Apparantly your comprehension level is as low as that Guardian reporterOriginally posted by: Nitemare
#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 jazeeraOriginally 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.
Wolfowitz was responding to a specific question about why sanctions were being used against N.Korea but abandoned against Iraq and mean't simply that the difference was that N.Korea is poor as hell and can be starved out easily, whereas Iraq is sitting on top of liquid gold, and even with sanctions in place was able to smuggle out enough to maintain its regime.