Time to kick Iran

[Matteo Martini]

He was talking about an agreement between Russia and Iran; not the USA and Iran.

Why has Russia ( or Iran ) to be compared with Hitler ( or Stalin ) and not the US?
I think the comparison is completely out of context here..
Maybe, I have to ask DR..

 

[Matteo Martini]

I've said this before and I'll say it again, the sentence I quoted from you is ambiguous. Does it mean:

1) going to war to take control over oil
2) going to war to maintain control over oil
3) going to war to get access to oil
4) going to war to maintain access to oil
5) going to war to deprive someone else of control of that oil
6) going to war to maintain someone else's control of that oil
7) going to war to deprive someone else of access to that oil
8) going to war to prevent someone else from having access to it

Unneccesary details
Points number 3 and 4, are the same, for example ( if you want to go to war to get access to oil, then you want to maintain it, right? )
I think you ware escaping the point..

These are not the same thing, but they all fall under "for oil". Usually it's implied that we went into Iraq for #1. But if we did, we've done an amazingly bad job at following that up.

Happy that you realized that.

And there is no indication from your link that Greenspan thought #1 was the reason.

Quote: " the Iraq War is largely about oil "

Furthermore, it was actually rather plain from subsequent statements by Greenspan that he believed the initial stories about his statements badly misconstrued them:

It seems that Mr. Greenspan first stated that " that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies ", then he said that " securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," ".
Some backpedaling, I assume..

 

[Ziggurat]

Happy that you realized that.

Sometimes you're amazingly clueless. We haven't even been trying to control the oil in Iraq. Do you not get that?

Quote: " the Iraq War is largely about oil "

All 8 reasons I listed are "about oil". And there are no duplicates in that list (though they are not all mutually exclusive either), even if you haven't figured out what the distinctions are.

It seems that Mr. Greenspan first stated that " that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies ", then he said that " securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," ".
Some backpedaling, I assume..

Of course. Because you won't take him at his word... except when you will take him at his word. Oh, but I see the criteria: you'll accept his words if they make Bush look bad, and you won't believe them if they contradict such a picture. So I guess you aren't actually inconsistent.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why has Russia ( or Iran ) to be compared with Hitler ( or Stalin )

Russia wasn't being compared to Hitler. It wasn't a comparison at all. It was an illustration of the fact that treaties and promises do nothing in and of themselves to preserve peace.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Sometimes you're amazingly clueless. We haven't even been trying to control the oil in Iraq. Do you not get that?

All 8 reasons I listed are "about oil". And there are no duplicates in that list (though they are not all mutually exclusive either), even if you haven't figured out what the distinctions are.

Start a war in order to gain more political influence in an important ( for oil ) region.

Of course. Because you won't take him at his word... except when you will take him at his word. Oh, but I see the criteria: you'll accept his words if they make Bush look bad, and you won't believe them if they contradict such a picture. So I guess you aren't actually inconsistent.

I just found an inconsistency in what he said in different occasions

 

[Matteo Martini]

Russia wasn't being compared to Hitler. It wasn't a comparison at all. It was an illustration of the fact that treaties and promises do nothing in and of themselves to preserve peace.

So, why speak about the " Non Aggression Pact " at all??
Not a very nice example ( IMHO )

 

[Ziggurat]

I just found an inconsistency in what he said in different occasions

When someone makes a statement saying that they're clarifying an earlier statement, standard procedure is for the later statement to take precedence over the earlier one. So why didn't you just do that? Oh, that's right...

 

[Ziggurat]

So, why speak about the " Non Aggression Pact " at all??

It was a dramatic example of how easily promises between nations can be broken, as well as the possible magnitude of consequences. And in the context of an Iranian promise to not use nuclear fuel from Russia for anything other than their power reactor, I think the significance should be rather... obvious.

 

[Matteo Martini]

It was a dramatic example of how easily promises between nations can be broken, as well as the possible magnitude of consequences. And in the context of an Iranian promise to not use nuclear fuel from Russia for anything other than their power reactor, I think the significance should be rather... obvious.

Maybe not the best example, IMHO

When someone makes a statement saying that they're clarifying an earlier statement, standard procedure is for the later statement to take precedence over the earlier one. So why didn't you just do that? Oh, that's right...

I found the latter statement quite contradicting the previous one.
Anyway.. Maybe I am derailing..