Alan Greenspan's opinion on the Iraq War

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Hope you got a towel for all that egg on your face.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh? You still have not shown me a quote where Bush claims Saddam was responsible for 911. There are lots of nitwits in the USA. This is just further evidence of the cancerous effects of teacher's unions on the American educational system.... Bush is *NOT* responsible for the nitwittery of others....

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh? You still have not shown me a quote where Bush claims Saddam was responsible for 911. There are lots of nitwits in the USA.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did I say there was one?

But just continue to run away from all the points I make, and indeed entire posts of mine, 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......."

See how I flipped it?

edit: oh and a big rofl at blaming TEACHERS UNIONS for Americans thinking Saddam was responsible for 9/11. This tops linking a 2003 paper by the CFR in favor of invading Iraq, kudos.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Depends on the culture but for Iraq we should have found a Kurdish version of Saddam and (1)established a Kurdish dictarship.

[/ QUOTE ]
The kurds are smaller in numbers then both the Shia and Sunnis aren't they? Why the hell would most the people in Iraq even think of that government as legitimate? A dictatorship? Are you kidding?? Bush could have never had the approval of the American people if he went in there intent on installing a new dictator.
[ QUOTE ]
(2)Also we did not bring enough troops for the occupation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly, but we would likely need a draft for that. The American people have not at any time supported a draft in Iraq.
[ QUOTE ]
(3)Martial law should have been declared and looters shot in the streets. The Arabs have a saying, "Better 100 years of tyranny than one day of anarchy". This is a central theme in their culture which Bush ignored. Shooting looters would have gained respect. But don't believe me. Read Thomas Friedman's book "From Beirut to Jerusulem". Specifically the chapter on "Hamas Rules".

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't sound bad. Is the police/military forces having big problems by letting this go?
[ QUOTE ]
(4)When it became clear that Syria and Iran were aiding the insurgency, American bomber should have bomb them...specifically their economic assets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it clear (from independent agencies)? Anyways, this didn't work out too great in Vietnam. What exactly makes you think we aren't making ourselves more enemies by striking at economic assets and putting their civilians in more poverty? All this would create is blowback and more resistence in Iraq.
[ QUOTE ]
(5) Not securing arms depots was a critical mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not doubting this, but do you have a link to this? This seems like quite a mistake.
[ QUOTE ]
(6) Not using the Kurdish militias to establish security was another mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why the kurds?
[ QUOTE ]
Oh? That is more than I know. Can you provide links supporting BOTH these claims? The war itself was a cakewalk.....the occupation has been tough.


[/ QUOTE ]
yup.
<u> Reconstruction will be paid for with Iraqi oil (something we are now paying for instead </u>
The Wolfowitz Chronology
[ QUOTE ]
March 27, 2003

Wolfowitz again tells Congress that oil should pay for Iraq’s reconstruction. “The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but… We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.”[39]

[/ QUOTE ]
<u>Iraq "cakewalk"</u>
No Iraq 'Cakewalk'
[ QUOTE ]
Three years ago in The Washington Post, Ken Adelman, formerly an assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, promised us "Cakewalk In Iraq."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The war itself was a cakewalk.....the occupation has been tough.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't matter. If American citizens new that the war would be easy but the occupation would be a disaster and a quagmire they wouldn't have supported the war. As for me I call this part of the war, and I'm sure the average soldier thinks the same thing.
[ QUOTE ]
You are not quoting the polls accurately. Most Iraqis want us to EVENTUALLY leave.

[/ QUOTE ]
The permanent bases we're building tell us they'll likely to be in Iraq for a long time (decades) just like Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia.

Our presence in Saudi Arabia directly led to OBL's call for Fatwah against America which directly led to the 9/11 attacks. Our current presence in Iraq will likely lead to the same thing if we stay there indefintely, which we likely will.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bump for Felix

[calmB4storm]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems his number was off, however:
Hit and Myth: Poll Shows 1 in 3 Americans Still Believe Saddam Involved in 9/11

[/ QUOTE ]
The article I linked to was from 2003. I guess they toned down the propaganda a bit once we invaded.

[ikestoys]

btw, greenspan is claiming he was misquoted

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Depends on the culture but for Iraq we should have found a Kurdish version of Saddam and (1)established a Kurdish dictarship.

