“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.”’
I’m pretty certain that by “oil” he meant to say, “overwhelming concern for human rights and the imminent threat posed by WMD’s” It’s an easy slip of the tongue to make but I might be wrong.
Why has someone not shut this guy up. Does he get up each morning and think
“What can I do today to shaft our only decent ally in return for sending those pansy troops to help.”
Did you have a link to an actual transcript of what Wolfowitz had to say? I cannot locate one, and I need to be sure the quote is accurate before I respond.
I can only find it at the Guardian, and, as I say, it is incomplete.
The guardian is a left wing UK paper, i would like another source
Wolfowitz is a single voice in the administration. I could find you a voice who said something totally different.
if the conspiracy theories are true, and this war was about oil, so what? So was the first gulf war and the Iran-Iraq war, and most ‘civilized’ nations didn’t oppose those, they armed the combattants or took part in the hostilities. If this war rebuilds the iraqi economy, iraqi political landscape, and american economy at the same time then good.
Ok Calculus, then if the war does all of number 3, then why have to lie to the world to start it? Could they not sell the merits of the aftermath of the war to the people?
You are simply stating that the ends justify the means, which is devoid of any morality.
Throw in an end to the nauseating horrors of the Saddam regime, removal of the threat to the rest of the region, a check to the terrorist nations of the world, and you got yourself a deal.
A chance to piss off the French would be a nice bonus as well.
If Mr. Asst./Dept. Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz said any such thing it is significant. This is not some annonamus talking head or junior, middle level political appointee in the office of weights and measures; this is one of the architecks of US foreign policy and a principal drummer for the unilateral invasion of Iraq.
If it is any help, I have heard of comment of this sort on the proposition that Iran does not need nuclear electric generators because Iran has plenty of oil to fuel any number of electric plants. It is possible that his comments are in that context. Why that means that Iraq/Iran must be invaded now and North Korea pussy-footed with, I don’t know.
I’d like to see a transcript or another report. If this was in a Guardian news story I’d be inclined to give it credence; if in an editorial, less.
Well, there were several stated reasons for this war.
Potential WMD; violation of a cease fire, UN resolutions, and UN sanctions; human rights abuses; potential terrorism ties; attempting to rebuild the middle east political landscape
the world wants to hear lies in wars. Even the most evil empires in history (i don’t include the US as a highly evil empire) faked liberation as their motive.
Hitler faked that liberation was his motive for expanding eastward.
the USSR faked that liberation was their motive for building an international empire.
Mussolini faked that liberation was his motive when he invaded Ethiopia.
The Japanese faked that liberation was their agenda when they invaded China.
However, unlike these countries, i tend to believe the actions of the US will actually produce a better life for average people in Iraq. Anyone can claim liberation as their motive (and they usually do), but if the actions don’t back it up then its a lie. Since we live in an age of anti-US bias and a free international press i’m sure the plight of the Iraqi people and government will come to light, for better or worse.
I don’t state the end justifies the means. I never said raw, unadalturated evil was acceptable. but considering what life would be like with Saddam in power it was a choice of 2 evils, war or leaving a stalinist dictator in power with starvation sanctions in place for who knows how many years, one who most likely intentionally starves the iraqi people to death in order to look like a victim of the US. Its like a toothache. Either you can live with the chronic pain or go to the dentist, spend lots of money and experience stronger pain for a short time then start recovering.
Would i be willing to die to rebuild the Iraq economy? nope. But i never joined the military so its not my job to risk my life. The people who did most of the fighting chose a career that put them at risk of death, especially the special forces members and they were willing to risk death.
Here’s a link to the story as reported in Germany. The Google translation supports the Guardian’s version. But I would like to see more of the context of the answer.
The fact is that the oil theory doesn't make much sense because it assumes that the war is actually going to benefit the US economy which it won't given the massive up-front cost of fighting it and policing Iraq and the relatively decrepit nature of the Iraqi oil industry.
A much more convincing reason for the war lies with domestic politics. The war has given Bush a boost in his overall ratings, solidified his standing especially with the GOP base and allowed him to push the rest of his agenda. He probably thinks it will help him win the next election though I am not sure the war will look as good in a year’s time especially if there are still large numbers of troops still in Iraq and no WMD are found.
It’s even possible that the administration actually believed its own rhetoric about Saddam being a dire threat to the US unconvincing though it is.
Thanks, quixotic78, for the link, and things are pretty much as I expected they would be.
Wolfowitz was not stating that we invaded Iraq so as to steal their oil, as the Guardian falsely implied. He was contrasting the options open to the US in convincing the North Koreans to give up their nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, as opposed to those available with Iraq.
The full quote is as follows:
What he is saying is that Iraq was and is far richer than North Korea, and that therefore economic measures - sanctions, diplomatic isolation, essentially using economic aid as leverage to force them to give up their WMD - were not going to work with Iraq. The Iraqis could always sell their oil on the black market, or skim off from the oil-for-food program to enrich themselves.
North Korea has no such resources, and therefore our “economic options” exist in a way that never did with an oil state like Iraq. This is what Wolfowitz meant by “a major point of leverage” with North Korea.
I agree that the point is not very clear, but I don’t think Wolfowitz meant anything like what the Guardian wanted. To claim that this is a confession that the Iraqi invasion was all about oil is a gross distortion of the text.
As I said, much as I expected. A left-wing newspaper either accidentally or deliberately misunderstanding a politician with whom it actively disagrees.
This is waaaay more than what Dowd did. This isn’t even twisting words. Its flat-out lying both by obscuring the question asked and then ripping the answer to shreds in order to make it work the way you want it.
It would be like someone saying “I fully support sending relief aid to Congo, and am appalled at the gross violation of human rights occuring there, not least cannibalism”, then being quoted by newspapers as saying “I fully support cannibalism”.