# Iraq was about oil: Alan Greenspan



## numbercruncher (16 September 2007)

> AP - Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, in his new book, says the US went to war in Iraq motivated largely by oil.
> 
> Greenspan said: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
> 
> Greenspan's book also criticises President George W Bush for not responsibly handling the nation's spending and racking up big budget deficits.




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=66363


There you have it proof that Johnny big brows sent young Australians off to risk there lives in the name of "oil security" - After upto 1 million deaths and countless million more refugees there is still no oil security.

I remember reading a story that the Trillion dollars Dubbya has wasted pursuing this black Gold could of financed renewables for virtually the whole planet.

What a disgrace.


----------



## Nyden (16 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=66363
> 
> 
> There you have it proof that Johnny big brows sent young Australians off to risk there lives in the name of "oil security" - After upto 1 million deaths and countless million more refugees there is still no oil security.
> ...





Where? Where's the proof? 

Furthermore, what's with the attacks on Howard's appearance? I think he's a good man, should his eye brows matter? Someone's obviously scraping the bottom of the barrel in their little Pro-Labour Campaign, 

*Hypothetically*, even if the war was purely motivated by oil - what difference does that make? Intentions aside, I believe the eventual outcome of this war will be positive, oil or no oil.

For the entire planet? A trillion dollars? I sincerely doubt that.


----------



## Prospector (16 September 2007)

Nyden said:


> Where? Where's the proof?
> 
> *Hypothetically*, even if the war was purely motivated by oil - what difference does that make? Intentions aside, I believe the eventual outcome of this war will be positive, oil or no oil.




Um, it makes the world of difference. This war was supposed to be about Weapons of mass destruction and the War on Terror.  Nothing else, although only fools believed that!


----------



## numbercruncher (16 September 2007)

Hello Nyden,


Actually my mistake it was for the US a Trillion would of made them green.


How can the eventual outcome be positive, the US is already about 1 trillion in the hole from it, there economy gets worse by the day. Upto a Million people dead, and countless millions more are refugees, Syrias population has swollen 30pc and forced them to close there border as an example.

The battle front should of always been Afghanistan, now Afghanistan is still over run by Taliban and others and Billions of dollars of Opium still grown.

If it cost 1 trillion to "Liberate" Iraq, how much will it cost to rebuild, several times more i imagine, but none the less Dubbya can still get to drive his SUV and put the war on Global warming on hold.


----------



## Kathmandu (16 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Upto a Million people dead, and countless millions more are refugees, .




Where did you get that number from?

You're just making thing's up.

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Dave


----------



## Nyden (16 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Hello Nyden,
> 
> 
> Actually my mistake it was for the US a Trillion would of made them green.
> ...





Ah, OK - Yes, I thought 1 trillion for the *world* was a bit paltry! :

Well, we can't look at the war from a purely economical standpoint, there is the moral side. Yes, I do agree that the war could have been handled better; but, we can say that about everything - that's the thing about hindsight.

Well, if the country is one day liberated, & stable - would you not agree, that would be a positive outcome?


Prospector;
2 Scenarios here - The first, the government actually believed that was so; based on inaccurate intelligence. You said so yourself - only fools would believe that, we are talking about politicians here, aren't we?

The second, they flat out lied. I find that a little too _conspiracy theory_ for my tastes.

Many nations are still involved in this war (at least, I believe!), which means - many still believe it's a just cause.


----------



## numbercruncher (16 September 2007)

Kathmandu said:


> Where did you get that number from?
> 
> http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
> 
> Dave




Im saying upto 1 million and i beleive the people working these figures do it on all deaths related to the war rather than deaths by bomb and bullet ie/ no access to health care now etc.

Plenty to find if you google " 1 million dead iraq war "



> THE number of deaths in Iraq since the start of the conflict could be as high as one million, it was claimed yesterday.
> 
> On the fourth anniversary of the invasion by Allied troops, an Australian scientist insisted the true death toll dwarfed previous estimates.
> 
> ...




http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=deaths-in-iraq-have-reached-1-million&method=full&objectid=18775387&siteid=66633-name_page.html


Dont worry i used to be brainwashed by the media that the Iraq war was justified, but after doing my own research the evidence is just completely over whelming.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (16 September 2007)

Kathmandu said:


> Where did you get that number from?
> 
> http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
> 
> ...




Thats the wests version Now heres the other version
and that was in 2006 
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/Archive/Archive?ArchiveID=38013


----------



## Kathmandu (16 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Dont worry i used to be brainwashed by the media that the Iraq war was justified, but after doing my own research the evidence is just completely over whelming.





Of course you could'nt be implying that  I was brainwashed, as I NEVER thought the war on Iraq was justified.

Dave


----------



## numbercruncher (16 September 2007)

Nyden said:


> Many nations are still involved in this war (at least, I believe!), which means - many still believe it's a just cause.




I think most other countries Invovled now know that the whole thing was based on lies , corruption and fake intelligence even though they dont publicly admit it.

And the reason they stay is not so much the just cause but the Moral responsibility and obligation of helping Iraq rebuild there shattered country after totally anhilating it.

As evil as Saddam was they should of just assassinated him instead of systematically closing down the whole country, disbanding the entire Iraqi military was pathetic if the whole intention was to quickly hand back sovereignty to a new Government.

America has now been in Iraq longer than it was in WW2.


----------



## numbercruncher (16 September 2007)

Kathmandu said:


> Of course you could'nt be implying that  I was brainwashed, as I NEVER thought the war on Iraq was justified.
> 
> Dave




No sorry Dave I certainly wasnt doing that, I was genuinely saying that I swallowed hook line and sinker all the Info regarding the Iraq war and it wasnt till I educated myself that I realised.

Im quite embarassed about beleiving it all, im usually sceptical on such things but im not alone in the boat I dont think.


----------



## Kathmandu (16 September 2007)

BIG BWACULL said:


> Thats the wests version Now heres the other version
> and that was in 2006
> http://english.aljazeera.net/English/Archive/Archive?ArchiveID=38013




Die for oil sucker 

http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Downloads/421.aspx

Even better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlKRdEujAR4

Dave


----------



## Julia (16 September 2007)

Nyden said:


> Furthermore, what's with the attacks on Howard's appearance? I think he's a good man, should his eye brows matter? Someone's obviously scraping the bottom of the barrel in their little Pro-Labour Campaign,




I second this comment.  No need whatever to make comments about anyone's appearance.  It has no relevance and you should be able to support your argument without such remarks.


----------



## disarray (16 September 2007)

i don't see why this is such a big surprise. anyone who didn't know the iraq war was largely about oil are deluding themselves as to the nature of government and the elite. this has been happening since the dawn of time, its not like avarice, hypocrisy and expediency are new to 21st century politics or anything.

the public motives for afghanistan were good - the taliban are oppressive psychos who harbour our enemies. however iraq 2 (juniors sequal), even though they did have WMD's, was blatantly about energy and supply / rebuilding contracts, dangled like carrots in front of contractors from the "coalition of the willing to make money".

p.s. the majority of iraqi deaths were perpetrated by muslim arabs as part of the secular conflict. blaming the west for these deaths is rubbish.


----------



## numbercruncher (16 September 2007)

Julia said:


> I second this comment.  No need whatever to make comments about anyone's appearance.  It has no relevance and you should be able to support your argument without such remarks.




It refers to much more than the physical appearnce of these bushy brows and refers to the fact that his vision has been impared by these woppers and he fails to see the real world around him.


Johnny has lost touch with average Australians and Costello was never in touch with average Australians. May they be banished to the history books as a long gone era.


----------



## numbercruncher (16 September 2007)

disarray said:


> p.s. the majority of iraqi deaths were perpetrated by muslim arabs as part of the secular conflict. blaming the west for these deaths is rubbish.




Very good point disarray probably should of been mentioned earlier on. But it could also be argued that this ethnic conflict could not of begun prior to the invasion.

It adds to the argument of the Wests moral obligation to stay and help restore security until the Iraqi's requests them to leave.


----------



## Nyden (16 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Johnny has lost touch with average Australians and Costello was never in touch with average Australians.




At least cite the source for that quote, it was pretty much taken straight from Rudd's campaign


And I think it was a rather silly remark of Rudd to make, let's face it - average Australians aren't even in touch with "Average" Australians. No such thing really, everyone wants something different.


----------



## BradK (16 September 2007)

Iraq war was about Oil? No **** sherlock


----------



## reece55 (16 September 2007)

Nyden said:


> At least cite the source for that quote, it was pretty much taken straight from Rudd's campaign
> 
> 
> And I think it was a rather silly remark of Rudd to make, let's face it - average Australians aren't even in touch with "Average" Australians. No such thing really, everyone wants something different.




Wow guys, I knew that Howard amended his bio on wikipedia, but now he is infecting ASF........ HAHAHAHA LOL.

Whilst personally I'm not a Howard fan because clearly it is time he retired and took up power walking as a profession, I think we have a lack of any representation in parliament at present that ordinary people could identify with, let alone just Johnny. Personally, I think if you ask most people below the age of 30 how they feel about politics, they would admit they just ignore it. If you ask me we should get a few younger people involved - god am I sick of old values being portrayed as what we are about - no wonder we have a tax act that was written in 1936 that is still used as legislation!

Cheers


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 September 2007)

Julia said:


> I second this comment.  No need whatever to make comments about anyone's appearance.  It has no relevance and you should be able to support your argument without such remarks.



Absolutely agreed. I'm not a supporter of Howard (though I'm unconvinced that Labor would do any better) but his eyebrows, height, weight, hair colour / style etc is completely irrelevant in any discussion over his political views.

Howard's eyes are no more an issue relevant to the public than Kim Beazley being overweight or Bob Brown being gay.

As for the Iraq / oil issue, just wait until the stuff gets physically scarce or the US finds itself as the next country priced out of the market. We ain't seen nothin' yet...


----------



## BIG BWACULL (16 September 2007)

Yeah howard looks fine to me nothing wrong with his eyebrows


----------



## Joe Blow (16 September 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Absolutely agreed. I'm not a supporter of Howard (though I'm unconvinced that Labor would do any better) but his eyebrows, height, weight, hair colour / style etc is completely irrelevant in any discussion over his political views.
> 
> Howard's eyes are no more an issue relevant to the public than Kim Beazley being overweight or Bob Brown being gay.






Julia said:


> I second this comment.  No need whatever to make comments about anyone's appearance.  It has no relevance and you should be able to support your argument without such remarks.




Yes, I agree too. Lets focus on someone's policies/views and not on their physical appearance.

This is an adult forum, lets not resort to puerile schoolyard tactics.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 September 2007)

Prospector said:


> Um, it makes the world of difference. This war was supposed to be about Weapons of mass destruction and the War on Terror.  Nothing else, although only fools believed that!




War is war and the reasons are never clear for beginning one.

This one appears to have been about revenge for 9/11, a dislike of Hussein, security of the oil supply and a need for the western nations to make a statement of the superiority of enlightened thought/life. 

I don't personally have any problems with those reasons.

Politicians are unable in the present media/political climate to articulate what they feel, so Dubya or Johnny's stated reasons are immaterial.

Garpal


----------



## BHP (16 September 2007)

It wasn't about oil, it was about defending the American dollar which is underpinned by oil!

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/petrov/2006/0120.html


----------



## Kathmandu (16 September 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> War is war and the reasons are never clear for beginning one.
> 
> This one appears to have been about revenge for 9/11, a dislike of Hussein, security of the oil supply and a need for the western nations to make a statement of the superiority of enlightened thought/life.
> 
> ...




Gee and here was me thinking it was a continuation of what evil GW 1 started in 1990 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush#Gulf_War

Nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks in 2001, although a handy excuse at the time.

Dave


----------



## Julia (16 September 2007)

Agreed that the basis of the Iraq war was flawed, whether this flaw emanated from faulty intelligence or the personal motives of GWB to finish what his father had failed to complete.

How likely is it, though, that the basic reason - never mind the excuses - for the war was to ensure a controlling base in the region?  Had it not all gone so horribly wrong, wouldn't it have been a great benefit to America and her allies to have a country 'in her pocket' in the form of a docile, democratic Iraq?


----------



## Stan 101 (16 September 2007)

Julia said:


> wouldn't it have been a great benefit to America and her allies to have a country 'in her pocket' in the form of a docile, democratic Iraq?



They had a docile country in their pocket in iraq for many years till Sadam started thinking for himself. When he wasn't needed anymore, America terminated him..That's overly simplified, but that's what happened.

As for GWB, he even made a statement that he wanted to attack Iraq because Saddam "tried to kill my daddy."... That one's on public record..

And meanwhile places like Zimbabwe and Sudan continue to suffer..
They have nothing to offer America... Humanity is not in America's intensions. They've made that clear with their actions and words. More importantlay, they've proved that with their inaction..

Soapbox now being dismantled..


Cheers,


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> It refers to much more than the physical appearnce of these bushy brows and refers to the fact that his vision has been impared by these woppers and he fails to see the real world around him.
> 
> 
> Johnny has lost touch with average Australians and Costello was never in touch with average Australians. May they be banished to the history books as a long gone era.




You are totally wrong to pick on his apearance. 

Are you a Labour party member?


----------



## numbercruncher (16 September 2007)

ok ok ok enough already.

I apologise for picking on Johnnys eye brows, I seriously didnt even consider that it would be an issue for people, but obviously it is off limits.

I put it down to cultural differences as such talk amoungst my peers wouldnt even batter an eye... lid.

If you think im crass you should see the generation after me, whoa your all in for a shock.

No im not in the Labor party, im a swinging voter who like millions of others is at the end of the line with johnnys lies, inaction , lack of direction and last minute policy changes designed to defraud people of there vote.

And i saw John Howard on TV tonight his personal grooming was spot on.

Happy voting


----------



## rederob (16 September 2007)

Stan 101
Sudan "is" about oil - has been for many years now.
Only the US can't get a foothold as China is the dominant foreign national.
Sudan is Africa's 3rd largest oil producer (after Nigeria and Angola), but could be significantly stronger were it not for the internal conflict around Dafur.


----------



## mexican (16 September 2007)

Nyden said:


> Ah, OK - Yes, I thought 1 trillion for the *world* was a bit paltry! :
> 
> Well, we can't look at the war from a purely economical standpoint, there is the moral side. Yes, I do agree that the war could have been handled better; but, we can say that about everything - that's the thing about hindsight.
> 
> ...




Moral side of war???????????????????????????????????
US once again under estimated the enemy. 
Iraq will never become liberated and stable in the next five to ten years.
So we will keep footing the bill until then. Thanks John!
OIL and revenge for DADDY!


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (17 September 2007)

mexican said:


> Moral side of war???????????????????????????????????
> US once again under estimated the enemy.
> Iraq will never become liberated and stable in the next five to ten years.
> So we will keep footing the bill until then. Thanks John!
> OIL and revenge for DADDY!




I don't think it can that simplified considering all of the forces at play. Let's see it for what it is without childish comments. (see red)

I think, Saddam if left in power may have been better for the region. Iran or Iraq who would have been the bigger evil? That could have kept the region under lock and key for a long time. 
But then again why not be in charge of the key?


----------



## mexican (17 September 2007)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> I don't think it can that simplified considering all of the forces at play. Let's see it for what it is without childish comments. (see red)
> 
> I think, Saddam if left in power may have been better for the region. Iran or Iraq who would have been the bigger evil? That could have kept the region under lock and key for a long time.
> But then again why not be in charge of the key?




Childish comment? 
I am just repeating what the  Texas cowboy calls him, Snake!


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 September 2007)

If we weren't so busy wasting the stuff then we wouldn't need to worry about what's supposedly underground in Iraq.

Same with gas in Iran.


----------



## wayneL (17 September 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> If we weren't so busy wasting the stuff then we wouldn't need to worry about what's supposedly underground in Iraq.
> 
> Same with gas in Iran.



Important point. In 50 years humanity will wonder WTF we were thinking.


----------



## theasxgorilla (17 September 2007)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> I don't think it can that simplified considering all of the forces at play. Let's see it for what it is without childish comments. (see red)
> 
> I think, Saddam if left in power may have been better for the region. Iran or Iraq who would have been the bigger evil? That could have kept the region under lock and key for a long time.
> But then again why not be in charge of the key?




http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/27/1032734315453.html

I hear what you're saying Snake, but there is actually a context to this.  Bush (jnr) is on record making the comment, "After all this is the guy who tried to kill my dad".


----------



## arminius (17 September 2007)

is anyone aware of what happened in spain when napoleon invaded 200 yrs ago?

it all went swimmingly for the first few weeks, then the people jacked up and the shyyte hit the fan. 380 000 of europes finest troops were kicked out by 60 000 poms/portuguese AND the locals/guerillas/partidas. the french army was the superpower of the day.

the french would move into a town and fortify themselves, but once they moved on the guerillas would slide back in. the french only controlled the ground they held. french soldiers not in massive formations eg: outposts, patrols, messengers, scouts, small convoys, wounded, stragglers etc were sliced up.

AN INVADING ARMY CANNOT SURVIVE 'IN COUNTRY' IF THE POPULATION OPPOSE IT. 
the writing was on the wall after a month, but they stayed for 4 yrs. hundreds of thousands died, millions in treasure wasted. 

then there was vietnam.

will people never learn.....


----------



## chops_a_must (17 September 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This one appears to have been about revenge for 9/11, a dislike of Hussein, security of the oil supply and *a need for the western nations to make a statement of the superiority of enlightened thought/life*.
> 
> I don't personally have any problems with those reasons.
> 
> Garpal



You're kidding me right? So we show them we're smarter because we start wars? Is that why I see Professors duking it out in fatal street fights? 


Joe Blow said:


> Yes, I agree too. Lets focus on someone's policies/views and not on their physical appearance.
> 
> This is an adult forum, lets not resort to puerile schoolyard tactics.



Given his age, I don't think Howard has the _ticker_ to be leader. If he isn't careful, he might well be remembered as Prime Minister Gordon Bennett.


Julia said:


> How likely is it, though, that the basic reason - never mind the excuses - for the war was to ensure a controlling base in the region?  Had it not all gone so horribly wrong, wouldn't it have been a great benefit to America and her allies to have a country 'in her pocket' in the form of a docile, democratic Iraq?



Not really. They already have the Saudis in their pocket and that appears to be one of the rallying points for fundamentalist muslim trevorists. So... no... there was never going to be a winning situation from all of this.

And armi, here is a pic for you, and quite relevant to the Iraq situation:


----------



## Stan 101 (17 September 2007)

rederob said:


> Stan 101
> Sudan "is" about oil - has been for many years now.
> Only the US can't get a foothold as China is the dominant foreign national.
> Sudan is Africa's 3rd largest oil producer (after Nigeria and Angola), but could be significantly stronger were it not for the internal conflict around Dafur.





Exactly, it's not about oil for the US...


----------



## Nyden (17 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> ok ok ok enough already.
> 
> I apologise for picking on Johnnys eye brows, I seriously didnt even consider that it would be an issue for people, but obviously it is off limits.
> 
> ...




See, there's another silly statement numbercruncher. You can't judge & generalize an entire generation, or culture for that matter - based on your peers.

I myself happen to be a rather young lad, (as to which generation are you referring?) & I shouldn't think that people are 'shocked' by me, in any sense.

I'm sorry, I do seem to be picking on you, don't I? I guess I'm just in a mood.


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 September 2007)

arminius said:


> ...
> AN INVADING ARMY CANNOT SURVIVE 'IN COUNTRY' IF THE POPULATION OPPOSE IT.
> the writing was on the wall after a month, but they stayed for 4 yrs. hundreds of thousands died, millions in treasure wasted.
> 
> ...




IMO "learning lessons from the past" has been off the human race's agenda for millenia and is off the current world's political curriculum for the foreseeable future.  

Apart from Vietnam, I can think of just a few of the many major human endeavours involving the use of massive military occupying forces that could not stay the course and who crumbled economically and socially for many, many years afterwards (listed in no particular order)...

- Persian Empire
- Turkish Empire
- Mayan Empire
- Greek Empire
- Egyptian Empire
- Roman Empire
- Spanish Empire
- French Empire
- British Empire
- Gaul Empire
- Japanese Empire (WW2)
- Third Reich (WW2) 
- Russian Empire
etc...etc.....

I wonder what the total "innocent civilians" death toll for all "occupations" over time by one form of "humanity" over another would amount to? Must be in the Billions....

Oh well, that's the price of being civilised beings I guess.

AJ


----------



## Prospector (17 September 2007)

Any of those empires led by a Woman?


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 September 2007)

Prospector said:


> Any of those empires led by a Woman?




Do I detect a smidge of "somewhat justifiable sarcasm"? 

Cheers,

AJ


----------



## chops_a_must (17 September 2007)

Prospector said:


> Any of those empires led by a Woman?



Yes... Cleopatra.

There were a lot of female led allies involved with the Greeks at various times as well. Especially to do with naval engagements.


----------



## Prospector (17 September 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Yes... Cleopatra.




Sure, but Cleopatra was merely defending her right as leader of Egypt from her relatives who thought, because they were male, had more entitlement to rule Egypt.  Defending one's birth right  - that doesn't count!  And on other fronts, she decided to make strategic alliances with those men who were susceptible to her charms!



chops_a_must said:


> There were a lot of female led allies involved with the Greeks at various times as well. Especially to do with naval engagements.




Interesting that History remembers the men and not the women then!  Names?


----------



## greggy (17 September 2007)

Greenspan was just stating the bleeding obvious. Infact, I reckon that he's been a bit slow in saying this when others have been saying this for years.  Perhaps he should stick to economics.


----------



## disarray (17 September 2007)

queen isabella of spain and victoria of england also oversaw empires.

a big problem with civilised nations conducting modern war is the "softly softly" approach to civilians. as recently as world war 2 an army would rock up to a town, slaughter the population (or at least the able bodied part), scorch the earth and move on. very effective at denying guerilla fighters their home territory advantage while also inflicting huge morale hits on the civilian population. terrorism with teeth.

instead now (and there have been some grumblings by american generals about this) the allies can't fire on mosques where the enemy is holed up, or they have extremely strict rules of engagement with regards to where you can and cannot shoot. the enemy knows this and uses it to full advantage. 

in ancient times, empires such as the romans would butcher massive armies then enslave the rest of the population guaranteeing a very docile conquered populace. that is how to conduct wars of conquest. no its not civilised, yes its brutal and, from a modern standpoint morally wrong, but that is the point of war. a country goes to war when diplomacy, civility and morals have failed.

IF you wish to conduct a softly softly war / police action / whatever then you must have civilian authorities, policies and contingencies in place which america did not have. so now they are mired with little option but to keep bleeding or pull out and let the country decend into chaos, increasing the influence of iran, the lure of the fundamentalists and destabilising the entire region.

great. /golfclap american foreign policy.


----------



## Prospector (17 September 2007)

Yes, that Isabella was a tyrant, wasn't she:

_Also in 1492, Isabella was convinced by Christopher Columbus to sponsor his voyage of discovery. The lasting effects of this were many: by the traditions of the time, when Columbus discovered lands in the New World, they were given to Castile. Isabella took a special interest in the Native Americans of the new lands; when some were brought back to Spain as slaves she insisted they be returned and freed, and her will expressed her wish that the "Indians" be treated with justice and fairness. _

I am thinking these days, they would have ended up in Guantanamo!

Of course there have been many female Leaders, but how many of them ruled with unwarranted agression?


----------



## disarray (17 September 2007)

Prospector said:


> Of course there have been many female Leaders, but how many of them ruled with unwarranted agression?




margaret thatcher? depends on your view of the falklands. while i think aggression is far more masculine a trait, aggression is a necessary trait for any leader as people are not easy beasts to lead. whether male or female a leader must be aggressive at times both towards their own people to keep them in line and outsiders to draw boundaries.

it has been hypothised by some anthropologists that for a large part of human history we were a matriarchal (or at least matrifocal) society. fertile women were the most highly prized asset a small group of humans could possess in neolithic societies as evidenced by early art and folklore. whether early matriarchal societies were a golden age of peace remains doubtful as it is in our nature to expand, consume and conquer. 

an interesting theory i read once is that the development of the original greek gods was a masculine revolution over the original female dominated spirituality. women priests oversaw pagan rites (sometimes including human sacrifice) and the men developed the idea of zues etc. to wrest spiritual control from the women. sacrifice victims were also mostly male so they probably got jack of that as well


----------



## Prospector (17 September 2007)

disarray said:


> margaret thatcher? depends on your view of the falklands.




Well, I guess the Falklands belonged to the British at the time, so again, defending one's territory!


----------



## Kimosabi (17 September 2007)

*Iraq was about oil: Alan Greenspan*


----------



## Agentm (17 September 2007)

greenspan has been around long enough to know all about what america is doing and why.. but each time they invade,, they never leave the country with a stable armed force to keep law and order, and chaos or anarchy always follows.. i care more about the deaths than the oil,, the oil funds the australian and US invasion.. that part i cant stomache,, but the US has been leading the world in invasions.. australia is now joining them in an uncomfortable alliance.. the prime directive of the invasion was to secure the oil fields.. nothing else mattered.. once the fields were secured the US announced its successes.. as it had a self funded war from that point on and couldnt see militarily how it could lose.. here we are seeing greenspan talk about iraq in a way that the world sees it.. its no big announcement anyone else didnt understand.. but the deaths of the tens of thousands for the oil is my biggest problem



*Deaths In Other Nations Since WW2 Due To US Interventions *
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/371890.html


----------



## greggy (18 September 2007)

Agentm said:


> greenspan has been around long enough to know all about what america is doing and why.. but each time they invade,, they never leave the country with a stable armed force to keep law and order, and chaos or anarchy always follows.. i care more about the deaths than the oil,, the oil funds the australian and US invasion.. that part i cant stomache,, but the US has been leading the world in invasions.. australia is now joining them in an uncomfortable alliance.. the prime directive of the invasion was to secure the oil fields.. nothing else mattered.. once the fields were secured the US announced its successes.. as it had a self funded war from that point on and couldnt see militarily how it could lose.. here we are seeing greenspan talk about iraq in a way that the world sees it.. its no big announcement anyone else didnt understand.. but the deaths of the tens of thousands for the oil is my biggest problem



The US have totally misjudged the situation in Iraq.  I'm glad that they got rid of Saddam, a ruthless dictator, but Iraq is now a mess.  The US should cut their losses and gradually move out. Lets hope they've learnt a lesson here and tread more carefully before embarking on a similar mission.  Iran no doubt would be a much tougher opponent.


----------



## Agentm (18 September 2007)

greggy said:


> The US have totally misjudged the situation in Iraq. I'm glad that they got rid of Saddam, a ruthless dictator, but Iraq is now a mess. The US should cut their losses and gradually move out. Lets hope they've learnt a lesson here and tread more carefully before embarking on a similar mission. Iran no doubt would be a much tougher opponent.





if the saudi's want the US to invade Iran then so be it, i think the notion that the saddam was a dictator that needed removing was a beat up. 

i think there are dictators in africa / sudan that are in need of serious incinerating, just one well aimed missile would save millions of lives. the world turns its back on africa again.

we dont have balance in the world, and the fantasy world of justice that we see on tv series and movies, should you be the ilk that watches those shows, is not the real world of the US economic machine. it needs the oil, its totally hydrocarbon dependant..  lets hope the saudis dont make the US invade iran. 

i am more concerned with isreal and their plans with syria.. that story is harder to follow as the media has a black out on it,, but it deadly serious there and potentially a state of war in the making.


----------



## greggy (20 September 2007)

Agentm said:


> if the saudi's want the US to invade Iran then so be it, i think the notion that the saddam was a dictator that needed removing was a beat up.
> 
> i think there are dictators in africa / sudan that are in need of serious incinerating, just one well aimed missile would save millions of lives. the world turns its back on africa again.
> 
> ...




Saddam was a brutal dictator that deserved to be removed. He killed many thousands of people who didn't agree with him.  If this wasn't barbaric enough using chemical weapons on his own people (the Kurds) was absolutely disgusting.  No one I know has any sympathy for him. 
I just  feel that the situation in Iraq is now a "no win" situation and that our troops should come home.  The Iraqi people now need to take control of their own destiny. This will be no easy task.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 November 2007)

greggy said:


> Saddam was a brutal dictator that deserved to be removed. He killed many thousands of people who didn't agree with him.  If this wasn't barbaric enough using chemical weapons on his own people (the Kurds) was absolutely disgusting.  No one I know has any sympathy for him.
> I just  feel that the situation in Iraq is now a "no win" situation and that our troops should come home.  The Iraqi people now need to take control of their own destiny. This will be no easy task.




There have been many nasty dictators and the U.S. has not intervened.



> During his time in power *Pol Pot *imposed a version of agrarian collectivization where city dwellers were relocated to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects, also known as restarting civilization back to "Year Zero." *The combined effect of slave labour, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions had an **estimated death toll from 750,000 to 1.7 million*.






> 1972.....*Idi Amin *now challenges Britain and the United States, breaks relations with Israel, and throws his support behind the Palestinian liberation movement. British property in Uganda is appropriated, business relations between the two countries are restricted, and those Britons remaining in Uganda are threatened with expulsion.
> 
> *To secure his regime Amin launches a campaign of persecution against rival tribes and Obote supporters, murdering between* *100,000 and 500,000 (most sources say 300,000). *
> Among those to die are ordinary citizens, former and serving Cabinet ministers, the chief justice, Supreme Court judges, diplomats, academics, educators, prominent Roman Catholic and Anglican clergy, senior bureaucrats, medical practitioners, bankers, tribal leaders, business executives, journalists and a number of foreigners.
> ...




Modern conquest is with greater difficulty as  countries have/are becoming closely connected and the `sensitivity` of nuclear is and will be always there.
Conquest, with all the modern rules of engagement, is near impossible but influence can still be applied.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (12 November 2007)

Yes, Iraq was for oil,... but also to get rid of a mad man.

But take it easy on our soldiers, my mate has just lost an arm a leg and his eyesight in afganistan.


----------



## startrader (13 November 2007)

Well worth watching if you have a spare 45 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1oPEfa9Lws

Cheers!


----------



## tronic72 (15 November 2007)

I put my hand up as being ignorant about them going too war. At the time, given the so-called evidence, I thought it was the right thing to do. But I think it shouldn't have been done without the support of the UN. 

I figured that Saddam should have been removed first time and that a dictator like him was only going to harm the majority of it people. I still do believe that but I now believe that a large reason for the US going to war was oil. 

I makes me sad because imagine if they had spent that money on alternative fuel research I've no doubt both the US, Iraq and the planet would now be much better off. Sadly I don't think the Democrats would have or will do any better.

Finally, leave Howard's eye brows alone! Physical qualities shouldn't have any bearing on who we vote for. Just look at the US and the moron actors they vote for. Lets face it, both Rudd and Howard are both geeks but I'd rather have a nerdy, clever geek running my country than a handsome puppet like bush.

My 2c


----------



## stoxclimber (15 November 2007)

I wasn't aware that the White House consulted the FOMC before making national policy decisions.


Either way, nothing wrong with a bit of blood for oil. It just depends on the exchange rate.


----------



## nizar (15 November 2007)

tronic72 said:


> I'd rather have a nerdy, clever geek running my country than a *handsome* puppet like bush.




    Are you serious ? LOL, you should check out this site.


----------



## Aussiejeff (15 November 2007)

stoxclimber said:


> I wasn't aware that the White House consulted the FOMC before making national policy decisions.
> 
> 
> Either way, *nothing wrong with a bit of blood for oil*. It just depends on the exchange rate.




Hmmm.

It seems in reality, much of the blood being spilt by the US is actually on American home soil...

----------------------------------

*120 US war veteran suicides a week*

From correspondents in New York
November 15, 2007 09:47am

_THE US military is experiencing a "suicide epidemic" with veterans killing themselves at the rate of 120 a week, according to an investigation by US television network CBS.

At least 6256 US veterans committed suicide in 2005 - an average of 17 a day - the network reported, with veterans overall more than twice as likely to take their own lives as the rest of the general population. 

While the suicide rate among the general population was 8.9 per 100,000, the level among veterans was between 18.7 and 20.8 per 100,000. 

That figure rose to 22.9 to 31.9 suicides per 100,000 among veterans aged 20 to 24 - almost four times the non-veteran average for the age group. 

"Those numbers clearly show an epidemic of mental health problems,'' CBS quoted veterans' rights advocate Paul Sullivan as saying._ 

-------------------------------

You can read the full article here:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22762457-5005961,00.html

It's time GWB and his cronies officially came clean on the real cost of this War on Terror. It beggars belief the way his administration is running the US.

AJ


----------



## numbercruncher (15 November 2007)

I remeber hearing/reading the Trillion already spent would of been enough to roll out Green energy across the whole USA, making their need for foreign Oil a fraction of what it is now,  They say another Trillion will be spent before Iraq is finished, Imagine what that could of acheived.

Beggers belief doesnt it .....


----------



## tronic72 (15 November 2007)

nizar said:


> Are you serious ? LOL, you should check out this site.




