Posted on 09/15/2007 4:21:02 PM PDT by freespirited
what happens when we take musicians too seriously.
The war was partially to keep oil out of the hands of Al Queda. I’ve acknowledged that to lefties and it leaves them speechless... for a minute, that is. I also give them my theory about holding Iraq as a wedge between the east Arab world and the west Arab world and slowing down money passing from person to person (Muslims don’t believe in banks because they charge interest, contrary to the Koran). They again look at me blankly and then go on about how the war was a conspiracy. Nothing will convince them. They just repeat their talking points.
when someone makes a nutjob “it was for oil” statement, what they really mean is “profits are EEEEEVIL” if it is for oil.
When the citizens are crying for heat in the winter and gas for the cars to get around. The dems win in so many ways.
They get the power to control every thing and do it while implementing their version of liberal heaven on earth.
The liberals' version of heaven is the paradigm built during the Great Depression. Everything they do now is a throwback to that era, to which they long to return. Freedom, principle, the nation are all irrelevant; absolute power is everything.
The point is, oil production in Iraq has been minimal. We had hoped Iraq would be able to pay for it’s own reconstruction, and the costs of the war. The oil didn’t flow and we have been footing the bills.
That’s why it’s preposterous to claim we did this solely for oil. What proof of that is there, whatsoever?
Look, on general principles, we did step in to stabalize the area, but that was more centered on stopping terrorism than securing the oil fields.
Oil is of prime importance, but not when your nation is being destroyed by terrorists in the short term.
The claim that we went in for oil is a canard lofted by the lefts team to trash Bush et all and the big oil companies. It’s our boy’s blood for oil... Bull s—t!
It’s our boy’s blood to spare the blood of other citizens.
“Freedom, principle, the nation are all irrelevant; absolute power is everything”
Yes, that is why I posted what I did.
Truman ws a Democrat the same as the people who write the History books and teach the classes.
"Gross, 63, is one of those investment figures whose every utterance is quoted and parsed for meaning. As manager of storied $103 billion (assets) Pimco Total Return, the world's largest bond fund, he has a long history of beating the Lehman Brothers (nyse: LEH) Aggregate Bond Index, the benchmark of the fixed-income set. He hired Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, as a Pimco consultant in May 2007, and Wall Street greeted the event as an alliance of godlike figures."
yitbos
LLS
“Ulimately it is about preventing a future war with a nuclear armed united islamo facist empire, a war we could lose.”
Having a war, not having a war, driving a car, going work would not / will not happen without oil.
Think “Fred Flintstone”.
“spreading democracy” - strategy to pre-empt dangerous totalitarian dictators.
“wmd” - can’t be produced in those parts without either said totalitarian dictators and a lot of oil money.
_______________________________________________
Both points are moot. Nothing happens without oil.
Nothing.
Unless we (the world) feel like “going camping” until the next energy source pops into existence....everything revolves around oil.
It could be harmful because it feeds a lunatic, anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
Why should we be ashamed to say that we want to protect our only real ally in the Middle East?
We shouldn't but that is a really weird interpretation of the events in question. To be clear here: Iraq was neither the main enemy of Israel nor a comparatively serious threat to Israel at the time. Israel was, and is, threatened far more by Syria directly (and through Lebanon), and by Iran indirectly, than by Iraq. If Protecting Israel had really been a major motive of ours, "Let's invade Iraq!" was simply not a very good or efficient way of going about it. It's just a weird thing to say. Country A invades Country B and you say it's about Country Z. Weird.
Unless you have real evidence, of course. But failing that, all you end up doing is feeding a lunatic, anti-Semitic conspiracy theory - and anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists have no problem whatsoever believing weird things.
His motivtion is quite simple and transparent.
IF (and thats a big IF) he felt this way for years... he could have said something... but he didn’t.
You think its an ‘accident’ that he turns up the rehetoric just as he releases his new book?
BAM... a few hundred thousand dollars in free publicity. I see an hour on CBS’s 20/20 in his future.
And this was determined by?..... editorial "reporting".
Time's Graham Paterson is a hack
_________________________________________
Not at all. It was about giving us a land presence in the region that we control so that we would not need to beg permission from the Saudis or the Tutks next time we need to exert power. Why this region instead of Central Africa or Peru or Thailand? Oil, oil for the next three generations.
While we 'support' Israel much of our concern gor them isdue to their location as a powerful ally. If Israel were situated next to Morocco we would not be so vehement in our support.
I never understood how Greenspan had so much cache, he seemed like a political hack to me, especially after I read about his letter defending Lincoln Savings and Loan's solidity in the 1980s, shortly before it failed. To me, he was a Paul Volcker wanna-be.
For Greenspan to say the war was for oil is meaningless. It's like saying the Civil War was about cotton.
That’s very true. Another one of the reasons was to have somewhere to put our troops so we could withdraw from Saudi Arabia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.