Posted on 09/15/2007 4:21:02 PM PDT by freespirited
Greenspan a Republican ....my foot
That's a good point, because as everyone knows, once we ousted Saddam Hussein, Israel became perfectly secure. Iraq was not only Israel's main enemy but its only enemy. That's why it's totally true that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was primarily about Israel.
I have noticed how Greenspan keeps talking to the media, despite having left the Fed. Exactly like Bill Clinton, whose 15 minutes never ends.
and to think this moonbat was in that position of power...scary.
What would one expect when married to a loon. Folks married are of like minds. Otherwise, the marriage is pretty much toast.
I think there's a certain stripe of elite person who finds it almost irresistible to say things like "this was about oil", because they think it will make them sound smart.
I think most people got this idea from that '70s movie Three Days of the Condor. Robert Redford totally sounded smart when he said it in that movie. It's fun to be smart and worldly-wise about stuff, like Robert Redford was in that movie.
Greenspan, along with certain other conservatives would rather we had lobbed a few cruise missiles at Afghanistan and pretended everything was okay so the President could focus on the domestic agenda. The war on Terrorism is just a distraction to them...one they would rather ignore.
Yes Mr. Greenspan, oil is a huge factor. Oil is money which is used by the jihadis to buy weapons and finance terror. If oil was worthless then islam would have no money and would be no threat.
yep
When did Alan Greenspan become a card carrying member of MoveOn.org?
I always thought the guy was an idiot !!
Now I know I was right !!
The Senile MoneyMan .....making $$$$$ so Mrs. Pot-Hole-Face can finally retire !!
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH30Ak04.html
It would seem that Israel warned against an invasion or Iraq arguing that the US should focus on Iran which they rightfully viewed as a much greater threat to global and ME security.
I didn't say it was primarily about Israel. I said it was more about Israel than it was about oil.
Are you saying it was more about oil?
It was mainly about removing Saddam, who was a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East, for a number of reasons. One of these reasons was his assistance to Palestinian terrorists.
Are you saying he wasn't funding the Palestinian homicide bombers?
President Bush and Secretary of State Powell were at the time trying to come up with a solution to the terrorist war against Israel. For this reason, I think that this was among the numerous reasons they decided Saddam had to be removed.
It absolutely drives me nuts that you cannot discuss things on this forum without people attaching the worst possible interpretation or motive to what one says, and completely overreacting.
What it really boils down to is that I don't buy what Greenspan is saying; it wasn't "all about oil." Oil was a factor, but not the primary one.
That’s a good point. For all their posturing (with the possible exception of Turkey, which has been somewhat friendly with Israel), those countries do trust Israel more than the Arab dictators in the region. And they should! Israel is the only stable democracy in the Middle East.
Exactly. If it was “all about oil,” we would be ruling Iraq with an iron fist, and extracting the oil for ourselves. Instead, we are trying to get the three primary ethnic groups to play nice and share the oil revenue fairly.
Say what you will about Pres. Bush’s global quest for democracy, but he is a true believer.
Anyone remember the No Fly Zones? We did that for 12 years. How long were we supposed to do that?
Sure. Yes, I do indeed think that (to the extent that it was "about" either) it was more "about" oil than "about" Israel.
It was mainly about removing Saddam, who was a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East, for a number of reasons. One of these reasons was his assistance to Palestinian terrorists. Are you saying he wasn't funding the Palestinian homicide bombers?
I don't dispute that he was funding them. I do dispute that this fact should rank all that highly on the list of ways in which Saddam represented a threat to peace and stability on the Middle East.
President Bush and Secretary of State Powell were at the time trying to come up with a solution to the terrorist war against Israel. For this reason, I think that this was among the numerous reasons they decided Saddam had to be removed.
Among the numerous reasons, sure, I guess.
It absolutely drives me nuts that you cannot discuss things on this forum without people attaching the worst possible interpretation or motive to what one says, and completely overreacting.
I didn't make that other comment. I do think it is profoundly silly, and borderline harmful, to characterize the U.S. invasion of Iraq as having been "about Israel" in any significant or meaningful way. And so I don't think I overreacted.
Why? Why should we be ashamed to say that we want to protect our only real ally in the Middle East? I'm tired of the European/U.N. relativist view which says that Israel is no different, or is worse, than the other countries in the Middle East.
Exactly! Greenspan is pouring fuel on the fires of leftists and Islamo-fascists who make the preposterous claim that the US is out for the oil of the “Arab world” and that the Iraq War is all about “blood for oil”..... but the fundamental issue has nothing to do with the US wanting to “take” anyone’s oil, it’s that as the sole superpower of the world we need to (1) deny the power of oil and money to a rogue regime like Saddam’s that was using it to fund terrorism and WOULD be re-constructing his WMD programs with it (whether or not the CIA was right that he already was doing so); (2) maintain as much stability as feasible in world energy and financial markets, which directly affects the well-being and very EMPLOYMENT of countless millions in the USA.
When we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait we did not then help ourselves the the entire oil and gas supply, we merely made sure that it was protected and allowed to be offered on the international markets without funding Saddam’s war and terror machine.
Unfortunately, we really need to do the same to Iran and Saudi Arabia, remove their evil regimes from exploiting the funding of petrodollars for activities dangerous to humanity and civilization..... but most people in the west prefer ostrich-style passivity over such dangerous and controversial actions.
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.