Iraq was about oil: Alan Greenspan

[BIG BWACULL]

Yeah howard looks fine to me nothing wrong with his eyebrows

 

[Joe Blow]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.