It's all relative. We talking about very slim pickings and I grading on a curve


----------



## tronic72 (15 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> I remeber hearing/reading the Trillion already spent would of been enough to roll out Green energy across the whole USA, making their need for foreign Oil a fraction of what it is now,  They say another Trillion will be spent before Iraq is finished, Imagine what that could of acheived.
> 
> Beggers belief doesnt it .....





Sure does. It really makes me sad. Just like the current pre-spending by Howard and Rudd.

It makes a good case for politicians to have longer terms so they aren't so short sighted. (Yeah I know that's scary too)


----------



## tradingforwealth (15 November 2007)

Just remember oil is everything, we need oil for transport/producing goods and it would be detrimental to all of us if the oil is not protected, until we find an alternative.  You will find oil is in most of the products we use too.

You can't really blame the US for this, I mean it is helping you out (society) in some way even if you don't realise this.  If oil is not controlled, everything will inflated because the cost of producing and transporting goods would sky rocket! (until we find another alternative that is).  So maybe in a way we do need this to happen until a solution is found.


----------



## Kimosabi (15 November 2007)

tradingforwealth said:


> Just remember oil is everything, we need oil for transport/producing goods and it would be detrimental to all of us if the oil is not protected, until we find an alternative. You will find oil is in most of the products we use too.
> 
> You can't really blame the US for this, I mean it is helping you out (society) in some way even if you don't realise this. If oil is not controlled, everything will inflated because the cost of producing and transporting goods would sky rocket! (until we find another alternative that is). So maybe in a way we do need this to happen until a solution is found.




This is crap, there are a multitude of alternatives to oil but these technologies have been suppressed by the oil companies to keep us enslaved to oil.



Stanley Meyer died a few years ago, but others have now replicated his water fuel cells and the schematics to make your own are floating around the Internet.

There are a number of people who are making more basic Water Fuel Cells for about $100 worth of parts and are getting at least 20% better fuel economy, more power and without having to modify their engines.

The process is very simple, using the surplus energy your car produces, you break the water into hydrogen and oxygen and feed the HHO gas straight into your carbie.  For modern cars the oxygen sensor's need to be deactivated.

To run on pure HHO most engines need to modified.

Basic ingredients to make your own Water Fuel Cells:

PVC Piping
non magnetic Stainless Steel
Distilled Water
Bi-carbonate of Soda


----------



## arminius (15 November 2007)

ABSOLUTE ROT TRADINGFOR WEALTH!

how about ummm buying it from them?. 
oil is more expensive now than pre invasion days. 
if every country dropped bombs each time thay wanted a resource...........


----------



## tradingforwealth (15 November 2007)

You are right but to implement is expensive and in order for this to work is for companies to start using this technology.  It has been tested on cars but what about planes and massive trucks.

Oil is in everything, they tested a normal house and found 90% of the products in the house were made with oil. 

But I don't doubt it will eventually be implemented but it will just take time, ie when they find that oils reserves are really low!


I am not replying to this anymore  as I cannot do anything about it.


----------



## numbercruncher (15 November 2007)

arminius said:


> if every country dropped bombs each time thay wanted a resource...........





Yup exactly, War for oil is Pathetic, especially because there are cost effective alternatives to drive down supply needs.

Imagine how tasty Australia must look to resource poor Countries around the world. Australia could probably bring the world economy to a grinding halt if we refused to sell all that stuff out of the holes in the ground.

Now all those people who think that Blood for Oil is ok, you are bringing the rest of us normal people your bad Karma, If we get invaded for our goodies one day, it is that OK ? same principle isnt it ? always nice to put the shoe on the other foot ...


----------



## numbercruncher (19 November 2007)

> Nearly 2 million Iraqis -- about 8 percent of the prewar population -- have embarked on a desperate migration, mostly to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR2007020301604.html



> A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html


Can John Howard and the Liberal party seriously justify this level of Human suffering ?


----------



## disarray (19 November 2007)

the majority of civilian deaths are caused by other arabs, and is not the fault of coalition forces.

once again because people keep bringing up the bodycount of iraqi civilians - most civilian deaths are being caused by arabs fighting amongst themselves, and not by the coalition forces.

on the plus side, the war in iraq appears to be turning in the coalitions favour. previous hotspots like ramadhi and fallujah have quietened down considerably as local insurgency forces get sick of al-quada and other foreign jihadis coming in, telling everyone how to live their lives (hint: it involves psycho sharia law) and blowing people up in markets, playgrounds and government offices.

added to this the fact that jihadis have been pouring into iraq for years only to get slaughtered by the coalition, while a resurgent taliban is competing for the same pool of jihadis means iraq means less fighters running around causing headaches for coalition forces.


----------



## robert toms (19 November 2007)

Saddam was responsible for security when he was in power...the Coalition so wanted to take over from him that they killed thousands.Now they are responsible for security... whether it be Sunni  against Shia against Kurd or whatever,or Tigris tarts versus Euphrates eunuchs ...what you will.
Or maybe it is only the oil that matters?
Invading forces take on the role of security etc etc etc.!


----------

