Protestants: what do you think about the war against Iraq?

[Yerusalyim]

BOB,

Don’t be a dolt, that is NOT what Greenspan said…What Greenspan actually said was that to secure the world oil supply Saddam had to be taken out…a reason for war which Bush and Cheney REJECTED.

 

[Montalban]

Again, Saddam bought no Chemical Weapons from the US…however,

He bought weapons from the USA

YES, if Saddam’s own records showed he had WMD and the whole world agreed with those records, and then Saddam shows no proof of having destroyed those weapons…then he still has them somewhere…you trust a guy like Hussein?

Where are the weapons? Colin Powell’s presentations showed ‘clear’ indications of them out in the open. How is it that the USA had so much intelligence on where they were - but then ‘lost’ them?

From the seventh basement of Heaven…Halliburton the boogey man.

Great retort. No wonder the Internet rejected it before :0

Once again, here are the FACTS…Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton, however, before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company’s fortunes. RE THE STOCK OPTIONS: He is legally bound by an agreement he signed which turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement states that it is “irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended,” preventing Cheney from taking back the options at a later date…big bad Cheney…funny, he gives more of his income in charities than the bleeding hearts like Gore and Clinton.

corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2469
So he gives money away, that makes it okay!
Halliburton’s going to do well out of this, and I’m sure they’ll have a job open for ****.

There are terrorists in Pakistan, but not ones supported by the state.

So what? They’re there. Obama said he’d take 'em out. Are you more a pacifist that Obama?

Not really

Yes, really!

Yes indeed, Capitalists find an opportunity in whatever conditions to make money…that’s their job…that’s WHY they are called Capitalists…all things being equal, PEACE IS BEST for profit…but no, I’m not Ferengi, I’m Catholic…The selling some weapons (but no WMD) to both was a failed attempt to contain both.

That’s one of the funniest retorts ever! They sold WMDs to both to ‘contain’ both!

Silly

You asked if I was a member

.No, it’s not, no where do you mention the fans in the stands or by-passers in the street being murdered…so, your analogy in not analogous.

Because, in my analogy that’s not happening! :0

I’m not defending the policy that was used to try to contain both Iraq and Iran from dominating the world oil supply…but it worked.

How did it ‘work’?

And pre Iraq war how exactly is it the US helped destroy Iraq?

You can’t see the collapse of bridges, roads destroyed, etc.?

As to the UN, that organization dedicated to world peace that does more to create strife in the world than most nations do…to
**** with the UN.

Then you’re at odds with your own gov’t that continues to be a member

Quite appropriate, paying honor to an imaginary character, much like the imaginary perfect world the liberals live in…we live in the REAL WORLD with REAL PROBLEMS…I hear complaints, but no offers of solutions.

I thought you’d like the imaginary aspects, given your belief in WMDs that don’t exist

Tell ya what, let us soldiers decide if we want to stay in Iraq until it’s done right…most will say yes.

That’s not how democracy’s supposed to work… even for the US

 

[bobzills]

BOB,

Don’t be a dolt, that is NOT what Greenspan said…What Greenspan actually said was that to secure the world oil supply Saddam had to be taken out…a reason for war which Bush and Cheney REJECTED.

It amounts to the same thing. He is reacting to criticism of what he wrote in his memoirs.
He now says that “if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.” He now says it may not have been the administration’s motive, but in his memoirs he specifically wrote “the Iraq War is largely about oil.” He is now trying to weasel out of what he wrote, relieving Bush and Cheney, by saying that he presented the case to the White House before the war that removing Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies. What he says now, is because of pressure from Gates, Bush and Cheney who have apparently read his memoirs.
“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.

Even a small disruption could drive oil prices as high as $120 a barrel and would mean “chaos” to the global economy, Greenspan told the newspaper.

Given that, “I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” he said."

 

[Montalban]

What I don’t understand is Colin Powell’s over-whelming evidence at presentation of WMDs all over the place.

They go in and there’s none to be found.

Were they not keeping an eye on them with the same technology they used to find them?

Either the government is culpable for ‘loosing’ them, or for lying about them - because they didn’t exist.

 

[onmywayagain]

You’re most welcome Your argument was so convincing!

Just keep telling yourself that they had no WMD’s. WMD’s did not exsist. I wonder how the Kurds died? If you tell a drug dealer when and what time you are coming to see if he has drugs in his house, guess what he has the time to get rid of them. Please all this bull about not having WMD’s is just what it is, BULL!!!

 

[Montalban]

Just keep telling yourself that they had no WMD’s.

You guys found them yet?

I wonder how the Kurds died?

You mean when Iraq was your ally?

 

[Aramis]

I’m amazed that Americans *still *support their President on this, given the weight of lies told over WMDs!

Look to who’s profiteering.

A great many of us who support the war don’t support the president. I wrote my senator and suggested impeachment over the lies.

Two very different and only marginally related issues.

 

[Montalban]

A great many of us who support the war don’t support the president. I wrote my senator and suggested impeachment over the lies.

Two very different and only marginally related issues.

We’re in a similar situation here 'cause our illustrious leader followed Bush into Iraq.

 

[rr1213]

Not according to Alan Greenspan. He is quoted as saying that the Iraq war was really for oil.
gnn.tv/headlines/15423/Shocker_Alan_Greenspan_claims_Iraq_war_was_really_for_oil

Alan Greenspan was Director of the Federal Reserve. As such, he was legally and institutionally independent of the President. He was not a member of Bush’s cabinet or a close advisor to Bush on foreign policy issues.

 

[Montalban]

Alan Greenspan was Director of the Federal Reserve. As such, he was legally and institutionally independent of the President. He was not a member of Bush’s cabinet or a close advisor to Bush on foreign policy issues.

How would this confirm/negate what he said?

 

[bobzills]

How would this confirm/negate what he said?

It would more or less confirm what he said, as he had access to the White House. If Iraq did not have any oil, and if it were not close to Israel and if it were not an Islamic country, but all other things being equal, I don’t believe that there would have been any invasion by the USA.

 

[Montalban]

It would more or less confirm what he said, as he had access to the White House. If Iraq did not have any oil, and if it were not close to Israel and if it were not an Islamic country, but all other things being equal, I don’t believe that there would have been any invasion by the USA.

rr1213 seems to be trying to distance Greenspan from the decision-making process

 

[bobzills]

rr1213 seems to be trying to distance Greenspan from the decision-making process

Of course, Greenspan was not the one who was making the decision to invade Iraq. However, there is nothing which prevents him from giving his opinion as to why the invasion took place.

 

[Montalban]

Of course, Greenspan was not the one who was making the decision to invade Iraq. However, there is nothing which prevents him from giving his opinion as to why the invasion took place.

And, even if he didn’t partake in the decision, being close to it would make him perhaps knowledgeable of it.

 

[rr1213]

How would this confirm/negate what he said?

Simply put, he wasn’t in a position to know

 

[rr1213]

rr1213 seems to be trying to distance Greenspan from the decision-making process

Exactly

 

[rr1213]

Of course, Greenspan was not the one who was making the decision to invade Iraq. However, there is nothing which prevents him from giving his opinion as to why the invasion took place.

A totally different issue from whether Greenspan was in the position to know anything important about a matter that was absolutely not within his area of responsibility or expertise. All of us are giving our opinions in this thread about why the invasion took place–it’s a free country and nothing prevents us from doing so–but that does not mean that any of us really knows what went on in the White House or in Bush’s national security circles.

 

[rr1213]

And, even if he didn’t partake in the decision, being close to it would make him perhaps knowledgeable of it.

Do you understand the role of the Federal Reserve or the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in this country? The Federal Reserve is independent from both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. This is done purposefully to ensure (or at least to try to ensure) that the monetary policy of the United States is based on appropriate economic considerations and not on transient political aims. Although this system is not perfect and the Fed is not absolutely separated from politics, the system actually has worked very, very well for us. I am not saying that the Chairman of the Fed does not have political and institutional connections–he does–but this does not mean that he is in the position to know what is going on in the White House on every matter and especially on a non-economic matter outside of his area of responsibility.

 

[Montalban]

"Montalban:

rr1213 seems to be trying to distance Greenspan from the decision-making process

Exactly

"Montalban:

And, even if he didn’t partake in the decision, being close to it would make him perhaps knowledgeable of it.

Do you understand the role of the Federal Reserve or the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in this country? The Federal Reserve is independent from both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. This is done purposefully to ensure (or at least to try to ensure) that the monetary policy of the United States is based on appropriate economic considerations and not on transient political aims. Although this system is not perfect and the Fed is not absolutely separated from politics, the system actually has worked very, very well for us.

Which is irrelevant here.

I am not saying that the Chairman of the Fed does not have political and institutional connections–he does–but this does not mean that he is in the position to know what is going on in the White House on every matter and especially on a non-economic matter outside of his area of responsibility.

Actually the point of going to war for oil is totally to do with economics!

It certainly wasn’t 'cause of terrorism: No link between Saddam and Al Qaeda: Pentagon

 

[rr1213]

Which is irrelevant here.

Actually the point of going to war for oil is totally to do with economics!

It certainly wasn’t 'cause of terrorism: No link between Saddam and Al Qaeda: Pentagon

Look, the point that you and the other fellow was trying to make is that Greenspan’s testimony is proof positive that the US went to war to secure oil. My point is that Greenspan was not in the position to know, one way or the other, more about the situation that I or you know about the reasons why Bush favored war with Iraq. You have no idea what “relevance” means.