[/ QUOTE ]
The kurds are smaller in numbers then both the Shia and Sunnis aren't they? Why the hell would most the people in Iraq even think of that government as legitimate? A dictatorship? Are you kidding?? Bush could have never had the approval of the American people if he went in there intent on installing a new dictator.
[ QUOTE ]
(2)Also we did not bring enough troops for the occupation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly, but we would likely need a draft for that. The American people have not at any time supported a draft in Iraq.
[ QUOTE ]
(3)Martial law should have been declared and looters shot in the streets. The Arabs have a saying, "Better 100 years of tyranny than one day of anarchy". This is a central theme in their culture which Bush ignored. Shooting looters would have gained respect. But don't believe me. Read Thomas Friedman's book "From Beirut to Jerusulem". Specifically the chapter on "Hamas Rules".

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't sound bad. Is the police/military forces having big problems by letting this go?
[ QUOTE ]
(4)When it became clear that Syria and Iran were aiding the insurgency, American bomber should have bomb them...specifically their economic assets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it clear (from independent agencies)? Anyways, this didn't work out too great in Vietnam. What exactly makes you think we aren't making ourselves more enemies by striking at economic assets and putting their civilians in more poverty? All this would create is blowback and more resistence in Iraq.
[ QUOTE ]
(5) Not securing arms depots was a critical mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not doubting this, but do you have a link to this? This seems like quite a mistake.
[ QUOTE ]
(6) Not using the Kurdish militias to establish security was another mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why the kurds?
[ QUOTE ]
Oh? That is more than I know. Can you provide links supporting BOTH these claims? The war itself was a cakewalk.....the occupation has been tough.


[/ QUOTE ]
yup.
<u> Reconstruction will be paid for with Iraqi oil (something we are now paying for instead </u>
The Wolfowitz Chronology
[ QUOTE ]
March 27, 2003

Wolfowitz again tells Congress that oil should pay for Iraq’s reconstruction. “The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but… We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.”[39]

[/ QUOTE ]
<u>Iraq "cakewalk"</u>
No Iraq 'Cakewalk'
[ QUOTE ]
Three years ago in The Washington Post, Ken Adelman, formerly an assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, promised us "Cakewalk In Iraq."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The war itself was a cakewalk.....the occupation has been tough.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't matter. If American citizens new that the war would be easy but the occupation would be a disaster and a quagmire they wouldn't have supported the war. As for me I call this part of the war, and I'm sure the average soldier thinks the same thing.
[ QUOTE ]
You are not quoting the polls accurately. Most Iraqis want us to EVENTUALLY leave.

[/ QUOTE ]
The permanent bases we're building tell us they'll likely to be in Iraq for a long time (decades) just like Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia.

Our presence in Saudi Arabia directly led to OBL's call for Fatwah against America which directly led to the 9/11 attacks. Our current presence in Iraq will likely lead to the same thing if we stay there indefintely, which we likely will.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bump for Felix

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess Felix has conceded these points.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Lost this post among the many others....
And *NO* I don't concede to your points except with regard to the occupation was bungled.

[ QUOTE ]
The kurds are smaller in numbers then both the Shia and Sunnis aren't they? Why the hell would most the people in Iraq even think of that government as legitimate? A dictatorship? Are you kidding?? Bush could have never had the approval of the American people if he went in there intent on installing a new dictator.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. Syria's 5% minority rules the entire country. In addition, Syria's ruling class believes in a branch of Islam that many muslims believe to heretical. The Kurds 20% population is more than ample to rule Iraq. In addition, Kurds from Turkey would likely immigrant to a Kurdish run Iraq increases the % of Kurds...
2. I said establish a Kurdish dictatorship. The Kurdish version of Saddam would need to burn down a few Sunni/Shia villages to establish his alpha dog status. And like Saddam the Arabs would start behaving. As the Arabs say, "Better 100 years of tyranny than one day of chaos". A Kurdish dicatorship would be an improvement over the mess Bush made.

[ QUOTE ]
Possibly, but we would likely need a draft for that. The American people have not at any time supported a draft in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unleashing the Kurds would give us the manpower we need. Also many Kurds speak Arabic. Also the Kurds won't be held back by the rules of war...

[ QUOTE ]
Is it clear (from independent agencies)? Anyways, this didn't work out too great in Vietnam. What exactly makes you think we aren't making ourselves more enemies by striking at economic assets and putting their civilians in more poverty?

[/ QUOTE ]
More enemies? They are already our enemies to **** them. Bombing Iran's oil infrastructure will cripple their economy. No money to finance Shia terrorism is a good thing. Allowing transgression to go unanswered has been shown since the writing of history to encourage even bolder transgressions. If you force me to, I will dig up some old greek/old Roman quotes which support this assertion. As for Vietnam we did not go after the biggest economic assets like their dams. Besides, the USSR was supplying much of their arms to the Vietnamese....not the North Vietnamese.

[ QUOTE ]
Not doubting this, but do you have a link to this? This seems like quite a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1020/p01s04-woiq.html
All this crap about sanctions killing Iraqi children can be disproved by the giant arms depots located throughout Iraq. We know how Saddam was spending his oil money. There are numerous articles of insurgents raiding these depots at night and hauling away military gear.

[ QUOTE ]
Why the kurds?

[/ QUOTE ]
They love Americans and we can trust them. We can't trust the Sunni/Shia....as we have learned In general, Arabs are people that can't be relied upon. I speak about their culture...and not individuals. Even the feared Saddam had to pay local Shieks money to keep them from blowing up pipelines and stealing the oil from him... Also many of the Kurds speak Arabic and are familiar with their culture which makes them in many ways more effective than US troops.

[ QUOTE ]
yup.
Reconstruction will be paid for with Iraqi oil (something we are now paying for instead

[/ QUOTE ]
Paying for the war and paying for reconstruction are two separate items. Oil is being used by the Iraqi govt for reconstruction. However too much of it goes to corruption rather than needy areas. The insurgents blowing up the pipelines does not help either.

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't matter. If American citizens new that the war would be easy but the occupation would be a disaster and a quagmire they wouldn't have supported the war. As for me I call this part of the war, and I'm sure the average soldier thinks the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
The occupation was bungled. Starting with Bush appointing that idiot General Garner. This guy was the "Al Gonzales" of occupied Iraq. Then we get that nitwit Paul Bremer who was an expert at smooth talking and sweeping problems under the rug. A proper occupation strategy with proper execution would have reduced our occupation troubles by 80%.

[ QUOTE ]
Our presence in Saudi Arabia directly led to OBL's call for Fatwah against America which directly led to the 9/11 attacks. Our current presence in Iraq will likely lead to the same thing if we stay there indefintely, which we likely will.

[/ QUOTE ]
Al Qaeda does not need anymore excuses to attack the USA. They will continue to do so. Our presense in Iraq allows them easier access to kill US soldiers. The muslim world has MILLIONS and MILLIONS of would be terrorist. Their problem is money. Kill one of them and they get 10 more volunteers. Bomb their oil fields and their terrorism activities go down to a trickle....

[ QUOTE ]
The permanent bases we're building tell us they'll likely to be in Iraq for a long time (decades) just like Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps...

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess Felix has conceded these points.

[/ QUOTE ]
I lost track of the posts.
I addressed your points in the first post....

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

So did the US give Saddam WMD? You have produced nothing that says so, you've given evidence of the US helping a coldwar ally from a shady source

[/ QUOTE ]

- November 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the U.S. government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

- November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.

- July 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

- March 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the U.S. becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.

- May 1986. The U.S. Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

- May 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

- Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.

- April 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

- August 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.

- August 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds.

- September 1988. U.S. Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.

- December 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.

- July 25, 1990. U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations." Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the U.S. would not respond.

- July 1991. The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians.

- February 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large U.S. shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against U.S. troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome.

You could find more about it at Arming Iraq and the Path to War including sources if really interested.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
November 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the U.S. government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

- November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.

- July 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

- March 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the U.S. becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.

- May 1986. The U.S. Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

- May 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

- Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.

- April 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

- August 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.

- August 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds.

- September 1988. U.S. Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.

- December 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.

- July 25, 1990. U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations." Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the U.S. would not respond.

- July 1991. The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians.

- February 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large U.S. shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against U.S. troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome.

[/ QUOTE ]
This post is one large pile of steaming crap....
Show a link supporting each silly assertion from a credible source...or concede you just another brainwashed conspiracy theorist.

*Just for fun I picked ***ONE*** assertion on the link you provided:
"May 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]"

NEXT....I looked at the links supporting this supposed evidence using the "Find" feature using the phrase "botul"
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearc...port_main.html
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearc...port_index.htm
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearc...port_index.htm
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearc...ring_index.htm
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearc...report_toc.htm
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearc...port_index.htm

They was NOTHING to support the claim the author made on these links. NOTHING. John King is a big fat liar who evidently did not think someone would take the time to examine his sources..... LOL! In a way I find this rather humorous. There are a lot of nitwits with computers that will read John King's claims thinking they are gospel.... Jeez, this is futher proof that the American education systemhas sunk to new lows in teaching critical thinking...