[ 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....