Rekna

Alan Greenspan, lieflong Republican and former Fed chairman, considered one of the wisest men around has released a new book. This book is not nice to the Bush administration at all. Here are a few important excerpts:

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows -- the Iraq war is largely about oil,"


"The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan wrote. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

"Clinton was often criticized for inconsistency and for a tendency to take all sides in a debate, but that was never true about his economic policy," he wrote. "A consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth became a hallmark of his presidency."


There are many more excepts that you can find online with a quick google search. It is clear that Greenspan, like much of America, thinks Bush is/was a disaster. I believe Greenspan is probably one of the smartest guys in Washington and the fact that he is saying things like this is telling.

When ever anyone has said the Iraq war was for oil they have been called a looney leftwing nutt. Does this make Greenspan a looney liberal or is there some merit to what he is saying?

What do you think of yet another beltway boy against Bush? What do you think about Greenspan's comments?

Shauk

my question is, why did he wait until bush is on his way out of office to say anything? why don't people have a spine to say these things when it's most RELEVANT. aka 8 fucking years ago.

I could care less "who" is saying it. it's "when" that matters to me.
the damage is already done.

Willravel

Greenspan is a bandwagon jumping coward. Shauk is right. He should have said this like 8 years ago when it would have made a damn bit of difference. Now it's just white noise with all the other fair-weather Neocons.

aceventura3

Many hold the view that the war in Iraq, generally is about long-term stability in the ME. The reason that long-term stability in the ME is important is due to our economic interests in the region. The free flow and trade in oil is in our economic interests. If we had no economic interests in the region, we would not be spending billions and American lives in the region nor would we have done so in the past.

The "looney liberal" part comes from those who make fun of those who hold the position that the Iraq war was only for the benefit of Bush's oil buddies or Haliburton.

There is a difference between the two positions.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

tecoyah

There is a difference without a doubt, but there are many ties as well. While it is unlikely we will ever know the extent of those ties, the secrecy of this administration literally forces the thinking mind to consider how deeply it goes. By keeping everyone in the dark (you included) we cannot actually know what the rational is, and so fall to personal interpretation of intent.
While you seem to have trust in the motives, and accept the costs in life and economics...many of us do not. This leads to fundamental disagreement on the entire issue, and is very helpful to those who want to see both sides. Believe it or not I do understand your position, I just don't agree with it.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

dc_dux

I dont think many outside of the small core of neo-cons around Bush held the pre-war view (or believe today) that long-term stability in the ME was, or can ever be, achievable by invasion and occupation by a western power.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Elphaba

During the runup to the 2000 election, I was only half joking when I said "Greenspan for President." I gave him credit for guiding the economy out of a recession and having the stones to speak out about hard truths. His warning that "irrational" enthusiasm in the tech stocks could not be sustained was born out.

Where was he during this last administration in speaking out against reckless economic practices? As I recall, he was silent in our increasing war debt and opined that the bursting of a housing "bubble" would not have significant consequences. Both were serious mischaracterizations that I believe were driven by political considerations. His successor appears to have fallen into line, as well.

Greenspan's book strikes me as an attempt to polish his reputation by attributing blame elsewhere, much like George Tenant has done in his book. Both men have done great harm to our country and will likely never be held accountable for their actions or inaction.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

aceventura3

Your assessment is true if the events leading to the war and occupation of Iraq and the history of the region were as simple as a western power just deciding to invade and occupy Iraq. Your assessment is incomplete.

Are you suggesting that if we took no military action against Iraq that you know what would have happened if we had not?

I know why I supported military action to remove Saddam from power, and my views match the views of the Bush administration. I think (speculation) that the alternative, of taking no action, would have been more costly in terms of life and money.

I admit to not knowing what might of happened and I admit that the course of action may have been the wrong course of action, all I know is that you make the best decisions you can make at the time with the information available. I am not sure how others pretend that the decision of no action would have been a morally superior one or would have cost fewer lives and less cost. How do you know that, or are you speculating? And if you are speculating, why is it so difficult to admit that you may be wrong and Bush may be right?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Rekna

What would Saddam have done to us if we hadn't invaded? How was he a threat to us?

If you are finally worried about Iraqi lives you should note that it is estimated that over a million Iraqi's have died because of the Iraq war, far more than would have died under Saddam.

aceventura3

It is hard to say what might have happened, I don't know. What I do know is what he did while in power, and his defiance to UN mandates. Both were unacceptable in my opinion.

