Tuesday, September 18, 2007
More from Greenspan
"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."Asked to explain his remark, he said: "From a rational point of view, I cannot understand why we don't name what is evident and indeed a wholly defensible pre-emptive position." —from The Guardian UK
Comments:
<< Home
I agree with Al 100%. We should call a spade a spade, and our pre-emptive position was, and is, wholly defensible.
And c'mon, The Guardian? They're about as fair and balanced as FOX.
And c'mon, The Guardian? They're about as fair and balanced as FOX.
# posted by 
: 5:54 AM
: 5:54 AM
If I recall, pre-emptive wars are against international law. I realize the US did that, basically, in it's war with Mexico and in the war with Spain. Sure, justifications were conjured up, sort of early versions of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, but that doesn't alter their natures—it's also the old "Laurel and Hardy School of History," which is, "Now see what you made me do?" Yeah, it's b.s.—ask any recovering alcoholic.
And if, the revision reasons Greenspan is promoting, is so valid, why did the administration fabricate such utter and outright lies to justify the invasion and occupation?
And, if the Guardian published the interview, are you saying it's fabricated?
Post a Comment
And if, the revision reasons Greenspan is promoting, is so valid, why did the administration fabricate such utter and outright lies to justify the invasion and occupation?
And, if the Guardian published the interview, are you saying it's fabricated?
<< Home
