2007-09-17 07:16:18 · 14 answers · asked by James C 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
As a metter of fact, yes, although I don't know alan.
We are in Iraq to stay, and Iran has been on the agenda for several years for occupancy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml
2007-09-17 07:21:33 · answer #1 · answered by twowords 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Read the entire quote. It goes beyond the current situation in Iraq. His comments were direct more toward the motives of the previous Iraqi government for control of oil and what it would do to obtain it, not so much the response to the actions over the past two decades.
2007-09-17 07:20:05 · answer #2 · answered by Jason 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No no longer saudi arabia. Saudi is at friendly words with the U. S. and has been helping the U. S. the two as we talk and in a roundabout way throughout the time of the two gulf wars. Plus Saudi Arabia purely made a extensive weapons take care of Russia, and that they've a arranged military so bombing SA is much extra suicidal than bombing Iraq. Technically, SA is a member of the GCC. members contain Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar between others, and in a manner, they behave as a team economically and politacally. And theyre all with good words with the U. S.. i might think of you will possibly contain GCC alliances in a conflict against SA. (Iraq isn't member GCC). And undergo in ideas us of a's is after this so called "terrorism" element and none of it extremely is coming from SA, or a minimum of no longer as much as Afganistan and Iraq. i think of they might bypass after African Diamonds or North Korean Nukes...
2016-10-09 08:43:24 · answer #3 · answered by petrosino 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that IS the plan.
don't know how soon.
basically they must invade all the lands surrounding what they want, so they can do as they wish.
no doubt soon enough we will hear that "Iran has weapons" or "Iran abuses its people" or some more lies and fabrications.
when it happens, don't be surprised, but hopefully somehow it can be stopped. If enough people know about it and stand up and say they do not agree, perhaps America will lose its status and will have to beg to get any kind of support.
Oh, for an ideal world.
2007-09-17 07:26:39 · answer #4 · answered by Neorini 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sorry to dissapoint -
Greenspan clarifies Iraq war and oil link
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Clarifying a controversial comment in his new memoir, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he told the White House before the Iraq war that removing Saddam Hussein was "essential" to secure world oil supplies, according to an interview published on Monday.
"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in the interview conducted on Saturday. "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."
2007-09-17 07:23:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, Alan would approve of the invasion, given his support of it for economic reasons. Will we attack? Our military is so overtaxed it would be folly to do it right now. And no one will believe Bush again for reasons that may in fact be legitimate. I don't see it happening.
2007-09-17 07:20:56 · answer #6 · answered by Clint 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Looking at the news, the French may beat us to Iran. Peace
2007-09-17 07:24:40 · answer #7 · answered by PARVFAN 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They may attack but won't try to conquer.....With France ringing the bells aganist Iran I think its easy work for USA...For if Iran goes nuclear, it will be the end of Israel in the future.
2007-09-17 07:22:36 · answer #8 · answered by jimmy j 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubt it, I just think America will insure a Lifetime trade agreement with the new Iraqi government.
2007-09-17 07:19:30 · answer #9 · answered by Mo 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maybe everyone should read Greenspan's clarification of what he wrote. It seems the left has some reading comprehension issues.
2007-09-17 07:35:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