How many deaths is Saddam responsible for? How many would he have been willing to kill? I don't know. However, I don't think we are responsible for deaths of all the Iraqis who have died. The people who have murdered innocent people are responsible for the people they have murdered. Even if what we did is considered wrong, that does not justify the actions of terrorists. Our military has done the best they can to minimize civilian casualties.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Rekna

Our negligence has lead to their deaths indirectly. Regardless of who killed who there we must bear some of the guilt.

Willravel

I appreciate what you wrote in the first sentence, but I wonder, would you care to postulate?
I think the question is to the initial invasion and the results of that. Had we not invaded, there's no reason to believe that the Hussein regime would have shifted their tactics. So, assuming that the tactics stayed the same, we may very well have seen a few hundred to at most a few thousand deaths in the last 4-5 years. Compare that to even the most conservative current estimates, maybe around 100,000. I'd say that's rather one sided. As has been said, anyone could have seen that we wouldn't be welcomed with open arms, and we would not have been able to replace the republican guard's ability to keep the peace. So it stands to reason that sectarian violence would break out.

BTW, insurgents aren't the same as terrorists.

ottopilot

edit

aceventura3

No.

If Saddam had no intent to develop WMD why was he being so defiant relative to inspections? What were his plans for the oil for food money he was diverting? Would he have continued his practice of paying families of suicide bombers, if so why? Do you think he still had interest in Kuwait? Had he and Iran settled their differences? Would he have attacked Israel? What would have been the world response to an attack of Kuwait, Israel or Iran? These questions are just a few of the many possibilities.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

I'm only reiterating the question above. In refusing, you're admitting that you have no reason to think that we our our allies would have been in any danger from Saddam. If you believed otherwise, I suspect you'd say something.
The UN inspectors had been coming in for years and he was livid about them coming in when they pleased. Even though He was stomped in Desert Storm, Saddam still had the god complex common in royalty and individuals with great power. He wanted to run his country the way he saw fit, and didn't like one bit he had to submit to the UN at their whim. He begrudgingly allowed the UN inspectors in often, but it built up and he finally said no.
Judging by his dwindling personal fortune and lifestyle he was accustomed to, I suspect that instead of weapons, he was going to invest in both infrastructure and his own personal possessions and homes.
Hard to say. It's possible, but I suspect that someone would have shut off his ability to pay the families. Iraq would have backed down had Israel made any real threats.
Everyone had and has interest in Kuwait. They have oil. He wouldn't have invaded again, though, if that's what you're asking. He lost very hard during desert storm.
Not likely. Saddam hated the Iranians almost as much as he hated Osama. Saddam didn't have the military capability to attack Israel. I suspect that even if Iraq and Iran and Syria and Jordan and Lebanon were to combine forces, they still wouldn't stand a chance. Iraq's military was still in shambles in 2002. Iran has the second strongest military in the ME, but they would never attack Israel outright because Israel would nuke Tehran without breaking a sweat. Israel is terrorist state with nuclear weapons, after all.
Iraq would have been defeated yet again, and Saddam wouldn't have been able to stay in power. Sectarian violence would have erupted and you'd end up in a situation not dissimilar from what we have today, minus US troops. The UN would move in with peacekeeping forces and Iraq would be occupied by a huge, multinational force. Not sure what would happen next. I suspect benchmarks for an Iraqi government would be set, and when they weren't met, the UN would start to pull out.

ottopilot

edit

aceventura3

Wrong. Just running out of steam on this issue. I bet many here thought it would never happen.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Sticky

That was on topic.

What should one do?
Respond to the comment and case the thread to sidetrack and focus around Israel like so many other threads on this board?
Ignore it.

For now I will just identify it and think about whether or not to come back to it.

As far as Greenspan is concerned I guess we have to read the book to see what he says about his motives and actions.
What is interesting is, however, is that he was arguably the most powerful man in the world due to the economic impact of anything he did. People hung on his every word, acted in certain manners based on what they perceived he said. If he sneezed the market would move.
Who knows what he really did? Did he act selfishly or benevolantly, in the interests of his country or at the behest of its leaders.
Will we ever understand his impact (that he did or did not have)?

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Willravel

In context of addressing Ace's post about Iraq, it sure was. If we're talking about why we went into Iraq, it's not unreasonable to postulate about what might have happened had we not invaded. Had we not invaded, and had Iraq decided to go after Israel, nuclear weapons could have been used. In identifying why nuclear weapons might be used, I had to qualify my opinion of the Israeli government. It wasn't on topic itself, but it was addressing something that was on topic. It's up to you to decide whether or not you think it's a threadjack or what have you, but I don't see it as being that off topic.