunch of terrorists into the most secular state in the middle east was the right decision?

[/ QUOTE ]
The decision was correct. The execution was lousy. When you try to assassinate an ex-president, then YOU GO TO WAR against the nation that sponsored the assassination. Bush is a nitwit, he is like a poker player that gets AA on the button, lets 8 people limp in, then doesn't raise, and then gives free cards on the flop, turn, and river. If the occupation was properly managed then Iraq would have been stabilized long ago...

Re: Making Lucid Posts is TOOOO Much Work.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, they only had to put them on because Reagan took them OFF in 1983 to give them weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]
True which was the correct and a grown-up decision. By weapons I assume you mean conventional weapons.
Iraq has sponsored terrorism but they have been a tertiary player with regard to terrorism. My personal opinion was Saddam gave small amounts of money to finance terrorism PRIMARILY to gain "street cred" in the middle east among his fellow muslims. Although Saddam is a rabid hater of Jews. Iran was the greater threat than Saddam's 3rd rate support of terrorism. Reagan made the right decision. If that nitwit Jimmy Carter was president, Iran would have been allowed to conquered Iraq and today's problems in the Middle East would be insignificant compared to the creation of a 2nd Shia theocracy....

[ QUOTE ]
but then the USA couldn't sell Sadaam Hussein weapons of mass destruction.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not true and you can't support this silly statement.
Iraq's chem/bio program was home grown. Their challenge was importing dual-use chemicals to keep there program going. By dual use I mean chemicals that can be used to peaceful purposes like manufacturing insecticide or making chemical weapons. Iraq found ways to circumvent import restrictions.....hence the creation of their chem weapon program. If you have proof the USA relaxed restrictions on exporting these dual use chems to Iraq then show proof. I am not aware of any such actions....

I will ask one more time...
 

I will ask one more time...
Can you refute ONE the the facts they listed on Iraq's involvement in supporting terror?
Is the US State Dept not a credible source with regard to nations that support terrorism?

But I don't expect an answer from you....so feel free to ignore these questions as well...