Instant Access Registration Takes Less Than 15 Seconds! You May Not Post Until Registered.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having trouble staying logged in when navigating between forums/topics/etc., you need to reset your session cookie. Go into your browser and delete any cookie for the site them log back in. This should fix the login issue.
I love how all the stuff I argued and preached is coming out from government officials themselves, bit by bit.
Everyone whined and was upauled that I would have the audacity to incinuate that Iraq was all about oil. Guess I'm not the only one that says that huh!?
Actually he says that it wasn't why the Bush Adm went to war.
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in the interview conducted on Saturday. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ’Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”
Actually he says that it wasn't why the Bush Adm went to war.
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in the interview conducted on Saturday. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ’Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”
Unbelievable! Do you think he's going to actually say those words? He'd be offed before he can count to three! Why do you think it took deepthroat (no not the movie) so long to come out about watergate?
What he did say that you conveniently left out to sway people is....
Clarifying a controversial comment in his new memoir, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he told the White House before the Iraq war that removing Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies, according to an interview published on Monday.
I bet even if Bush came out and admitted it, you'de be one of the first in line to say it's not true even though it came out of his own mouth. Must be nice to live in fantasyland
I included that in the quote I posted. I really don't think Bush lied, there was more than enough reason to go into Iraq, oil was just icing on the cake.
It appears to me that Greenspan was concerned that Saddam was going to take control of an essential strait used for transporting oil. It sounds as if Saddam made it about oil to me. War of attrition is still war, it's just made from a more passive position.
Greenspan is essentially giving a perception of how Saddam's unchecked power was going to impact the world's economy.
also, in the same intervirw that kite refered too...didnt he say HE was for the war. didnt he, in fact, say he went to the admin and claimed that it was ESSENTIAL to take saddam out?...jeez dj...you sound more and more like fox news...just grab the part of the story you like and use that....tell me again about benoit and "roid rage"...
also....if you think alan greenspan is worried about someone "taking him out" your nuts!! i'd have an easier time believing he was one of solids elite's!!!!
HE WHO MAKES A BEAST OF HIMSELF, GET'S RID OF THE PAIN OF BEING A MAN!!
i didnt read it yet, but hes obviously for the war as a part of the federal reserve, obviously you want war..all our income tax goes right to paying back the fed which is not federal at all but a private bank.. if there is a war, they make tons of money.
also....if you think alan greenspan is worried about someone "taking him out" your nuts!! i'd have an easier time believing he was one of solids elite's!!!!
That's true. Even when he was chairman of the federal reserve he just walked down the road like some every day Joe.
I absolutely agree and thought everyone knew that releasing Saddam's grip on their oil export was one of many reasons of his oust. Have I not heard Bush state the same of the big picture? I mean, isn't that a given? No brainer..Saddam need not control anything...people, country, oil export, his own family, etc, etc...
Do we not all agree that removing Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies?
I absolutely agree and thought everyone knew that releasing Saddam's grip on their oil export was one of many reasons of his oust. Have I not heard Bush state the same of the big picture? I mean, isn't that a given? No brainer..Saddam need not control anything...people, country, oil export, his own family, etc, etc...
Do we not all agree that removing Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies?
I don't agree it was essential. What I do agree was we were sold as the american public on the fact of Iraqs possession of WMD's. I DO NOT remember them ever mentioning oil exports as a reason for invasion. Furthermore the Bush administration went as far as to whole heartedly dismiss and deny any allegations that they went in for oil!
Also do you honestly believe that our government gives two shiits about the well being of the people of Iraq or any other 3rd world country? If so why aren't they doing anything about places like Darfur? If it's reasons of WMD's why didn't we immediately invade North Korea who instead of denying having WMD's (like Iraq denied and apparently wasn't lying) but outright tested missiles and said it had WMD's?
There is no logic behind that which is not hypocritical to the facts of taking over Iraq. It's all about oil! It's always been all about oil! The Bush family has always been all about oil! And now the truth is coming out, yet people want to form excuses for things they should be protesting about!
Many of you say it was necessary to take over the oil for stability to the region because Saddam wouldn't have controlled it properly right? I sure as hell remember there being MUCH MUCH more stability in gas prices while Saddam was in power. Sorry but if you ask me all that happened is we took over Iraq, our government steals their oil, then sells it at prices 4x the norm to it's own people......US......... and then taxes us on the huge increase ontop of that! Good call
Greenspan says he told The White House how removing Saddam was important for the global economy. Then we invade Irag, so he thinks his eocnomic figures are the reason?
and you believe this whole-heartedly? or do you believe this part:
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in the interview conducted on Saturday. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ’Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”
yeah, I don't like to have to pick a story from an individual that throws 2 different versions at me either. Their credibilty is shot in my book after that. You know that they fabricate strories because one version has to be a fabrication so how do you know which one is the truth. I tend to lean towards the ole trusted he who doesn't vary his story any is telling the truth.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment