So I guess people need to LIE to bring down the Bush Administration? "But this quote is inaccurate on its face as well as taken completely out of context. Wolfowitz was answering a query regarding why the U.S. thought using economic pressure would work with respect to North Korea and not with regard to Iraq." http://www.belgraviadispatch.blogspot.com/ (via Instapundit.com)
What do I think? about sums it up. As usual, something Wolfowitz said was taken completely out of context and used by a liberal-leaning media organization to "prove" a point that the antiwar crowd has tried unsuccessfully to make. Curiously, we are not keeping Iraq's oil. If it was all about oil, doesn't it seem foolish of us to allow the Iraqis to use the oil to build and rebuild their own country? And doesn't it seem odd that US oil companies aren't moving in for the kill? You guys are a joke.
Let's see, we've got the administration stealing Iraq's oil, planting WMD evidence, and lying about everything it has ever been involved in - yep, this thread has officially become the dumbest thread of the day. The conspiracies never cease.
We don't have to keep the oil to make lots of money from it treeman. We build the refineries, the pipelines, the infrastructure to sell the oil, etc. etc. and i'm sure some of that oil will end up in the US. Why do you resort to name calling when you have no defense of your point (I guess that statement is self-explanatory).
More explanation on this ridiculous lie- But this quote is inaccurate on its face as well as taken completely out of context. Wolfowitz was answering a query regarding why the U.S. thought using economic pressure would work with respect to North Korea and not with regard to Iraq: "The United States hopes to end the nuclear standoff with North Korea by putting economic pressure on the impoverished nation, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Saturday. North Korea would respond to economic pressure, unlike Iraq, where military action was necessary because the country's oil money was propping up the regime, Wolfowitz told delegates at the second annual Asia Security Conference in Singapore." "The country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse," Wolfowitz said. "That I believe is a major point of leverage." "The primary difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options in Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil," he said. Wolfowitz did not elaborate on how Washington intends to put economic pressure on North Korea, but said other countries in the region helping it should send a message that "they're not going to continue doing that if North Korea continues down the road it's on." [my emphasis] Now it might not have been smart of Wolfowitz, on the heels of the Vanity Fair interview imbroglio (however much the press distorted his comments there too) to describe Iraqi oil supplies using evocative language like "the country floats on a sea of oil." But any judicious analysis of his comments begs the conclusion that he was making an explicit reference to his contention that there were no viable punitive economic options with regard to pressuring Iraq on compliance with relevant U.N. resolutions given the monies the Baathist regime could access because of its oil supplies. This is patently different than the Guardian's spin (no, lie) that Wolfowitz said the U.S. had "no choice" regarding going to war in Iraq because of a too-tempting-to-pass-up-neo-imperialistic-oil grab-opportunity. It is hugely irresponsible of the Guardian to run such a distorted, tabloid-style headline. http://www.belgraviadispatch.blogspot.com/
seriously...do you understand what Mr. Clutch posted, above. i'm not trying to be demeaning at all....but what wolfowitz is saying is that N. Korea does not have the economic tools in place to rebuild with...if we did to N. Korea what we did to Iraq, the costs for rebuilding would be spread around the world...as opposed to a country being able to get kick-started with its own resources. make sense?? that's how wolfowitz meant it...would you agree with me that IF that's how he meant it, the media who reported it otherwise distorted the true meaning of Wolfowitz's statement?
Uh, tree...back in '51, when we admitted that Ajax was about the oil, we didn't keep it. We just put in place a regime which guaranteed a 'favorable business relationship' re: oil, with the US and Britain. You could look it up.
So..at best...what you're saying is that the war that we forced on the world would have been the world's ticket to pay if Iraq didn't have oil, right? In other words, a war which the rest of the world was against was seen as a favorable way to go to us in light of the fact that the alternative would cost money. So people died...for cash. And it was our decision. Yeah...that's a lot better. Still comes down to one simple fact; all the people that have been saying that if Iraq doesn't have oil we don't invade/ the difference between Iraq and other nations we don't invade is oil, and have been mocked and ed to death for saying so...were correct.
Max, that doesn't help your argument. I think what he meant is that sanctions don't work in Iraq because they have the second largest amount in reserves of the most important comodity in the world. In other words, we can wait the North Koreans out because they will starve too death, but as long as Iraq has something valuable to offer, they will have the money to be a threat.
Man...that's tremendous spin!!! You're my new hero!!! No...that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there is always an economic reality. And the economic reality in North Korea is, if you remove their government through force and create a power vacuum, you have nothing for them to rebuild their country with, sans the goodwill of the rest of the world, the US included. People died for cash?? No. People died for liberation...for the removal of weapons of mass destruction...for a regime change. At the end of that, there is economic reality. We don't live in a bubble. There are still consequences and people to care for after the war. Or we could just follow the example of previous world powers and slash and burn...but that's really not our style. And it shouldn't be. obviously. But this is not the ONLY difference, MacBeth...and you know that. You're way too smart not to know that. Nuclear weapons pointed at allies...and allies who are neighbors to N. Korea hoping for to bring about a diplomatic solution (with the balls to actually follow through) are two more key distinctions.
Do you know what a Pyrrhic victory is? Seriously, I don't think you have the right interpretation, or if you do, I don't get how this is costing us anything at all, let alone more than we can afford to pay for victory. Once again a position the anti-war people were mocked for saying has come to pass, and once again the motives for this war are admitedly lowered, whether it's by a notch or a score.
Look at South Korea and you will have your answer...they have manpower to produce goods and services for the entire world very cheaply and they have discipline, unlike the middle east madhouse. I'm going beyond what Wolfowitz said obviously, but I think you can see my point. If we can go into Iraq for the good of the people we can do the same for the North Koreans. MadMax why do so many responses to my post from you begin with "i'm not trying to be demeaning". I really don't think my posts are that offensive to anyone.
MacBeth is the man....Everything I would like to be able to say...he says. Unfortunately, Im not a master of the english language like he is. So, I will crawl into my hole and randomly speak my mind with my below average writing skills.
