Alright guys, admit you were wrong. http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=8179271&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6 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. Instapundit.com finishes off the lies: 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." (I added italics because it's from the Guardian) 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.
because the other one is wrong. actually I probably should have just put it in the other thread. actually I think I will.
it does seem suspect. although... His choice of words (the country floats on a sea of oil) are telling to say the least.
Yeah, some people need to use a little common sense every once in a while. Does anyone really thing a person who interacts very closely with the White House is going to go around shouting the "War was only about oil" and "We completely fabricated the weapons of mass destruction to get support." Maybe Wolfowittz should just stop talking, everything he says seems to be twisted around and used as Anti-Bush ammunition.
Put this in the other thread, please. It is too ridiculous not to ignore, so it needs an injection of reality for me to wade in... And I do want to wade in.
The right and the left are in such a war of words its difficult to believe that either side isn't distorting each bit of news they get. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in some of these "secret" meetings and interviews with unnamed sources just to know the real unspun (is that a real word) truth for once.
It does appear that Wolfowicz's comments were taken out of context. It was surprising that he would admit that-- even if it was made in an Asian talk. Of course this doesn't mean it wasn't about oil and the "swimming in sea of oil" is a curious remark. Treeman says that since we haven't seized the oil fields in our name, therefore it wasn't about oil. This is disengenuous.The Bush administration is planning to use the oil to rebuild Iraq at a tidy profit for comapnies such as Bechtel and Halliburton which are well connected to their administrtion. There has been talk of withdrawing from OPEC or pumping more than OPEC allwances to essentially get the oil at a price that could not be gotten prior to US occupation of Iraq.
Actually I don't think they can pay for everything with oil exports unless they plan on some ridiculously low payment terms on loans. The figures I've seen in articles at multiple sources give figures than can't pay off just the reconstruction costs in less than ten years of all the oil output money going straight to reconstruction. We're going to bail them out and rich people here at home at the same time. Iraq Is Ill-Equipped to Exploit Huge Oil Reserves http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10348-2003Jun3.html?nav=hptop_tb By Peter S. Goodman Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, June 4, 2003; Page A01 BASRA, Iraq -- An enormous reservoir of petroleum almost certainly lies beneath the Majnoon oil field, a blank expanse of pale sand near the Iranian border. Under Saddam Hussein, Majnoon was the linchpin of an ambitious plan to expand Iraq's oil industry. Its promise captured the attention of French oil giant Total SA, which tentatively agreed to sink nearly $5 billion into extracting its treasure. But now Majnoon is deserted, save for prowling looters and armed robbers. The road to the nearby city of Basra is blocked by razor wire. Though the field remains a crucial component of Iraq's vast potential, it has also come to symbolize the profound uncertainties that confront this country and the U.S. forces in control of it as they seek to turn oil in the ground into cash in hand -- enough to pay for Iraq's reconstruction and sustain a future government. Like Iraq itself, Majnoon has abundant oil waiting to be tapped and global energy companies eager to lend capital and expertise for a share of the spoils. But even though the United Nations lifted the sanctions that barred most exports of Iraqi oil for more than a decade, considerable barriers remain. No government exists to sanction contracts, develop new fields or determine whether old deals are still valid. No codes are in place for foreign investment. Data about the Majnoon oil are scarce, and key export facilities are battered by years of war and neglect. The country with the second-largest proven oil reserves in the world has become a frontier, one to be traversed cautiously. "All the big oil companies are interested to go back into Iraq, provided that the legal government is willing to increase its protection and accept foreign investment, Alain Lechevalier, Total's vice president for the Middle East, said by phone from Paris. "This means a lot of stability that presently I don't forecast for two to three years. Nobody is going to pour $5 billion into Iraq with no stability in the regime." Still, with an estimated 112 billion barrels of oil at stake, no company in the oil business can afford to give Iraq a pass. Neither can policymakers and economists ignore the impact of its return to the ranks of exporters, which is expected this year when enough pipelines and pumping stations are fixed. Much of the oil is close to the surface and easily tapped, requiring fewer wells than in other petroleum-producing parts of the world. The derricks that proliferate in Texas, pumping oil from wells reluctant to yield it, are generally unknown here. The exploitation of Iraq's oil is at a relatively early stage. Only 15 of its 73 fields are developed, and no major exploration has been conducted since the beginning of the war with Iran in 1980. Some experts have suggested that Iraq's remote western desert could hold as much as 100 billion barrels. "That's why these companies are so eager to get in," said Jasem Khalid Sadoun, chairman and managing director of Alshall Consulting and Investment in Kuwait City. "You will see a real war to get in there and try to explore for more oil. Iraq seems to be the most viable oil project in the world." Iraq was producing about 2.5 million barrels of crude oil a day before the war, a rate slightly higher than Kuwait's. Before the 1991 Persian Gulf War, it was producing 3.5 million barrels a day. Getting back to that volume will take months or years. Repairs to reach that threshold probably can be made with domestic resources, supplemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its contractor, KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton Co. But if Iraq decides to work toward its long-standing goal of increasing production to as much as six million barrels a day, it would require substantial foreign investment, according to analysts and executives with state oil companies. During Iraq's dozen years of isolation as an international pariah, U.N. sanctions sharply limited investment and new technologies, leaving many oil facilities jury-rigged with antiquated parts. Production at mature fields is slowing, while Iraq has lacked techniques to coax more oil out of the reservoirs. Some oil fields have been damaged by the crude and outdated practice of injecting water into reservoirs to build up pressure. Key shipping terminals were damaged in the 1991 Gulf War, and a major export pipeline to Syria was severed during the recent conflict. Iraq also doesn't have enough storage tanks, a basic requirement of exporting. When bad weather prevents tankers from filling up, either oil must be stored or production must stop. In a report released in December, the Council on Foreign Relations concluded that repairing Iraq's export facilities and restoring production to pre-1991 levels would require $10 billion in capital and $3 billion a year in operating costs. A recent study sponsored by the U.S. State Department concluded that bringing Iraq's output to 6 million barrels a day would require more than $30 billion. Those sums are well beyond Iraq's ability to pay, said Sadoun, the Alshall chairman. Iraq's government is likely to take in about $15 billion a year for the next two to three years in sales of oil by state companies, he said. But the government will have to pay the salaries of 3.3 million employees and oversee its ministries, probably costing more than $10 billion a year. Interest on government debts dating to Iraq's heavy reliance on credit to fund its war with Iran -- much of it extended by Russia -- absorbs as much as $3 billion per year. "What is left is going to be so minimal," Sadoun said. "They don't have the money, the technologies, the resources." It is possible that the global oil market could shift in the time it takes to form a new government and make rules to allow outside investment. If, for example, Iran and Saudi Arabia decided to expand production, the SARS virus reduced demand for oil in Asia and economic growth remained sluggish in the United States -- if the world supply of oil were to grow faster than demand -- then the price would fall. And if it fell far enough, the Iraqi industry would not have the incentive to expand production. But most analysts believe the situation in Iraq might have created a opening for which the world's oil companies have long been preparing. "Most of the companies have been thinking about Iraq for many years, and I mean many years, because of the obvious potential of the resource base," said Phillip J. Carroll, the former head of Royal Dutch/Shell in the United States, who is the chief adviser to Iraq's Oil Ministry. "There will be, I'm sure, a great deal of interest to begin discussions at as early a date as possible with the Iraqis." For now, though, the companies have nobody to talk to: Iraq is unlikely to have a fully authorized government for at least a year. Meanwhile, the Oil Ministry, acting on an ad hoc basis, plans to soon launch a study looking at the various options that could be used to expand the industry. As part of its research, it might solicit proposals from international oil companies, Carroll said. "Growing out of that," Carroll said, could be "that those companies that have maybe offered the best model would be the ones in a favored position to go on, in terms of expanding the oil industry." Which companies wind up in that role is likely to be decided in a fiercely political environment. Under Hussein, oil contracts were given to companies from Russia, France and China, whose governments were more supportive of Iraq than other nations at the U.N. Security Council. Now, the ministry is under the control of an acting chief, Thamer Abbas Ghadban, who was selected by the United States. He is being advised by Carroll, the retired Texas oil executive chosen by the Pentagon. Carroll said repeatedly that he is merely an adviser. But many in Iraq's oil industry assume that the war replaced one set of preferential beneficiaries with another: Hussein's former allies are out, while those who won the war will get most of the deals. Adding to the potential for acrimony is the question of what to do with contracts awarded while Hussein was in power. Carroll said the ministry would examine them case by case, with an eye toward revoking those at cross-purposes with the public interests. He declined to name any deals that might meet that definition, but officials in Iraqi state companies frequently cite a $3.7 billion contract given to Russia's largest oil company, Lukoil, to expand the West Qurna field near Basra. Hussein's regime abruptly canceled that contract this year, complaining that Lukoil failed to do any of the required work. Hussein was also angered by what he perceived to be ineffective and halfhearted Russian opposition to U.S. war planning, a South Oil Co. senior official said. In a recent interview, the new head of South Oil, Jabbar Luaabi, said the Lukoil contract was no longer valid. But a spokesman for Lukoil in Moscow said it was. He said Lukoil did not previously do work at the field because of U.N. sanctions, but will now that the sanctions have been eliminated. "We have a legally binding contract," said the spokesman, Kirill Smolyakov. "Our contract was signed according to international law and agreed to by the Iraqi parliament." Similar arguments could affect contracts awarded to other Russian companies as well as Chinese firms, said Nader H. Sultan, chief executive of Kuwait Petroleum Corp. "The oil lawyers will have a lot of business," he said. At Total's headquarters in Paris, Lechevalier professed no worries about the political atmosphere as it relates to Majnoon, which was to produce 600,000 barrels a day after Total's project, up from 50,000 per day before the war. That deal was never signed, but the company could pursue it again. Total's experience at the field, its seismic work and surveying, and its continuing contacts within the oil ministry could be significant competitive advantages, Lechevalier said. Whatever political impediments might exist could be avoided by joining consortia with other oil companies. "There is room for everybody," Lechevalier said. "The amount of money needed is so great that no one will be able to do it alone. Nobody will be able to put $30 billion alone into Iraq."
