Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
 

"i told you so"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...970331,00.html

Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

George Wright
Wednesday June 4, 2003

Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.
The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbours - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.

His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."

Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war.

Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are both facing fierce criticism at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war.

Amid growing calls from all parties for a public inquiry, the foreign affairs select committee announced last night it would investigate claims that the UK government misled the country over its evidence of Iraq's WMD.

The move is a major setback for Tony Blair, who had hoped to contain any inquiry within the intelligence and security committee, which meets in secret and reports to the prime minister.

In the US, the failure to find solid proof of chemical, biological and nuclear arms in Iraq has raised similar concerns over Mr Bush's justification for the war and prompted calls for congressional investigations.

Mr Wolfowitz is viewed as one of the most hawkish members of the Bush administration. The 57-year old expert in international relations was a strong advocate of military action against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Following the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harbouring or sponsoring of militants.

Prior to his appointment to the Bush cabinet in February 2001, Mr Wolfowitz was dean and professor of international relations at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), of the Johns Hopkins University.

so what?

The president of South Africa thinks that GW is a racist. Just because somebody has a title doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

here we go.

exactly like why we needed a war board.

If GWB is a racist, we'd be killing gooks by the boatloads by now.

thats stupid. george bush has the title of president and he's still an idiot, so on that level your right. but wolfowitz is a senior adivisor thats been around for decades. he widely been known as the person who started the notion of "pre-emption" on a military level and is one of the hawks who pushed for war the most. hes not a title, he knows exactly what the fuck hes talking hes talking about.

in all fairness here is the complete quote from the transcript, which paints a veyr different picture depending on how you want to interpret it:

"Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different."

the gaurdian interpretted it fairly in my books, but you can take out a different message easily

here it is: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html

Ok so we can sell the oil in iraq to help their economy. What's in Korea to sell to help them out? Koreans?

:rofl:

I think you got your chocolate in my peanut butter.

yeah, whoops

complete transcript

welcome, everyone, to the world of DUH.

All i know is, gas prices have come back down to reasonable levels. That was worth going to war for wasn't it?

*buys a Ford Excursion*

Sleeper, your "headline" is wrong and inflammitory. I'm sure that was your purpose though, to push your anti-Bush, anti-American agenda as usual rather than a fair presentation of the facts.

Here is what Wolfowitz said:
"The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. It’s is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to ******* meeting our non-proliferation goals.
Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different."

I will paraphrase that second paragraph so that you'll understand he's not saying that the war is about oil.
"We have other options besides military actions with North Korea. With their economy on the brink now, economic pressures can in fact bring about the same result as one of force. Their military presense is also far superior to that of Iraq, and we have a very strong ally on their border as well as a sleeping dragon in China that would be dangerous to awaken. With Iraq, such an economic policy wouldn't work. Sanctions weren't working as it was. They have amazing reserves of oil which is almost the same as amazing reserves of cash. Economic pressures are far less effective when someone is sitting on a sea of cash."

Don't try to twist this into "BUSH ADMANISTRATOIN SEZ THEY ATTACK IRAQ FOR OIL!!!!!!!!"

It wasn't "his" headline to begin with.

first of all the headline isnt mine, its from the guardian. second, im not peddling any propaganda. im anti bush, but im not trying to brainwash people into my views. third, i posted the article before i read the complete transcript, which shows it in a different light, clearly, but i still think it is incriminating and worth discussion. i corrected myself, by posting the complete transcript, to not sound one-sided and not to "push through my agenda", whatever the fuck agenda i could have on a message board

Yes. It came from the guardian. We know.

We also pretty much decided on the old politics board that the Guardian was so slanted to the left and anti-American that anyone that posted an article from there had better have another source to back it up due to their twisting of facts and erroneous reports.

"the wheels on the bus go round and round"

why do we keep arguing over this?

Your lesson should be to read the transcript before you post something like " Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil." People slam the Guardian for that stuff, and they'll have just as much right to slam you.

no i dont think i shouldve read the transcript before posting. i shouldve checked a seperate source, for sure, and for not doing that im wrong. i came across the transcript elsewhere and immediately posted it for clarification. i respect the guardian and think its kinda dumb of them to go out on a limb like this and possibly damage their reputation, but they still are making some valid points in this.

I will still stand by my original argument that we have the Iraqis sell their oil to Korea for Koreans. The Koreans can drill the oil and the cash will help the communist-deprived Korean economy.

why is it that leftists seem to CTRL-V so much? Donkey, Sleepy, that Awol moron... a little bit of synithisis could go a long way.

It's easier when your propaganda machines do the work for you. See, you don't even have to read it!

Well that's not necessarily true, considering the oil sanctions placed on Iraq, and the lack of oil-pumping infrastructure in the country. Both countries have very bad economies - in the case of North Korea, they have very little resources which is causing them economic trouble. Iraq has a lot of oil, but is unable to sell much of it, And not only was Iraq unable to sell much oil, they were also unable to use their cashmoney to bolster their military. They were just an easy target. North Korea is actually viewed as more of a threat, and consequently these 'economic pressures' haven't been put into play yet.

We?

Yes. We.

in my case:

1) I was constantly bieng asked for a source ... which in turn was constantly rubbished for no apparent reasons (when there was a valid reason to rubbish the source I acknowledged it)

2) Some people put things/express ideas better than I can. If I've been reading a piece by John Pilger, it's prudent to quote him.

I don't ctrl-v whole articles though ... I prefer to provide links

I'm going to buy a print copy of that tomorrow and read it on the bus just to spite The Politics Board

I will rubbish almost anything that uses the Guardian as it's source. That would be like me posting articles from World Net Daily and hoping people don't discredit my source as being biased.

You ride the bus to work?

Actually I ride 2. I could walk the second distance but I'm always late, and I'm a responsible employee like that