Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-01-2007, 05:11 PM
 
261 posts, read 620,559 times
Reputation: 121

Advertisements

Alan Greenspan released his book -Age Of Turbulence- last month. Greenspan defines himself as a Libertarian Republican. In his book, Greenspan accuses the Bush administration and the Republican Congress of being irresponsible in its spending. Greenspan states that "Deficits Don't Matter" became the Republican's rhetoric.

Of the conflict in the Middle East, Greenspan said: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

Greenspan: Truth Speaking Genius or Money Grubbing TurnCoat?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-01-2007, 05:24 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,929,437 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepthefaith View Post
Alan Greenspan released his book -Age Of Turbulence- last month. Greenspan defines himself as a Libertarian Republican. In his book, Greenspan accuses the Bush administration and the Republican Congress of being irresponsible in its spending. Greenspan states that "Deficits Don't Matter" became the Republican's rhetoric.

Of the conflict in the Middle East, Greenspan said: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

Greenspan: Truth Speaking Genius or Money Grubbing TurnCoat?
And thats how the rumors begin.

Fact.. The Washington Post stated that Greenspan made this comment.
Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security - washingtonpost.com

Fact: What was stated, was that Greenspan stated that would have been HIS motive.

Quote:
He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive."
Fact: The Washington Post also reported that Greenspan states that this was not true in the VERY same news story. Let me quote the statement.

Quote:
"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."
Fact: Greenspan also stated that he supported the ousting of Saddam Hussain.

Quote:
"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."
If your going to run around posting incorrect information, please be aware of the actual truth behind what was said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2007, 05:28 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,264,523 times
Reputation: 15285
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
And thats how the rumors begin.

Fact.. The Washington Post stated that Greenspan made this comment.
Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security - washingtonpost.com

Fact: What was stated, was that Greenspan stated that would have been HIS motive.



Fact: The Washington Post also reported that Greenspan states that this was not true in the VERY same news story. Let me quote the statement.



Fact: Greenspan also stated that he supported the ousting of Saddam Hussain.



If your going to run around posting incorrect information, please be aware of the actual truth behind what was said.
Thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2007, 06:18 PM
 
261 posts, read 620,559 times
Reputation: 121
I paraphrased the quote. Here's what Greenspan said verbatim in the book: "Whatever their publicised angst over Saddam Hussain's 'weapons of mass destruction', American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbours a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Is your argument that Greenspan never made this statement in his memoir?

What is incorrect in the post?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2007, 07:48 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,159,747 times
Reputation: 3696
Wasn't it Greenspan that removed the batteries from the republican flashlights?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2007, 08:28 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,929,437 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepthefaith View Post
I paraphrased the quote. Here's what Greenspan said verbatim in the book: "Whatever their publicised angst over Saddam Hussain's 'weapons of mass destruction', American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbours a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Is your argument that Greenspan never made this statement in his memoir?

What is incorrect in the post?
The way you posted the forum, you "implied" (and if you didnt, others out there clearly have, which was the reason for my response) that Alan Greenspan believes that Bush went into Iraq for the purpose of seezing oil. This clearly is not true and those that believe its true, or believes that Alan Greenspan meant that simply have not viewed all of the facts and have only read this sentence out of content.

There is no doubt that we invaded over getting rid of a tyrant(without turning this into a debate about if we should have invaded or not), and hopefully a sideline benefit is "protecting" oil stability of oil over time, something that we are so dependant upon. The war was was never about, and never will be about seezing oil, and Alan Greenspan has stated so numerous times pubicly, (Larry King Live for example).

Anyone who runs around quoting the sentence, as you did the first posting, without the "full" statement (which you did the second time) is not doing a valuable service to those who reads the postings because it purposly mis-quotes the meaning behind Alan Greenspans' statements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2007, 10:52 PM
 
261 posts, read 620,559 times
Reputation: 121
My first post and the second post have the same bottomline. The context didn't change at all.
First post Bottomline: 'the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Second post Bottomline: I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Sorry, but the intent and context between the two posts are basically the same to me.
I don't think my first post and the one from Greenspan are different in intent or context.

So, you jumped the gun a little, no problem.

Did you read the book? I'm interested in getting perspectives on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2007, 11:32 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,929,437 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepthefaith View Post
My first post and the second post have the same bottomline. The context didn't change at all.
First post Bottomline: 'the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Second post Bottomline: I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Sorry, but the intent and context between the two posts are basically the same to me.
I don't think my first post and the one from Greenspan are different in intent or context.

So, you jumped the gun a little, no problem.

Did you read the book? I'm interested in getting perspectives on it.
Sorry but you are still taking the contents out of content simply because you are ignoring (perhapse not on purpose) everything else that Greenspan stated, which I pasted some of the quotes in my intitial post.

You conveniently ignore the fact that Greenspan SUPPORTED the war for numerous reasons, not JUST oil but also to shore up world economic stability, the ousting Suddam, and various other reasons.

That being said, there is a huge difference between going to oil FOR oil, and going to war to PROTECT oil. Democrats (and I'm not accusing you of being one) like to imply, on purpose, that Bush as there to take oil, that Bush invaded without world wide support, that Bush didnt rely on the very same information that Clinton had, and everyone seems to ignore problems that could be cause by an upset in the international flow of oil (even if it was all "about" oil. Had there been a problem with the flow of oil, Bush would have been blamed for not taking action. Its a damned if you do, damned if you dont scenario.

All I'm just stating that while your posting was "technically" accurate it was far from complete because it implied that "Bush" invaded to take oil, which was not what was said. Sorry if it seems that I might have "jumped" the gun, but I'm getting tired of people stating that Greenspan stated he went in to get oil, which is not the case.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you change the title of the forum after I responded with my postings?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2007, 11:45 PM
 
Location: southern california
61,289 posts, read 87,195,928 times
Reputation: 55551
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
And thats how the rumors begin.

Fact.. The Washington Post stated that Greenspan made this comment.
Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security - washingtonpost.com

Fact: What was stated, was that Greenspan stated that would have been HIS motive.



Fact: The Washington Post also reported that Greenspan states that this was not true in the VERY same news story. Let me quote the statement.



Fact: Greenspan also stated that he supported the ousting of Saddam Hussain.



If your going to run around posting incorrect information, please be aware of the actual truth behind what was said.
"irrresponsible spending" i am sure that neither greenspan nor anybody else would make such a wild accusation against the Bush administration. where do people get this stuff?
austerity, the republican party, yep that is what it is all about.
fried chicken, bisquits mashed potatoes and gravy, oooh please, somebody help me.
(little richard for gieco)
stephen s
san diego ca
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2007, 12:44 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,929,437 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunky39 View Post
"irrresponsible spending" i am sure that neither greenspan nor anybody else would make such a wild accusation against the Bush administration. where do people get this stuff?
austerity, the republican party, yep that is what it is all about.
fried chicken, bisquits mashed potatoes and gravy, oooh please, somebody help me.
(little richard for gieco)
stephen s
san diego ca
Actually, the democrats set the current budget, and just voted to increase the national deficit by $850 BILLION dollars..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:26 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top