The other one was NOT wrong, even according to your spin and or version of thtings...Whichever way you play it, Wofowitz said that if Iraq had had no oil, ad Korea does, we wouldn't have invaded. Which makes the war about oil. Whatever tune you want to play alongside doesn't alter that fact. People saying if Iraq had no oil we wouldn't be invading them/oil is the difference between Iraq and other nations we aren't invading, and were laughed at for saying so...were right.
Sorry, but it's pretty clear that The Guardian version was the spinned version. My version gives the COMPLETE quote in the CORRECT and FULL context. So yes, I am right, and the other one is wrong. And it's not about oil. It's about economics and the fact that Iraq would not respond to economic pressure while North Korea would. You are glossing over the fact that people accused the US of going to Iraq to PROFIT from oil. Wolfowitz clearly does not say this. Macbeth, I find it dishonest of you not to point out this distinction.
glynch: And the real reason for the war comes out!!! Yeah, glynch, we blew the country up just so we could make a buck rebuilding it. But wait - if that's what we were doing, then why didn't we let Saddam blow up more of his wells? Why seize them intact? I mean, Halliburton coulda made a killing if we'd have let Saddam blow about 500 oil wells like he intended.... Why did we do that, glynch?
Oh, and Mr. Clutch - good luck getting MacBeth to admit that he is wrong about anything. I have yet to see it happen.
Uh, the thread was entitled :" Wolfowitz: Iraq War Was About Oil.". You stated that you did not put this in the other thread because it was wrong. I stated that your assertion was incorrect, because whether you consider yours 'spin' or another 'version' of the truth, which is a matter of interpretation ( although I probably agree a little more with your interpretation in terms of I find it unlikely that Wolfowitz would admit to the original interpretation, true or not ), it still stands that the assertion that the war was determined by oil is true, and that Wolfowitz said so. And, again, you are saying that I am "dishonest" because A) I do not assume to know excatly what people meant when they said that if Iraq had no oil, we would not be invading, and B) that determining that we went in and caused thousands of human beings to die on the basis that it was more cost effective is better than we went in and caused thousands of people to die on the basis that it was more profitable. I agree with neither of these, the first because unlike tree, jh, etc. I do not make conclusions built on assumptions, a problem tree and I have had many times, such as the fact that he still yammers on about me not concluding that the American POWS were executed and beaten based on them being shot, without flak, and bruised...after coming out of a fire fight. Or that the fact that they burieda truck proves that it was for WMD..like jh asserted that the fact that they cleaned a lab with Staphycocolous proved that they were up to no good, NOT that they are, ashas been admitted time and time again, cleaning anything and everything to do with chemistry because, as shown, we are making 'finds' all over the place which later prove to be incorrect, but is still causing them to get paranoid. Simply put, I do not make conclusions until there is evidence, NOT when I feel that things can be interpreted in a way I want them to be. And the second point I both suspect is entirely the case, and suggest that from a moral standpoint is virtually indistinguishable from the first. In order for me to be 'honest', according to you, MC, I would have to both assume I know what others meant when they said something, and agree that the dfference is an imperative. What if I agree with neither of these foundations? Do you see my point? I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but look at what I'm saying, and reconsider questioning my integrity, which is frankly inaccurate and insulting.
Reading Wolfowitz's quotes again, nowhere do I see him say the war was about oil, as the title of the other thread suggests, nor does he say it was more cost effective. He simply says the oil profits of Iraq eliminate a tactic of using economic leverage to get them to comply, and this is not the case in North Korea. Forgive them for distinguishing between two countries and coming up with different strategies based on the circumstances surrounding each individual nation. As for your whole bit about not knowing what others meant, you actually believe that some of the people who were crying "foul" about oil, were really referring to U.S. going to war simply because the oil Iraq possesses gave America no economic leverage to coerce them into compliance? And these were anti-war protestors? To me, this view just underscores the idea that war was neccesary. I mean if it's a possibility that this is really what the "war is about oil" crowd meant, then I truthfully don't understand what they were protesting against. If their opinions were so terribly worded that you have no idea what their meaning was (as you have admitted), then they aren't really opinions at all, and shouldn't even be taken into consideration until those people are able to offer a clarification. I just find it hard to believe that Anti-war protestors would be protesting against the American Government's realization that Iraq would not respond to economic pressure because of their vast oil supply, which is all Mr. Wolfowitz said.
