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.
Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
- Thread starter Karlin
- Start date
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.
Oh yes, you are totally innocent :roll:
You've just told him to go away how many times? Forget about debate just ask anyone you don't like to leave and flood the forum with the same propaganda over and over again so all other views are drowned by your spam. Yeah you are perfectly innocent. :roll:
I have not read Greenspan's book. However, being about oil and executing the plan successfully are two different things, are they not? What about the motive of keeping oil wealth out of Saddam's hands, rather than the motive of exporting cheap oil to America? Surely the UN sanctions weren't going to last forever, and with oil in his backyard it would only be a matter of time before Saddam had acquired enough oil money to be a major concern again.
Oil motives can be any number of angles.
Oil motives can be any number of angles.
This is too easy. Seriously. I have no "desire" to believe anything. Saddam could be a devil or saint, makes no nevermind to me.
Even Saddams fan club boasts about his support of the suicide bombers - they're PROUD of it. If they're proud of it, who are you to take that away from them? Why would you try to deny him his legacy?
This was not the very first time the families from Palestinian martyrs was receiving donations from Saddam Hussein.The support and the gratitude for Saddam was expressed by many organizations and individuals worldwide, and came to continue in the path of the support to the Palestinian martyrs - the Palestinian resistance.
http://www.uruknet.de/?p=35686
Umm, no. Here are the real facts:
Funds for Terrorists
Let’s start with money. At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.
“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.
CAUTION: The page at this link contains some graphic images.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
And just for good measure:
In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html
Those, my good sir, are the facts. Just the facts!
I am a lefty. I think Bush is the biggest farce I've ever seen in office. I think the Iraq war is bullcrap.
Having said that, Gopher, I gotta comment on your attitude here. ITN disagrees with both of us and is sufficiently faithful to his beliefs to stand up for them. I admire that. I appreciate having folks like ITN here at CC. Without them this place is nothing more than a left wing back patting circle. Without diverse opinions this would be little more than mental masturbation. Too dull to contemplate.
I don't argue your right to disagree, but I do hate the personal attacks. It's poor behaviour like that which divides forums and creates rifts in an otherwise great community.
Attack the post, not the poster.
There's my 2 pennies worth.
Think objectively about this. It's not oil for us, Iraq sold oil to Germany, France, Russia and it's that oil that needed to be manipulated. I think there was an effort here to hamper that supply and force problems on to other countries to limit their ability else where. We get oil and all we want from the Saudis so I never thought that it was about acquiring oil for ourselves.
Taking that resource away from Saddam was the point for a legitimate argument, way it affected others in that chain was the target.
When competing, if I am at full speed I can't really go any faster, but if I slow you down a little, it's the same in effect.
Saddam was expert at making Bush especially look like an idiot. He could manipulate people and international political optics like none other. While he did make a few tactical mistakes, he had one hell of a strong base in the Mideast.
Dick Cheney and some shadowy figures from old US Republican regime of Bush sr are the ones who crafted the method of going into Iraq. 9/11 and Al Qeada was just sauce for the goose.
http://www.blackwaterusa.com/
You have to ask why was Iraq changed from 12 years of carefully watched and managed rogue to this violent out of control wasteland. On top of the over 100000 American military troops that are in Iraq, there are also that many or more private American para military troops in Iraq as well. So why is it that some quarter million of what is perhaps the best trained and equipped military doing getting thwarted by so many insurgent fighters? Or are they?
Maybe it's not what it's supposed to look like at all.
Taking that resource away from Saddam was the point for a legitimate argument, way it affected others in that chain was the target.
When competing, if I am at full speed I can't really go any faster, but if I slow you down a little, it's the same in effect.
Saddam was expert at making Bush especially look like an idiot. He could manipulate people and international political optics like none other. While he did make a few tactical mistakes, he had one hell of a strong base in the Mideast.
Dick Cheney and some shadowy figures from old US Republican regime of Bush sr are the ones who crafted the method of going into Iraq. 9/11 and Al Qeada was just sauce for the goose.
http://www.blackwaterusa.com/
You have to ask why was Iraq changed from 12 years of carefully watched and managed rogue to this violent out of control wasteland. On top of the over 100000 American military troops that are in Iraq, there are also that many or more private American para military troops in Iraq as well. So why is it that some quarter million of what is perhaps the best trained and equipped military doing getting thwarted by so many insurgent fighters? Or are they?
Maybe it's not what it's supposed to look like at all.
Just because something is repeated over and over does not make it true. The 9/11 'truthers' are a prime example of that. You allege that like ITN,I am blinded by my "hatred for America". You can repeat that over and over and it still will not be true. I have been accused of lots of vile things,but that is a first.But then again maybe you have incredible intelligence and perception. Another statement that can be repeated over and over and will not be true.
Oh no,Greenspan has come out and said that the statement that started this thread was taken out of context . It seems what he said was along the lines of a stable Middle East is essential to the flow of oil and energy supply for the U.S. Dear me,do I feel an apology coming from Karlin?
Greenspan should have completed his book five years ago when he was more alert
I would say it is factual that Gulf War One - was about oil - when Hussein attacked Kuwait. Then there was no doubt about the objective he had.
I would say it is factual that Gulf War One - was about oil - when Hussein attacked Kuwait. Then there was no doubt about the objective he had.
Uhm... I read that link, that proves ITN right and you wrong..
so are you going to take off now? or at least read what you post before claiming its "proof".
I guess nobody has thought about one thing.... Ahem... Oh my it's a "memoir" which is a hoot when the man's mind is on vacation - I guess his wife has dictated it to a loyal and circumspect few people who have put it together for him.
Greenspan is selling a book - anything which will get the attention of the public no matter how outrageous is another few bucks in his pants pocket (or purse if he carries one). shhhhhhhhhhh you didn't hear it here.
Greenspan is selling a book - anything which will get the attention of the public no matter how outrageous is another few bucks in his pants pocket (or purse if he carries one). shhhhhhhhhhh you didn't hear it here.
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.
So what?
Brutal cocaine traffickers, the mafia, Hells Angels, etc., also give money to charity.
The author merely opines that it is legitimate without saying why nor making any technical references supporting the claim.
Last edited:
Greenspan clarifies his position.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7/09/16/AR2007091601287.html?nav=rss_business
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:
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: