Greenspan: Iraq war was really for oil

Parent Cafe
41

<p>I know I should just ignore your twisted comments, but I’m not going to. You clearly derided my religious faith – once again, something that I think is way out of bounds and for which you should apologize. But then that might mean admitting you were wrong, so I’m sure it will never happen.</p>

<p>

Yet another nasty remark, verging on heresy. Do you really want to go there? At this point, I’m sure the other posters are not interested in our bickering. As far as I’m concerned, I will no longer respond to any of your posts.</p>

42

<p>“It isn’t right and you know it. There’s no justification for invasion when we could have gotten all our country needs by trade. What we did instead is enrich the friends of the family through the use of our military.”</p>

<p>At least someone got rich. Who got rich from the Clinton genocide? And since when does killing half a million children amount to a trade policy?</p>

43

<p>“At least someone got rich. Who got rich from the Clinton genocide? And since when does killing half a million children amount to a trade policy?”</p>

<p>Mini, Mini, Mini…You know the crickets always chirp when you go there;)</p>

44

<p>“verging on heresy”</p>

<p>:)</p>

45

<p>“Which faith would that be? in god or the gop?”</p>

<p>Opie, why do you think the posts you have made to sjmom are ok? They aren’t cute, they aren’t witty, insightful or anything else positive. They’re just offensive. You can make all the arguments you choose on policy (and you do that quite well, which makes this stooping so unnecessary), but questioning someone’s faith is beyond the pale. To quote you: “It isn’t right and you know it.” Feel free to take aim at me. I’ve been spat upon by open-minded, tolerant, peace-loving liberals, so I can take it.</p>

46

<p>sorry zoos, </p>

<p>explain to me why they “have” to be OK? Do they have to be warm and fuzzy? I don’t think so. Just about everybody here (yourself included and smom) have posted a wicked thing or two. The reason I took notice is because in past posts that aspect of sjmom were put out there as some red badge of courage, kinda to beat down a differing opinion. If you’re going to bring it out to flog someone, it stays out maybe to be used to flog back later.</p>

<p>I just think her current rationale of explaining “national security” files in the face of a belief system that states it is a sin to covet another’s property, much less kill for it. Offense is taken because it is next to impossible to justify what’s being done while at the same time profess to a certain religous doctrine. </p>

<p>As I said what if this is god’s test of christians by putting all the easily attainable oil under muslim lands? Maybe god is testing us to see how we would go about getting oil from our neighbors? Would we peacefully trade? would we invade and take by force? Would we go a more difficult path (oil shale) to meet our needs elsewhere? Would we change our ways and reduce our need? </p>

<p>There are answers that fit our religious teaching better than invasion, no?</p>

47

<p>“I just think her current rationale of explaining “national security” files in the face of a belief system that states it is a sin to covet another’s property, much less kill for it.”</p>

<p>It’s also a belief system that for the first 300 years of its history, and based on the words and actions of its founder, believed one could not kill, even in self-defense, or even in defense of women and children, and the same body that wrote its creed compared soldiers who thought they were of that persuasion to “dogs that eat their own vomit”. </p>

<p>I doubt that God told George Bush to invade Iraq or Bill Clinton to murder children, just as I doubt that S/He spoke to Idi Amin, who did far less damage.</p>

<p>But if we were all consistent, this wouldn’t make for a particularly interesting forum. So I’ll apologize to sjmom if no one else will, with the caveat that I am sure it will happen again.</p>

<p>(and from what I’ve seen from firsthand experience, I doubt that God blesses so-called “free trade” either.)</p>

48

<p>ah mini, I counted to five and just knew you throw the clinton baby killer thing in there. </p>

<p>and you certainly can apologize for me. This doesn’t mean I have to for you does it?</p>

49

<p>Opie,</p>

<p>You are reading things into other’s post that were never stated. Nowhere is there an allusion to “coveting another’s property”. If one were to “covet” the oil and start a war for it, wouldn’t one expect that the person starting the war would grab the oil? </p>

<p>The point that Greenspan was making about the oil and I assume sjmom was referencing was that oil is a fundamental part of the world’s economy and to let a madman acquire a controlling interest in it by virtue of “grabbing it” (Remember Iran? Remember Kuwait?) could result in worldwide chaos. Recall that Jimmy Carter was the first to recognize and state that the oil supply in the Mid-east was a global resource that he would commit the US military to protect (the Carter doctrine). This didn’t mean that we or anyone had the right to grab it, but we had a responsibility to protect it for the sake of the global economy and security. </p>

<p>If all we wanted to do was grab a country that contained oil, there were far easier countries to knock off than Iraq.</p>

50

<p>“There are answers that fit our religious teaching better than invasion, no?”</p>

