Alan Greenspan's opinion on the Iraq War

[calmB4storm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

[ QUOTE ]
Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.

A recent opinion poll suggests that 70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

Despite his stated rejection of any clear link between Saddam Hussein and the events of that day, Mr Bush continues to assert that the deposed president had ties with al-Qaeda, the terrorist network blamed for the 11 September attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the US State Dept not a credible source with regard to nations that support terrorism?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It's a credible source for nations that support means of conflict resolution which are theoretically condemned (but sometimes practically practiced) by powerful western states AND stand in the way of the interests of those western states. The fact that Iraq was on the list, and then removed in the 1980s when supplied by America despite no change in Iraqi leadership or policies is a data point showing how the list is not a credible source.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]
Iraq violated the armistice and tried to assassinate a US president in 1993. This was reason enough to go to war. As for Iran, my opinion Bush is being remiss by not bombing the hell out of them. I don't favor an occupation of Iran but I do favor attacks on their economy....specifically their oil infrastructure.

[ QUOTE ]
It had to do with oil, like almost all of the wars of the past 150 yrs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ahhhhhh......Then I suppose the USA will invade Canada, Kuwait, Dubia, Bahrain, and other oil producing nations. I look forward to paying 50 cent per gallon gas should your prediction be true. I've been looking for payback against Canada since their army repulse General Benedict Arnold's invasion of Quebec. Damn Canadiens!

But I think your claims are nonsense so I don't think this will happen.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]
Iraq violated the armistice and tried to assassinate a US president in 1993. This was reason enough to go to war. As for Iran, my opinion Bush is being remiss by not bombing the hell out of them. I don't favor an occupation of Iran but I do favor attacks on their economy....specifically their oil infrastructure.

[ QUOTE ]
It had to do with oil, like almost all of the wars of the past 150 yrs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ahhhhhh......Then I suppose the USA will invade Canada, Kuwait, Dubia, Bahrain, and other oil producing nations. I look forward to paying 50 cent per gallon gas should your prediction be true. I've been looking for payback against Canada since their army repulse General Benedict Arnold's invasion of Quebec. Damn Canadiens!

But I think your claims are nonsense so I don't think this will happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US couldn't muster American support for a war against these other countries. You know that. However, they were able to muster support for a war on Iraq under false pretenses.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Ahhhh.....the money quote.
"Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington,"

Thanks for making my point.
You saved ShakeZulu hours of google searches for quotes that don't exist. The claim that Bush indirectly claim Saddam was behind 911 is nonsense as well. Only a person with a 2nd grade level of reading comprehension could make this claim....which describes the vast majority of democrat voters...and news reporters. But I'm being redundent...

[gonebroke2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]
Iraq violated the armistice and tried to assassinate a US president in 1993. This was reason enough to go to war. As for Iran, my opinion Bush is being remiss by not bombing the hell out of them. I don't favor an occupation of Iran but I do favor attacks on their economy....specifically their oil infrastructure.

[ QUOTE ]
It had to do with oil, like almost all of the wars of the past 150 yrs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ahhhhhh......Then I suppose the USA will invade Canada, Kuwait, Dubia, Bahrain, and other oil producing nations. I look forward to paying 50 cent per gallon gas should your prediction be true. I've been looking for payback against Canada since their army repulse General Benedict Arnold's invasion of Quebec. Damn Canadiens!

But I think your claims are nonsense so I don't think this will happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

The United States has no need to invade those countries because they have very strong relationships with them. They guarantee protection of their country in exchange for cheap oil. That is why the USA went to save Kuwait from Saddam's invasion. Same deal with Saudi Arabia and several other middle eastern countries.

Iraq didn't want to play ball with the USA and that is why they got invaded. Furthermore, in order to invade any country the USA has to sell the war to the American public. Out of all the countries in the Middle East, a war against Iraq was the easiest to sell and the people fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Ahhhh.....the money quote.
"Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington,"

Thanks for making my point.
You saved ShakeZulu hours of google searches for quotes that don't exist. The claim that Bush indirectly claim Saddam was behind 911 is nonsense as well. Only a person with a 2nd grade level of reading comprehension could make this claim....which describes the vast majority of democrat voters...and news reporters. But I'm being redundent...

[/ QUOTE ]

However, Bush has intentionally co-referenced Saddam and 9/11 into his speeches to confuse the American public. So what's your point?

[ShakeZula06]

[ 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


[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, a trillion dollar war and tens of thousands dead because of that? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]
The weapons we found were not the weapons Bush was insinuating and conveying that he had. You really think that the American public would have supported invading Iraq based on them having WMDs that had no chance of hurting any Americans?

It was just propaganda to increase the popularity of war in Iraq. Nothing more.
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
So...this guy was kicked out of the military in '91 but you think his claim (with no proof) about what the Iraqi military did in 2003 should be taken for granted?
[ 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 ]
I'm not claiming Bush said he was behind it. This was another case of propaganda and insinutating a Saddam/OBL connection and that he had helped AQ.
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming based on this logic we should invade America, right? I'm not saying there was no AQ members at all in Iraq, I'm saying there was no connection between those AQ members and Saddam, which has been firmly established since the CFR's fictional tales they gave in 2003.
[ QUOTE ]
But to say there was no connection is not true. We do know there were talks between AQ and Saddam's govt.

[/ QUOTE ]
The 9/11 commission disagrees with you.
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, nothing that could be construed as a threat to the United States, contrary to the opinions of the war mongers pre-war.
[ QUOTE ]
The decision was correct. The execution was lousy.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, explain how he should of executed the war. Burned down all of Iraq?
[ QUOTE ]
When you try to assassinate an ex-president, then YOU GO TO WAR against the nation that sponsored the assassination.

[/ QUOTE ]
We aren't fighting an Iraqi army anymore, what do you want to kill off civilians because their dictator tried to assassinate a president a long time ago? Do you need to be explained why that's stupid?
[ QUOTE ]
If the occupation was properly managed then Iraq would have been stabilized long ago...

[/ QUOTE ]
On all ears. What's the "proper" and effective way to stabilize while occupying a nation?

Again, for emphasis:
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).

[gonebroke2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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


[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, a trillion dollar war and tens of thousands dead because of that? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. He is a zionist neo-con. You can't change his mind; he is already brainwashed beyond repair.

[calmB4storm]

[ QUOTE ]
Ahhhh.....the money quote.
"Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington,"

Thanks for making my point.
You saved ShakeZulu hours of google searches for quotes that don't exist. The claim that Bush indirectly claim Saddam was behind 911 is nonsense as well. Only a person with a 2nd grade level of reading comprehension could make this claim....which describes the vast majority of democrat voters...and news reporters. But I'm being redundent...

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you even read the article?

Colin Powell:[ QUOTE ]
We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dick Cheney:[ QUOTE ]
We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mr. Bush:[ QUOTE ]
Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

[/ QUOTE ]