On Jul 2, 2009, at 8:54 PM, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think Alan Greenspan is sort-of out of the loop when it comes to
> making foreign policy. Now if Rice had said it, that would be
> different.
>
> --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Matthias Wasser <matthias.wasser at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Matthias Wasser <matthias.wasser at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] No oil for blood
>> To: "lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>> Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 4:37 PM
>> On Jul 2, 2009, at 4:01 PM, Doug
>> Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 2, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Lew wrote:
>>>
>>>> Politicians are often ill-informed, but Alan
>> Greenspan admitted that the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq was
>> really aimed at protecting Middle East oil reserves. "I
>> thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the
>> excuse was utterly beside the point", he said. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2170602,00.html
>> ).
>>>
>>> Another assertion, quoted from an authority. Could you
>> explain just how this works?
>>
>> When attempting to explain someone's actions, what they
>> believe to be the case is very often more important than
>> what actually is. Colonialist governments in the 19c thought
>> their expansions would provide wonderful export markets and
>> found themselves disappointed, at least on that front.
>>
>> Of course there may have been other motives floating around
>> the foreign policy establishment, and there were elements
>> that were opposed to it, &c. Lord knows they threw a
>> good variety of arguments at the public.
>>>
>>> ___________________________________
>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk