Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

[YoungJoonKim]

Saddam Hussein gave money to terrorist

-U.S. gave money to Saddam Hussein, indirectly helped him to become dictator
-U.S. gave money (millions) to Mujahadin. Today, Osama's private terrorist group..Taliban.

Okay..so should we invade U.S.?
LOL
This is so funny, its so ironic.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a bad man, evil man.
Perhaps even insane with so many wars for power and oil (Kuwait), oh yeah, the genocide against Shiite.

Yes, it was good reason to go to war...he was a bad man after all.
Its just that U.N. said, "DON'T DO IT."
But eh...U.S. didn't listen
So, U.S. and U.K. + Spanish...Korean..Japanese..and couple more U.S. sympathizers rolled in.
They went in, took Saddam out, and dissolved Iraq government/policy/and army.
What was the result?
Tune to CNN.
not that I am saying what they (U.S....mostly) did WRONG, I am saying, "they weren't prepare to deal with the state right away but war and plan for establishment of oil fields"

Oh..yeah..
when are we going to roll into Sudan?

 

[gopher]

And as shown in that report (also proven on other links that I have previously presented on this forum), the Saudis and Qataris {Bush allies} gave more money --- should we also invade them??

I am surprised (though I shouldn't be) that the subject came up again as we discussed this so many tmes in the past.

 

[wallyj]

That's horsesh*t Wally and it's not the point here. The point is the money given to shahids issue that ITN is running away from.

Bush started the war and is responsible for it, not Saddam. But that's a separate issue.

You brought up the continual running lie about WMD's. I just pointed out that the facts say otherwise,but you in your obsessive hatred for Bush,gloss over facts and put out Bull****e. And that is another unpleasant fact that you will deny.

 

[gopher]

Like ITN you are blinded by your hatred for America. This is why both of you so easily overlooked proven facts that have been discussed on this forum several times before.

Saddam did no worse than Saudis or Qataris in supporting the Red Crescent. That is a well established fact that Bush and his conspirators tried to make into ''proof'' that he is responsible for terrorism when he never was.

 

[YoungJoonKim]

Bush and his conspirators tried to make into ''proof'' that he is responsible for terrorism when he never was.

Classic term of propaganda
I won't dispute about WMD, until I see one on CNN.

 

[YoungJoonKim]

Its not right to invade another country just because they are doing "bad things"
We need approval of U.N.
We need approval of the world.
We need approval of multinational third-party decision.
Rwanda was a good example, it was HELL BROKE LOOSE, government just BROKE and there is majority killing minority..
Canadians, U.K., U.S., Germany, and the world just said, "oh no, Africans again!"

Iraq, its Saddam* killing Shiites..
We just needed some "dirty job"
not invasion.

 

[gopher]

Its not right to invade another country just because they are doing "bad things"



You certainly are correct. But what is interesting here is how Saddam's proven support of the Red Crescent was used as ''proof'' that he supported terrorism and used as ''justification'' for Bush's invasion. If applied on a consistent basis, that same ''evidence'' should have been used as ''justification'' for an invasion of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

So where are the right wing critics to demand just that??

 

[Just the Facts]

Don't believe it? Look it up.

BTW, where's your Iraq WMD??

Syria.

 

[gopher]

Syria has taken more refugees from Iraq than has any other country. Is that what you mean by WMD hidden there??

BTW, it is the Red Crescent that is keeping all those innocents alive. No thanks to Bush and his fellow warmongers.

 

[Just the Facts]

Syria has taken more refugees from Iraq than has any other country. Is that what you mean by WMD hidden there??

BTW, it is the Red Crescent that is keeping all those innocents alive. No thanks to Bush and his fellow warmongers.

You're really stuck on this red crescent thing. :lol:

Just because he gave a little Zakat (and I'm just taking your word for it here) doesn't mean ****e. Does giving money to a charity neccessitate that he did not support terrorism? That's a very easy question even for the mind of a six year old.

 

[Just the Facts]

Syria has taken more refugees from Iraq than has any other country. Is that what you mean by WMD hidden there??

BTW, it is the Red Crescent that is keeping all those innocents alive. No thanks to Bush and his fellow warmongers.

So now countries who harbour WMD's must be incapable of taking in refugees?

Your powers of inductive reasoning are astounding.

And btw, who are those refugees fleeing, pray tell.

 

[YoungJoonKim]

Come on guys, let's just come out plain and discuss about whether this war was justified under U.N. charter.

Let's discuss about what U.S. did right and did wrong, as they were the leading force in this war.
No offense..I love Americans..they gave me Wendys and McDonald afterall

 

[YoungJoonKim]

And KFC...
OH..yes..I love that fat-chubby stuff.

 

[gerryh]

I'm waiting for your posts that "proves" me wrong.

Throw in the slant drilling "evidence" while you're at it, kill two birds with one stone.

Here's one: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,970978-4,00.html

Saddam's complaint about Kuwait's slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields is legitimate. A payment to Baghdad for past deprivation and a guarantee of a more equitable distribution of oil resources in the future is both doable and just. Saddam's other gripes involve territorial disputes, and should be decided by the World Court.

Or is Time magazine not a "reliable" source?

 

[lone wolf]

KFC came from Richmond Hill Ontario....

Wolf

 

[gopher]

You're really stuck on this red crescent thing. :lol:

Just because he gave a little Zakat (and I'm just taking your word for it here) doesn't mean ****e. Does giving money to a charity neccessitate that he did not support terrorism? That's a very easy question even for the mind of a six year old.

Again, if you only bothered to check your facts before shooting your mouth, you would known that this was the basis for the claim that Saddam was supporting terrorism as we discussed on this forum previously. It may not be what you want to believe but it is a fact.

You call yourself, justthefacts, well there you have it --- just the facts, the real ones, not the made up ones.

 

[Kreskin]

Hey you guys, the personal attack meter is moving into the red. If it continues there won't be good reason to keep the thread open.

 

[gopher]

Hey Kreskin,

So far, only ITN resorted to name calling by calling me ''asshole'' but he/she is gone now.

Nobody else used any pejorative directed at anyone else.

All's clear. So far the discussion has been intelligent. Let's keep it that way.

 

[Just the Facts]

Hey you guys, the personal attack meter is moving into the red. If it continues there won't be good reason to keep the thread open.

OK OK I won't call Gopher a windbag in my next post.

Now I gotta come up with a new opening....

 

[s243a]

Is it? We can do a bit more math and see if it makes economic sense.

Pre-war oil supply from Iraq to the US was (April 2003) 22 million barrels for the month of April.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mttimiz1m.htm

If you mulitply that figure with $20 a barrel, it costs the US $440 Million each month (approximate average) to purchase that oil from Iraq.

Now the war has cost us $500 Billion so far with no end in sight, correct?

If you divide the cost of war to date $500 Billion with one month's supply of oil from Iraq, you get 1136 months of oil supply OR roughly 95 years.

Instead we opted to throw away $500 Billion, create remorse towards the US from all around the planet, kill hundreds of thousands of people, while we could have struck a deal with Saddam and have him supply us with oil over the next century.

Does it still sound like a good business deal to you?

I never thought the war for oil theory made sense but I'm really puzzled as to why Green Span would say the war was about him. I always respected Greenspan even though his policies may have caused the crash in the Asian Markets and over exaggerated the swings in the market cycle.