• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Wolfowitz: "we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Bottom line - just as we all knew before the Bush led invasion and destruction of Iraq - the war was all about oil.

No one found any WMD in Iraq but they sure as hell found the oil. And they will never rebuild Iraq just as they never rebuilt Afghanistan. Too expensive. Besides, they're taking all the oil they want. Who can stop them? Why bother spending all that money on reconstruction? Can't bring all those innocent women and children back to life either.

What a sin.

Greedy bastards should be brought up on war crimes charges. Bush and his administration are no better than Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, or Milosevic.
 

Jani

Senior member
Dec 24, 1999
405
0
0
LOL. Wasn't this operation named Operation Iraqi Liberation => project OIL
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Jani
LOL. Wasn't this operation named Operation Iraqi Liberation => project OIL

Well, to be honest, it was Operation Iraqi Freedom - or Project OIF (Operation Iraqi FreeOil). :D
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,626
3
81
This was a fairly straightfoward quotation from Wolfowitz, and I would advise all of you to educate yourselves as to the true nature of his remarks.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Originally posted by: Orsorum
This was a fairly straightfoward quotation from Wolfowitz, and I would advise all of you to educate yourselves as to the true nature of his remarks.



We did. Did you miss the first page?
 

Taggart

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2001
4,384
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
No one found any WMD in Iraq but they sure as hell found the oil.
Of course there are WMD...I hope you aren't implying there aren't. No one, not even the far left disputes that. US and allied intelligence may be clueless, but the UN, US Democrats, everybody agrees they are there. The argument for not going to war was to continue inspections.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Taggart
Originally posted by: BOBDN
No one found any WMD in Iraq but they sure as hell found the oil.
Of course there are WMD...I hope you aren't implying there aren't. No one, not even the far left disputes that. US and allied intelligence may be clueless, but the UN, US Democrats, everybody agrees they are there. The argument for not going to war was to continue inspections.

Where are they? The US has had months since the end of the invasion. Where are the WMD?

Answer: in Korea.

And the argument for not going to war was to continue inspections to prove there were no WMD there by averting war. But inspections didn't matter to Bush because right from the start this has been nothing but a blatant oil grab.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,689
0
76
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Taggart
Originally posted by: BOBDN
No one found any WMD in Iraq but they sure as hell found the oil.
Of course there are WMD...I hope you aren't implying there aren't. No one, not even the far left disputes that. US and allied intelligence may be clueless, but the UN, US Democrats, everybody agrees they are there. The argument for not going to war was to continue inspections.

Where are they? The US has had months since the end of the invasion. Where are the WMD?

Answer: in Korea.
Trying to explain the obvious to conservatives in this forum is an exercise in futility. ;)

EDIT: I think conservatives need to get their own damn self delusions straight though, is the Guardian misquoting Wolfowitz or just plain flat out lying?

And you guys ever thought Wolfowitz actually meant what he said? No that would be too obvious... :D
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Clinton is the worst president of all time, and it looks like Bush will be the Greatest President we have ever had! --bigdude
I think I can just see the bottle brush starting to come out of this ear. Keep pushing.

PS I like to keep trying to convince conservatives. I like it when they turn all red.
 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
Originally posted by: KenGr
Originally posted by: dpm
Originally posted by: charrison
This is the 2nd time that Wolfowitz has been misquoted in the past week.
What was the first time? The "bureaucratic reasons" quote? How was that misquoted?

The "quote" used by many news sources changed a couple of words, but most importantly it took it completely out of context. Wolfowitz provided a list of reasons why Iraq had to be dealt with and was explaining that the WMD issue was most directly linked to existing policy. The quote used was actually a sentence fragment that was interrupted by a phone call and never completed, leaving some question as to what was actually being said.

Even more significant about the "swimming in oil" quote was that it was in response to a question about why the US felt that economic sanctions could be effective against North Korea but not against Iraq. It was not a statement of why military action was taken against Iraq. This context was not reported by the news organizations. Who can argue with the statement that economic sanctions were less effective against Iraq than they would be against NK because Iraq was "swimming in oil"?
Is that the straw you are holding on to, to not feel bad? Economic sanctions could be effective against NK but not Iraq because of the oil is so much BS and u even believe it, hahaha.

Who in case of economic sanctions could they have sold the oil - the Marsians? Btw there have been 12 years of sanctions in Iraq and they were more effective than the bombs in the war when it comes to kilkling and impoverishing ppl.
Btw NK has something profitable that is much easier to smuggle and thus much easier to evade sanctions too - Nuke material.

So either Wolfowitz is a bit dumb - which he is certainly not, or u guys are grasping for the straw to not feel as evil as you are finally starting to realize your administration is.

 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
Who in case of economic sanctions could they have sold the oil - the Marsians?
I'll give you a hint. It's a country that is in western Europe, begins with the letter "F," and is filled with (as Groudskeeper Willy puts it) "cheese-eatin' surrender monkeys."
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: B00ne
Originally posted by: KenGr
Originally posted by: dpm
Originally posted by: charrison
This is the 2nd time that Wolfowitz has been misquoted in the past week.
What was the first time? The "bureaucratic reasons" quote? How was that misquoted?

The "quote" used by many news sources changed a couple of words, but most importantly it took it completely out of context. Wolfowitz provided a list of reasons why Iraq had to be dealt with and was explaining that the WMD issue was most directly linked to existing policy. The quote used was actually a sentence fragment that was interrupted by a phone call and never completed, leaving some question as to what was actually being said.

Even more significant about the "swimming in oil" quote was that it was in response to a question about why the US felt that economic sanctions could be effective against North Korea but not against Iraq. It was not a statement of why military action was taken against Iraq. This context was not reported by the news organizations. Who can argue with the statement that economic sanctions were less effective against Iraq than they would be against NK because Iraq was "swimming in oil"?
Is that the straw you are holding on to, to not feel bad? Economic sanctions could be effective against NK but not Iraq because of the oil is so much BS and u even believe it, hahaha.

Who in case of economic sanctions could they have sold the oil - the Marsians? Btw there have been 12 years of sanctions in Iraq and they were more effective than the bombs in the war when it comes to kilkling and impoverishing ppl.
Btw NK has something profitable that is much easier to smuggle and thus much easier to evade sanctions too - Nuke material.

So either Wolfowitz is a bit dumb - which he is certainly not, or u guys are grasping for the straw to not feel as evil as you are finally starting to realize your administration is.
Yeah, Axis of Evil - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld..........and Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol....why it's the Projedt for a New American Century!
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: glenn1
Who in case of economic sanctions could they have sold the oil - the Marsians?
I'll give you a hint. It's a country that is in western Europe, begins with the letter "F," and is filled with (as Groudskeeper Willy puts it) "cheese-eatin' surrender monkeys."
So, are you saying all international trade should have to be approved by the US?

 

Zrom999

Banned
Apr 13, 2003
698
0
0
Here my list for possible reasons for war with Iraq:

1) Iraq was incapable of defending itself.
2) Unfinished business.
3) *Oil.* (Thanks for admitting it wolfo)
4) Osama got away and the average hick can't tell the difference between Saddam and Bin Laden.
5) To dish out nice gov't contracts to his buddies to rebuild a country he destroyed.
6) To diminish European influence in the region.
7) The military was already there.
8) The Saudis were getting ticked off, needed a new base.
9) Re-election.
10)Pure envy.

I should add:

11)N. Korea would have whipped the US's ass.
 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
Originally posted by: B00ne
Originally posted by: KenGr
Originally posted by: dpm
Originally posted by: charrison
This is the 2nd time that Wolfowitz has been misquoted in the past week.
What was the first time? The "bureaucratic reasons" quote? How was that misquoted?

The "quote" used by many news sources changed a couple of words, but most importantly it took it completely out of context. Wolfowitz provided a list of reasons why Iraq had to be dealt with and was explaining that the WMD issue was most directly linked to existing policy. The quote used was actually a sentence fragment that was interrupted by a phone call and never completed, leaving some question as to what was actually being said.

Even more significant about the "swimming in oil" quote was that it was in response to a question about why the US felt that economic sanctions could be effective against North Korea but not against Iraq. It was not a statement of why military action was taken against Iraq. This context was not reported by the news organizations. Who can argue with the statement that economic sanctions were less effective against Iraq than they would be against NK because Iraq was "swimming in oil"?
Is that the straw you are holding on to, to not feel bad? Economic sanctions could be effective against NK but not Iraq because of the oil is so much BS and u even believe it, hahaha.

Who in case of economic sanctions could they have sold the oil - the Marsians? Btw there have been 12 years of sanctions in Iraq and they were more effective than the bombs in the war when it comes to kilkling and impoverishing ppl.
Btw NK has something profitable that is much easier to smuggle and thus much easier to evade sanctions too - Nuke material.

So either Wolfowitz is a bit dumb - which he is certainly not, or u guys are grasping for the straw to not feel as evil as you are finally starting to realize your administration is.

There are no straws. The fact is that Wolfowitz said one thing - agree with it or not - and the Guardian reported it as something else entirely. Does that give you a hint there may be another agenda here on the part of the media?

As responded earlier, the economic sanctions were not effective against Iraq because the UN was not effective in controlling the "oil for food" program and other countries like Syria actively subverted the sanctions. North Korea has effectively nothing to subvert sanctions with. Except for their weapons trade, they have no exports and depend entirely on charity. The "sanctions killed children" mantra is getting hollower each day as we find there was plenty of money to build palaces, buy Mercedes, import state of the art technical equipment and maintain a huge army. If you haven't noticed, the Iraqi medical people are now saying the the sanctions didn't affect health care, Saddam's management did.

It's been said again and again. If it was about oil, it was the dumbest move imaginable. If you wanted to keep oil prices high, you keep the sanctions on. If you wanted the oil, you just let up on the sanctions and the oil is on the market at world prices. There was no more expensive option to get control of Iraqi oil than the war. Can you conceive that it just possibly could have been about the unmitigated evil of Saddam? How many prisons and graves full of children does it take to make it worthwhile?




 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: KenGr
The "quote" used by many news sources changed a couple of words, but most importantly it took it completely out of context. Wolfowitz provided a list of reasons why Iraq had to be dealt with and was explaining that the WMD issue was most directly linked to existing policy. The quote used was actually a sentence fragment that was interrupted by a phone call and never completed, leaving some question as to what was actually being said.
Well, according to a CNN article and Pentagon news release, the Pentagon complained that the quotation;

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason"
got turned into ;
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

So its not exactly a "misquote", but it was indeed taken out of context. The full context, however, from the official transcript released by the Pentagon (here) makes, I believe, more damning reading than the original quote did. If we take out the interruption of the phone call, and merely collate Wolfowitz's continuing remarks (as he was clearly intent on finishing his train of thought) then he was quite clear on his beliefs in this matter. I quote;

"-- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again
...
To wrap it up. The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation." [emphasis mine]

After reading the quotation in full context his argument seems quite coherent. Namely that there were three individual reasons to go to war with Iraq, but that
a) Iraqi human rights was not worth risking American troops for (giving the lie to 'Operation Iraqi Freedom')
b) Saddam's links to terrorism could not be agreed upon even within the administration,
leaving just the issue of WMDs.

it seems to me that he was not misquoted at all. In actual fact, he should be grateful he was not quoted further as the full context seems worse, in PR terms, that the first quotation on its own.
 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
@KenGR
I have not said it was merely about the oil, it is about power, influence, control - Imperialism basically. But the oil was an important ingredient, without it there would be no war in Iraq

btw off course the money of the oil for food program was diverted by Saddam to his Palaces and whatnot - there was nothing else to expect, he is dictator and has robbed his ppl for 30 years.... but still, no denying that the sanctions basically wiped out Iraqs middle class and that many ppl died from them (children or not doesnt matter, dead is dead)
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
It's been said again and again. If it was about oil, it was the dumbest move imaginable. If you wanted to keep oil prices high, you keep the sanctions on. If you wanted the oil, you just let up on the sanctions and the oil is on the market at world prices. There was no more expensive option to get control of Iraqi oil than the war. Can you conceive that it just possibly could have been about the unmitigated evil of Saddam? How many prisons and graves full of children does it take to make it worthwhile?
This war was framed by the Bush administration as necessary for our national security because of WMD. Do you think now that the war is over and there is NO WMD there just might have been another agenda on the part of the administration?

Also, just lifting sanctions wouldn't have been good enough. Free oil is much better - along with the billions in contracts Bush's pals are celebrating now. How much does the US spend each month just to keep the troops in Iraq?
$1,000,000,000. And there are people in the Bush administration now saying 150,000 troops aren't enough to restore order.

And what about the unmitigated evil of a super power destroying a third rate nation and creating "graves full of children"? We're the good guys so the children we killed don't count? We did it to liberate them? They sure as hell are liberated now.

Who is Bush going to liberate next? I think we should at least warn them. Maybe they can get the women and children to safety.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
How many prisons and graves full of children does it take to make it worthwhile?
Saddam was certainly a POS but I missed the mass prison camps with children. The various atrocities committed by Saddam over the past 25 years have been well documented by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Curiously, American administrations only care when it satisfies their whims. There's absolutely nothing surprising about mass graves considering the most recent ones were a function of the Bush (the Greater) administration's desertion of its allies in Iraq. The slaughter of opposition forces is the reason the No-Fly zones were created.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,497
3
0
the most recent ones were a function of the Bush (the Greater) administration's desertion of its allies in Iraq. The slaughter of opposition forces is the reason the No-Fly zones were created.
Are you meaning to imply anything with that? Like it was an intentional plan to sacrifice them to have the no-fly zones set up? Not trying to put you on the spot, just curious.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
71
Originally posted by: Zipp
Just more misreporting by the British press. Between the Guardian Unlimited and BBC news,I don't know which one is worst.
Lots of people automatically label the BBC alongside Fox News and the Guardain etc now becuase a couple of their employees said that the BBC reporting was biased during the last action. I've yet to see any official complaint or any article biased on the same scale as the one quoted here. I wonder at what constitutes biased in the BBC as compared to the Guardian and Fox News. I think that the BBC is much maligned nowadays.

Cheers,

Andy
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,979
1
0
A big part of oil in the equation was the removal of Iraq from OPEC. Not only is OPEC weakened by the loss of a member, but we will use Iraqi oil production as leverage against it.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,469
1
76
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Here my list for possible reasons for war with Iraq:

1) Iraq was incapable of defending itself.
2) Unfinished business.
3) *Oil.* (Thanks for admitting it wolfo)
4) Osama got away and the average hick can't tell the difference between Saddam and Bin Laden.
5) To dish out nice gov't contracts to his buddies to rebuild a country he destroyed.
6) To diminish European influence in the region.
7) The military was already there.
8) The Saudis were getting ticked off, needed a new base.
9) Re-election.
10)Pure envy.

I should add:

11)N. Korea would have whipped the US's ass.

#11 I bet you thought that the Iraqi war would be another vietnam as well didn't you? Wolfowitz mean't that they were swimming in oil and thus could use this as leverage to propogate an agenda that includes propagating terrorism and hatred of the west...

Jeebus, the Guardian is getting to be almost as bad as al jazeera

 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
A big part of oil in the equation was the removal of Iraq from OPEC. Not only is OPEC weakened by the loss of a member, but we will use Iraqi oil production as leverage against it.

Yeah that and Iraq selling their oil in ? only, wasn't something the US was very happy about, after all the USAs wealth depends on the $ being the defacto currency of the world
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
81
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Here my list for possible reasons for war with Iraq:

1) Iraq was incapable of defending itself.
2) Unfinished business.
3) *Oil.* (Thanks for admitting it wolfo)
4) Osama got away and the average hick can't tell the difference between Saddam and Bin Laden.
5) To dish out nice gov't contracts to his buddies to rebuild a country he destroyed.
6) To diminish European influence in the region.
7) The military was already there.
8) The Saudis were getting ticked off, needed a new base.
9) Re-election.
10)Pure envy.

I should add:

11)N. Korea would have whipped the US's ass.
:D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY