billvon 3,006 #51 September 17, 2007 >Your friend (who has every right to his/her opinion) is in the minority. In Dec 2006, only 50% of the military thought success in Iraq was likely. So he's in good company. > The reason being giving the most is that they want to finish the job. They did. They defeated Saddam Hussein. Didn't you listen to the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED speech? Game over; time to come home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #52 September 17, 2007 Quote>Your friend (who has every right to his/her opinion) is in the minority. In Dec 2006, only 50% of the military thought success in Iraq was likely. So he's in good company. > The reason being giving the most is that they want to finish the job. They did. They defeated Saddam Hussein. Didn't you listen to the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED speech? Game over; time to come home. 1.5 year old Zogby Poll among US troops in Iraq. 90% still believed they are there because of a Saddam-9/11 connection - but, nevertheless, the majority wanted to be out of Iraq by now. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #53 September 17, 2007 Quote 90% still believed they are there because of a Saddam-9/11 connection - but, nevertheless, the majority wanted to be out of Iraq by now. Must have read Greenspan's new book. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #54 September 17, 2007 QuoteQuote 90% still believed they are there because of a Saddam-9/11 connection - but, nevertheless, the majority wanted to be out of Iraq by now. Must have read Greenspan's new book. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece Why do you think Greenspans comments have any more validity than Gates, who has refuted Greenspans "analysis"? In fact, why do you think the Fed chief would have any more of a clue than any other govt. worker? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #55 September 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote 90% still believed they are there because of a Saddam-9/11 connection - but, nevertheless, the majority wanted to be out of Iraq by now. Must have read Greenspan's new book. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece Why do you think Greenspans comments have any more validity than Gates, who has refuted Greenspans "analysis"? In fact, why do you think the Fed chief would have any more of a clue than any other govt. worker? Alan isn't your average government worker. He was arguably, for a time, the most powerful man in the world. To this day, when he speaks, the economies of the entire world shudder. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #56 September 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 90% still believed they are there because of a Saddam-9/11 connection - but, nevertheless, the majority wanted to be out of Iraq by now. Must have read Greenspan's new book. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece Why do you think Greenspans comments have any more validity than Gates, who has refuted Greenspans "analysis"? In fact, why do you think the Fed chief would have any more of a clue than any other govt. worker? Alan isn't your average government worker. He was arguably, for a time, the most powerful man in the world. To this day, when he speaks, the economies of the entire world shudder. My point exactly. When Greenspan speak about the economy or finance, he is speaking about a topic he's well versed in. Suppose Petraeus came out and started giving his assessment of Greenspans economic policies? Would you assign much validity to them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #57 September 17, 2007 Quote My point exactly. When Greenspan speak about the economy or finance, he is speaking about a topic he's well versed in. Suppose Petraeus came out and started giving his assessment of Greenspans economic policies? Would you assign much validity to them? Was Greenspan critiquing DoD policy or simply stating something obvious? And if Petraeus stated that Greenspan's policies were geared more towards boosting the US economy, I'd have to say that he's probably right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #58 September 17, 2007 QuoteQuote My point exactly. When Greenspan speak about the economy or finance, he is speaking about a topic he's well versed in. Suppose Petraeus came out and started giving his assessment of Greenspans economic policies? Would you assign much validity to them? Was Greenspan critiquing DoD policy or simply stating something obvious? And if Petraeus stated that Greenspan's policies were geared more towards boosting the US economy, I'd have to say that he's probably right. I think Greenspan was giving an unqualified personal opinion. His personal opinion has no more validity than anyone elses opinion. Now if he had presented actual evidence based on facts, then I'd be more willing to accept his critique. But to make a simplistic statement about a complicated issue borders on idiocy and was probably done more to sell his book than anything else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,500 #59 September 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 90% still believed they are there because of a Saddam-9/11 connection - but, nevertheless, the majority wanted to be out of Iraq by now. Must have read Greenspan's new book. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece Why do you think Greenspans comments have any more validity than Gates, who has refuted Greenspans "analysis"? In fact, why do you think the Fed chief would have any more of a clue than any other govt. worker? Alan isn't your average government worker. He was arguably, for a time, the most powerful man in the world. To this day, when he speaks, the economies of the entire world shudder. My point exactly. When Greenspan speak about the economy or finance, he is speaking about a topic he's well versed in. Suppose Petraeus came out and started giving his assessment of Greenspans economic policies? Would you assign much validity to them? Petraeus has nothing to do with what the war is about, he just fights it. It's wrong to imply that by commenting on the motivation of the war that Greenspan is intruding on Petraeus' area of expertise. As a political animal I'd say that Greenspan is better equipped than Petraeus to comment on the political causes of the war. Especially as his area of expertise is rather closely linked to the security of the oil supply.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #60 September 17, 2007 Quote I think Greenspan was giving an unqualified personal opinion. His personal opinion has no more validity than anyone elses opinion. Now if he had presented actual evidence based on facts, then I'd be more willing to accept his critique. But to make a simplistic statement about a complicated issue borders on idiocy and was probably done more to sell his book than anything else. He wasn't saying that it was ALL about oil, and he wasn't being critical. But he is saying that ousting Saddam and securing the oil was "essential". Everyone knows that oil is one of the main reasons that we're over there. Some admit it, others, like those in the current administration say "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil". http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/17/the_skinny/main3267685.shtml Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #61 September 17, 2007 Quote Quote I think Greenspan was giving an unqualified personal opinion. His personal opinion has no more validity than anyone elses opinion. Now if he had presented actual evidence based on facts, then I'd be more willing to accept his critique. But to make a simplistic statement about a complicated issue borders on idiocy and was probably done more to sell his book than anything else. He wasn't saying that it was ALL about oil, and he wasn't being critical. But he is saying that ousting Saddam and securing the oil was "essential". Everyone knows that oil is one of the main reasons that we're over there. Some admit it, others, like those in the current administration say "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil". http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/17/the_skinny/main3267685.shtml I don't disagree that war was part of the equation. What I disagree with is the simplistic nature of Greenspans "observation". BTW Greenspan just clarified his comments. Quote Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security By Bob Woodward Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, September 17, 2007; A03 Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "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." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html Still agree with him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #62 September 17, 2007 >it was the war lords in Ramadi and Al-anbar province that >made possible the peace the region now enjoys. Yes, that's the current talking point about how peaceful Iraq is now. But Petraeus's actions belie his words: ================================= 'Help Wanted' Ad Belies Report on Iraq Security By Walter Pincus Monday, September 17, 2007; Page A17 A week ago today, Gen. David H. Petraeus started his rounds on Capitol Hill, reporting that security in Iraq was improving to the point that a small number of troops could begin coming home by year's end. But 10 days ago, his commanders in Baghdad began advertising for private contractors to work in combat-supply warehouses on U.S. bases throughout Iraq because half the soldiers who had been working in the warehouses were needed for patrols, combat and protection of U.S. forces. "With the increased insurgent activity, unit supply personnel must continue to pull force protection along with convoy escort and patrol duties," according to a statement of work that accompanied the Sept. 7 request for bidders from Multi-National Force-Iraq. ================================= Well, I suppose FOX viewers will still believe Iraq is more peaceful. Good for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #63 September 17, 2007 My guess is, the only thing we have gotten better at in Iraq is PR. No more youtube, etc. for troops and a more concerted effort to influence media reporting, and we have what we see now - reporting disconnected from reality. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #64 September 17, 2007 Quote Still agree with him? I'm confused here. Are you trying to engage me in some sort of debate? 'Cause you're saying the same things using similar links.I agreed with him when he said it was about oil. And I also agreed with him when he said it was about oil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #65 September 17, 2007 Nope, just pointing out that Greenspan also supported removing Saddam from power and in fact said it was "necessary" and that I don't take his opinion of the reasons for the war any more seriously than I take my lawyers opinion of my Accountants tax strategies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #66 September 17, 2007 Quote I think Greenspan was giving an unqualified personal opinion. His personal opinion has no more validity than anyone elses opinion. His opinion is highly qualified - monetary policy isn't set in a vacuum. Doesn't mean he's right, but his opinion is pegged well above the category of everyone. The other difference between him an Patraeus Maximus is that he's retired and no longer forced to politically temper his viewpoints to match his Administration. (see his comments about the deficit spending) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #67 September 17, 2007 Quote The other difference between him an Patraeus Maximus is that he's retired and no longer forced to politically temper his viewpoints to match his Administration. (see his comments about the deficit spending) So if Rumsfeld comes out and says Greenspan doesn't know what he's talking about, you will accept his opinion equally? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #68 September 17, 2007 Quote Quote The other difference between him an Patraeus Maximus is that he's retired and no longer forced to politically temper his viewpoints to match his Administration. (see his comments about the deficit spending) So if Rumsfeld comes out and says Greenspan doesn't know what he's talking about, you will accept his opinion equally? Only if he comes out and does that little "RumFu" thing with his hands. He's always so convincing when he gets that look. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #69 September 17, 2007 Quote Quote The other difference between him an Patraeus Maximus is that he's retired and no longer forced to politically temper his viewpoints to match his Administration. (see his comments about the deficit spending) So if Rumsfeld comes out and says Greenspan doesn't know what he's talking about, you will accept his opinion equally? I'll accept him as equally (at least) to have an informed opinion, yes. It's somewhat tempered by the fact that he stepped down due to lack of performance, unlike Greenspan. But so far as accepting the opinion, nope, I still make the analysis of the argument presented. If the position has to be supported by secret information that can't be released, I'll be a bit doubtful given the history of this Administration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #70 September 17, 2007 QuoteIf the position has to be supported by secret information that can't be released, I'll be a bit doubtful given the history of this Administration. Greenspan hasn't given one iota of evidence to back up his claim. Why would you give him any credibility? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #71 September 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf the position has to be supported by secret information that can't be released, I'll be a bit doubtful given the history of this Administration. Greenspan hasn't given one iota of evidence to back up his claim. Why would you give him any credibility? when a guy says the Sun will rise at 6:46 am tomorrow, I don't need lots of evidence. It's the guy who says it won't rise tomorrow that has to produce some arguments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #72 September 18, 2007 >when a guy says the Sun will rise at 6:46 am tomorrow . . . Oh yeah? Prove it. Or are you one of those round-earthers who reject any theory that disagrees with your UN-backed, anti-american politics? Well, your time is running out! The so-called round earth THEORY is just that, and it's falling apart at the seams as people learn the TRUTH! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #73 September 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf the position has to be supported by secret information that can't be released, I'll be a bit doubtful given the history of this Administration. Greenspan hasn't given one iota of evidence to back up his claim. Why would you give him any credibility? Because he's shown himself to an exceptionally smart and wise person, who has consistently demonstrated an ability to see the big picture. And let's not overlook his owning up when he got it wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #74 September 18, 2007 QuoteSo...... to get back on topic, is the surge working? If so, what is the evidence? Also, what is the criteria for a successful surge? Anyone? Bueller? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #75 September 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteSo...... to get back on topic, is the surge working? If so, what is the evidence? Also, what is the criteria for a successful surge? Anyone? Bueller? Good questions. Those demanding that we stay till we "win" should at least do us the favor of telling us what "winning" means. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
