|
|
#1
09-16-2007, 01:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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.” 
|
|
#3
09-16-2007, 07:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Alan Greenspan\'s opinion on the Iraq War
[ QUOTE ]
the iran war will be largely about oil as well. [/ QUOTE ] So will WWIII
|
|
#4
09-16-2007, 07:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#6
09-16-2007, 08:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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....
|
|
#7
09-16-2007, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#10
09-16-2007, 10:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
