Iraq, What's The Answer?

[DannyK]

Annnnnd thats why we went in when it comes down to it.

The most ill give you there is that was one thing motivating the decision to invade.

 

[All Else Failed]

Saddam was a nutjob why wouldn't he?

He wasn't crazy as in "insanity". He was just a megalomaniac/jerkoff


Why wouldn't he? Because his entire country would be obliterated in a second in response. He didn't want to lose his power, and risk that. He loved his power.

 

[DannyK]

He wasn't crazy as in "insanity". He was just a megalomaniac/jerkoff


Why wouldn't he? Because his entire country would be obliterated in a second in response. He didn't want to lose his power, and risk that. He loved his power.

Beautiful. lulz.

People in his position do often think that they are invincible, i don't doubt that he would.

 

[All Else Failed]

He really wouldn't.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

He did what we wanted him to, that's for sure. and just as he fell, Iran popped back up

 

[GraceAbounds]

No thats ridiculous. Even Alan Greenspan, who advised Bush on Iraq, explains in his new book how Bush wanted its Oil resources.

According to an interview with Greenspan he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. Greenspan said he had backed Hussein's ouster either through war or covert action.

 

[All Else Failed]

According to an interview with Greenspan he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. Greenspan said he had backed Hussein's ouster either through war or covert action.

Do you have a link to that?



Of course he presented an economic strategy, and one concerning the middle eats would have to include oil.

 

[Peter Parka]

I think that you should be pissed at Blair then.

I am and view him as a war criminal. The USA's reasons were no better though.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

BUT Greenspan has done nothing but politely call out GW on his economic policy.

They are all tongue and cheek bastards if you ask me.

 

[DannyK]

According to an interview with Greenspan he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. Greenspan said he had backed Hussein's ouster either through war or covert action.

:clap

 

[All Else Failed]

I am and view him as a war criminal. The USA's reasons were no better though.

Bush and Cheney are war criminals.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Bush and Cheney are war criminals.

That's it...You getting rep'ed

 

[GraceAbounds]

Do you have a link to that?



Of course he presented an economic strategy, and one concerning the middle eats would have to include oil.

It was in the Washington Post months ago. It is no big secret. It is old news. You should be able to google it easily.

 

[GraceAbounds]

BUT Greenspan has done nothing but politely call out GW on his economic policy.

They are all tongue and cheek bastards if you ask me.

Oh it is no secret that he is ultra critical of them that is for sure. No arguments there on that one.

 

[All Else Failed]

It was in the Washington Post months ago. It is no big secret. It is old news. You should be able to google it easily.

This one?

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security - washingtonpost.com


The article says much more than what you just posted.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Oh it is no secret that he is ultra critical of them that is for sure. No arguments there on that one.

My point exacarry....how can you A. Support the overthrow of a dictator, paticularly one that we put in place and profited little because of.

B. In the same breath (breath of course is copyrighted...lol) tear down the economic system that essentially revolves around energy policy, which you know one goes hand in hand....You destroy saddam, you gain paybakc for big oil.

ehhh I have a headache now

 

[GraceAbounds]

The article says much more than what you just posted.

Well of course it does! Doh! But I didn't need the rest of the article to discount your statement regarding that Greenspan said that Bush went to war for oil blah blah blah blah in his book.

 

[DannyK]

This one?

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security - washingtonpost.com


The article says much more than what you just posted.

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

that the war was "largely about oil"

But, he added, "I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't believe it's true."

Publicly, little evidence has emerged to support that view, although a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion -- listed as one of many objectives "
to minimize disruption in international oil markets."

As for Iraq, 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."

I dunno man, sounds like he wasnt there only for oil to me.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

that the war was "largely about oil"

But, he added, "I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't believe it's true."

Publicly, little evidence has emerged to support that view, although a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion -- listed as one of many objectives "
to minimize disruption in international oil markets."

As for Iraq, 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."

I dunno man, sounds like he wasnt there only for oil to me.

No you are right so far we have found a couple of hand grenades....and a half chewed pack of juicy fruit.

Otherwise known in the covert world as contraband commonly known to be used in the manufacturing of WMD's

 

[Peter Parka]

No you are right so far we have found a couple of hand grenades....and a half chewed pack of juicy fruit.

Otherwise known in the covert world as contraband commonly known to be used in the manufacturing of WMD's

:clap:clap:clap rep delivered!