Alan Greenspan's opinion on the Iraq War

[ikestoys]

[ 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

[gonebroke2]

[ 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.

[Money2Burn]

[ 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.

[ShakeZula06]

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.

[boracay]

[ 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?

[Kaj]

[ 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.

[Kaj]

[ 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.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ 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...

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ 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....

[Felix_Nietzsche]

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...