<p>According to you. Different people can have opinions that you don’t share, you know? I was pretty clearly not discussing the merits here, but rather your attack on someone else’s faith. I don’t happen to think there is any “our” religious teaching. Faith is personal and by its very nature isn’t particularly logical. On ITS merits, faith might not withstand attack, but that’s why it’s faith, isn’t it? I’ve been called some ugly things on this forum and taken exception to the habit of twisting others’ words on a regular basis, so I don’t have completely clean hands. But a person’s faith is what it’s represented to be. There’s no way for you to know what SJMom’s religious history is or where the faith comes from, so why not leave it alone?</p>

51

<p>I don’t think that one can understand the current situation in Iraq - either on a political or moral level - without coming to terms with the extent of Clinton’s murder of children (normalized to the U.S., the equivalent of approximately 6 million kids), or with the impact of the Clinton/Tenet lie of 1998 on Bush’s ability to invade the country. Without the Tenet “slam dunk” - and support of military action against Iraq by the “experienced Democrats” as early as January/February 1998 (a coverup of the genocide), there IS no invasion of the country. And I think FundingFather is exactly correct - the point of the Clinton/Bush policy toward Iraq was not so much about Iraqi oil, but the ability to control oil resources in the entire Middle East through permanent military outposts outside of Saudi Arabia.</p>

<p>Opie - you can apologize anytime you like. It’s good for the soul. :wink: Just don’t pledge that it won’t happen again.</p>

52

<p>Re: Post #46:</p>

<p>

</p>

53

<p>"You are reading things into other’s post that were never stated. Nowhere is there an allusion to “coveting another’s property”. If one were to “covet” the oil and start a war for it, wouldn’t one expect that the person starting the war would grab the oil? "</p>

<p>Who controls the oil? you keep forgeting you aren’t part of the “we”. Where does the revenues, the profits end up? They aren’t going to the iraqis, at least not all of them. The “we” profits, not the “us”. America hasn’t profited from this situation… some americans have, but not our country and it’s citizens. </p>

<p>"The point that Greenspan was making about the oil and I assume sjmom was referencing was that oil is a fundamental part of the world’s economy and to let a madman acquire a controlling interest in it by virtue of “grabbing it” "</p>

<p>You know he owned it for a long while and back when we were supplying his armies with wmds we had no problem buying from him. When exactly did he become mad? Or did he just become a bad business partner for trying to sell to the soviets directly? We turned a blind eye for a long time, till it looked as if he was going to bypass our normal distribution channels. </p>

<p>“(Remember Iran? Remember Kuwait?)”
absolutely… so why were we supplying a madman during IRAN? :wink: Did you care that he was embroiled in a ww1 trench warfare with IRAN back then? Was he mad or a slient ally WE supplied? </p>

<p>Kuwait? Yup, now he was upseting the apple cart of our friends and allies, he deserved to be pushed back and boxed in. I love gb1. He did a great job there, one of the best in history. </p>

<p>"This didn’t mean that we or anyone had the right to grab it, but we had a responsibility to protect it for the sake of the global economy and security. "</p>

<p>Hence the fundemental moral conflict, no? Doesn’t this challenge our basic relgious beliefs? Are we a nation under god only when it suits us? For the sake of the global economy and security shouldn’t the UN hold that presence we currently have? These are just questions a moral person should ask themselves. I don’t have to like the answer and they don’t either. As I said what if it’s a test? Are we passing? Getting hurt or offended or angry about it is an answer, somewhere inside that person is a conflict between what they may be saying and what they’re feeling. </p>

<p>“If all we wanted to do was grab a country that contained oil, there were far easier countries to knock off than Iraq.” </p>

<p>Which ones would that be?</p>

54

<p>I am still not getting why you are soooo offended, here’s the quote…</p>

<p>"As someone who previously comes off as a deeply religous person, how can you justify a comment that disregards people over a thing? "</p>

<p>Where was I not courteous?
“As someone who previously comes off as a deeply religous person”</p>

<p>Why is that offensive? You have expressed before you are a deeply religous person? How is this name calling? or attacking you? Aren’t a deeply religous person? </p>

<p>"how can you justify a comment that disregards people over a thing? “”</p>

<p>is the word justify too hard? would that be better served by “explain”?
If the word justify your comment is too harsh, I apologize, Can I change it to how do you “explain your comment”?</p>

<p>I neither attacked you or criticised your personal beliefs, I asked you a question based on your statement and your past statements about yourself on this website.</p>

<p>I have posed a hypothetical about god and his/her decision to put oil under the ground where the people who live there profess another savoir. I also posed the hypothetical of his/her testing us to see what we would do. Isn’t there a bracelet that has WWJD? Isn’t it a fairly common question posed towards children in decision making? Heck, I’ve seen it modified to ask what would jesus drive? </p>

<p>For you to have such hurt seems a bit much. Some folks have run to your defense, but really honestly, is it that bad?</p>

55

<p>"Or did he just become a bad business partner for trying to sell to the soviets directly? We turned a blind eye for a long time, till it looked as if he was going to bypass our normal distribution channels. "</p>

<p>You have cause and effect mixed up here. The US was the one that decided to not trade with Iraq (because he was a menace), not the other way around.</p>

<p>"Hence the fundemental moral conflict, no? Doesn’t this challenge our basic relgious beliefs? Are we a nation under god only when it suits us? For the sake of the global economy and security shouldn’t the UN hold that presence we currently have? "</p>

<p>I don’t see a moral conflict here. It would be morally appropriate for the country that has the means to protect a global resource to perform that function. The UN??? You’re kidding right? The same organization that was mired in the oil for food scandal, didn’t do anything in Rwanda, Somalia or any number of other areas? This is the organization that you are looking to to protect a resource like oil? I don’t think so. </p>

<p>“Which ones would that be?”
Just about any of them, but Venezuela would have been far easier to knock off and made more sense from a US perspective given its proximity.</p>

<p>But, since you have set yourself up as the great moralizer, why not answer my question regarding the morals associated with abandoning a country to devolve into a bloodbath. Where is the morality in that?</p>

56

<p><a href=“http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/09/17/greenspan_spills_the_beans.php[/url]”>http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/09/17/greenspan_spills_the_beans.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“But, since you have set yourself up as the great moralizer, why not answer my question regarding the morals associated with abandoning a country to devolve into a bloodbath. Where is the morality in that?”</p>

<p>I’ll answer it, though you didn’t ask me. The U.S. has no moral authority even to ask the question. Not with 1.2-1.7 million dead, two million refugees outside the country; 1.5 million internal refugees, and the AKLCS presiding over ethnic cleansing. It’s like asking what role the German generals should have in deciding the future of Czechoslovakia post WWII. </p>

<p>It will cost from $10-$15 billion a year to care for all the refugees, for a generation. Is there a President (or Presidential candidate) ready to step up and make that commitment? And when done with that, ask each of the Democratic candidates whether they are prepared to abandon the military bases being built alongside the Iranian border. (Interesting that no one asked the AKLCS a single question about them.)</p>

57

<p>Now them’s some sobering numbers, Mini. </p>

<p>Poor kids. Poor grandkids. What a mess we are saddling our young people with for generations.</p>

58

<p>“The US was the one that decided to not trade with Iraq (because he was a menace), not the other way around.”</p>

<p>But, you when? After Kuwait? GB1. yes? Also do you think that was forever? I think we have reopened trade before too long as sadam was giving oil vouchers to at least 3 american oil businesses to lobby on his behalf (food for oil) We would have reopend trade within five years. The problem for us, was the soviets and chinese weren’t going to wait him out. If he had a market, he didn’t need American oversight. </p>

<p>"The UN??? You’re kidding right? "</p>

<p>nope, not kidding at all. While it is great to beat our chest and shout we’re #1, we shouldn’t be in this case. We should be shouting we’re part of a multinational task force. As far as how well the un would work or wouldn’t work, how’s the surge going? It’s not been a perfect show for us either. </p>

<p>“Just about any of them, but Venezuela would have been far easier to knock off and made more sense from a US perspective given its proximity.”</p>

<p>Here’s the rub though with this thought process, Venezuela would have to actually do something against the US besides make fun of the president, or is that enough? </p>

<p>Again the moral issue of are we defenders or aggressors? Afganistan defenders, Iraq aggressors (crusaders to the muslim world). </p>

<p>“the morals associated with abandoning a country to devolve into a bloodbath. Where is the morality in that?” </p>

<p>Well, it certainly is siffy clean right now isn’t it? We created the vaccum, We need to leave. If you are worried about the blood if we leave, why aren’t you worried about the blood if we stay? Maybe if we let the UN handle it both our concerns would be answered. </p>

<p>I don’t pretend to be moral at all. thank you very much :wink: However, I can ask the question can’t I?</p>

59

<p>Opie, you certainly are in the right party - the party of “should”. Yes, the UN should do such and such, but the reality is they don’t. All people of the world should get along, but the don’t. There shouldn’t be evil incarnate as in Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam and bin Laden, but there is. Unfortunately, at times, reality has to take over.</p>

60

<p>“Yes, the UN should do such and such, but the reality is they don’t.”</p>

<p>All we gotta do is ask and set a timeline for our withdrawal. </p>

<p>It’s not really fair to slam the UN’s military operations and not recognize our failings in this situation. We haven’t been all peaches and cream in our peaceful occupation… ;)</p>

<p>Actually, thank you. I do like the party of the “should”…and… starting with Junior, “should” have thought this out a little better. He “should” have heeded his father’s advice and view of the situation. </p>

<p>Kinda tough to assign a traditional party to me huh? I like the dad, think history will look back greatly at dad in that time of crisis, but I think the son is a boob… go figure eh?</p>