Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
s243a said:
I've always hated the line or reasoning where one justifies ones actions based upon the alleged evils of others. It would be interesting to know if the Saudi Arabian government contributed the same level of funding as Saddam to the red crescent but but it is hard for me to see how that absolves Saddam Husein of his sins.


Now re-read the previous posts: nobody here is trying to absolve Saddam (in case you didn't know it, he's dead). The point was that Bush used these facts to ''prove'' that Saddam supported terrorism when, in fact, he was supporting a charitable institution. Thus, it proves again that Bush LIED which meets the ready approval of so many of you on this forum. Saddam was an evil MF. Of that there is no doubt. But in this respect he is no worse than King Faud or Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifah. If Saddam deserved to be removed from power for supporting the Red Crescent and killed then those two deserve the same fate.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
wallyj said:
Yes,I believe so. Unfortunately our little buddy does not seem to be the type that follows the natural patterns of his species. We can always hope that he repeatedly crosses busy highways ,that should do the trick.



Hee, hee. But at least we Gophers have brains whereas unlike certain scarecrows from Totoland don't ...:lol:
 

wallyj

just special
May 7, 2006
1,230
21
38
not in Kansas anymore
Those, my good sir, are the facts. Just the facts!



Note the source of your ''facts'', buddy -- the White house! The same ones who told us there were WDM all over Iraq.

Are you sure you want to believe those ''facts''??

As for Saudis and Qataris, why weren't they invaded if they did precisely the same thing as did Saddam??

Anyways, my point was proven. Case closed.:lol:
You can't seem to accept that Iraq was invaded the second time because a coalition of nations decided that it was better to go and look for weapons than to accept Saddam's word that he did not have any and the UN inspectors had no right to look for any. Saddam could have let the UN do thier job,but NO,he had other plans. No one said that there was WMD's except for the anti-bush people.And the lies continue.
 

wallyj

just special
May 7, 2006
1,230
21
38
not in Kansas anymore
Hee, hee. But at least we Gophers have brains whereas unlike certain scarecrows from Totoland don't ...:lol:
Another urban legend or maybe a rural legend that refuses to die. If you watched my story till the end,you would realize that I always did have a brain. I could wile away the hours,conferring with the flowers,consulting with the rain,:lol::-?:lol:
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
wallyj said:
You can't seem to accept that Iraq was invaded the second time because a coalition of nations decided that it was better to go and look for weapons than to accept Saddam's word that he did not have any ...


You conveniently forgot that Bush offered Turkey a $26 billion bribe which was initially accepted and thereafter rejected when the people of that country condemned it. This was the same for Bush's coalition whose governments took money (our tax dollars) but whose majorities condemned Bush's criminal war.

You also conveniently forgot that Hans Blix said his investigation was 95 % complete and that no WMD had been found. I have already quoted from his book on this forum so I won't bother to give you that link again.

Just face the facts: Bush's criminal war is for oil whether you want to believe it or not.
 

wallyj

just special
May 7, 2006
1,230
21
38
not in Kansas anymore
I will take your word on the 95% complete. So,using that logic,if the police came and searched my house for drugs,I should be able to kick them out after they search 95% of the premises and they would be O.K. with that?
 

YoungJoonKim

Electoral Member
Aug 19, 2007
690
5
18
I don't mind Bush going to war for oil, its just that the cost of fuel hit my ceiling within just 4 years.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
I will take your word on the 95% complete. So,using that logic,if the police came and searched my house for drugs,I should be able to kick them out after they search 95% of the premises and they would be O.K. with that?


If the cops haven't completed their search successfully after two or three years and you were dumb enough to keep them there, that's your prerogative!;-)
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
I don't mind Bush going to war for oil, its just that the cost of fuel hit my ceiling within just 4 years.


And just wait for what that cost is going to be after he invades Iran. It's a good bet he won't find any evidence of nukes as he repeatedly alleges and that tens of thousands will die as he profits quite handsomely.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Except you forgot that Blix blamed Bush, not Saddam, for not being able to complete the job of inspection. ;-)

The war was avoidable but your hero Bush refused to stop his criminal aggression.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cosmo

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Those, my good sir, are the facts. Just the facts!



Note the source of your ''facts'', buddy -- the White house! The same ones who told us there were WDM all over Iraq.

Are you sure you want to believe those ''facts''??

That's funny. I trust you'll be attending the next meeting of PalestineFreeVoice to let them know they're all just a bunch of White House Shills. :p
Now that would make for interesting youtube viewing. :cool:


As for Saudis and Qataris, why weren't they invaded if they did precisely the same thing as did Saddam??

Patience, my burrowing friend. Patience.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Except you forgot that Blix blamed Bush, not Saddam, for not being able to complete the job of inspection. ;-)

Sure, Saddam invited the inspectors back once he realized Bush was serious and the weapons were safely tucked away in Syria. Nobody would actually fall for that schoolboy trick.
 
Last edited:

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,845
93
48
Alan Greenspan: I Never Said Iraq War Was About Oil


By Matthew Sheffield | September 17, 2007 - 12:41 ET
It's fitting that now that he's left his post as chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan's words are being as closely scrutinized as they were back in his days at the Fed.
Not carefully enough, though, it seems.
Over the weekend, a media firestorm errupted after the Washington Post printed a news article claiming that in his memoirs, Greenspan said the ouster of the Saddam Hussein government was just about oil.
Unfortunately for the liberal press and blogosphere, Greenspan did not say what was attributed to him. After the news broke, Greenspan called up the Post to say he'd been quoted out of context:
Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something." While he was "reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon," he added, "my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon."
His main support for Hussein's ouster, though, was economically motivated. "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.
Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy.
Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.
"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."
Will the media be as eager to propagate Greenspan's actual remarks as they were to do so for the ones attributed to him? I'm not holding my breath.
—Matthew Sheffield is Executive Editor of NewsBusters and president of Dialog Media, a web marketing firm.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Walter

It's one of the usual media blitz "House on Fire" - two or three days later, they regroup, respin, the offender fights back with retractions....and we have yet more publicity for Greenspan's book. He has always been good at making a buck.

...and our Gopher's rational argument is left swinging in the wind.

Gopher - you gotta get a chain for that bicycle... that way you can 'Move On' forward.