[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[kalthalior]

Once again, Rex Posts a link to a secondary source that takes a statement out of context and puts its own spin on a perfectly innoculous statement. The situations, while having some similiarities, have very different cirumstances, which the speaker is pointing out. We have economic and political leverage on N. Korea that did not exist in the Iraq scenario.

Link to Full Q & A session: Wolfowitz transcript

Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. It’s is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation goals.

Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. (Italics mine) The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.

EDIT: Wow, everybody is quick on the trigger today.
2nd Edit: Note the first question from the Japanese press Wolfowitz in Tokyo

[ June 04, 2003, 20:50: Message edited by: kalthalior ]

[Jack Simth]

Dislaimer: I say "Could," "Might," "if," and "had" on these. The article simply doesn't quote sufficiently to preclude mis-quoting, and so I am simply showing a way that things could have been warped; after all, I encounter such warps fairly frequently in my local paper; I can be suspicious of something Online. The article might be fairly representing things; but there isn't any way to tell. Likewise, I have no particular reason to believe what I have been typing here is necessarily true; the point is that Wolfowitz may not be fairly represented, and there is no way to tell if he is or not.

Edit: Oh, I guess there is a way to tell - find the transcript of the session the quotes come from. My bad....

Originally posted by rextorres:
Wolfowitz: "Iraq war was about oil"

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...970334,00.html

The only place the 'Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil' part appears in the linked article is in the title - and it is missing the quotes. The article quotes Wolfowitz only a five times, and they are single-word quotes on three of them:
1) "bureaucratic",
2) "swimming",
3) "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.",
4) "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction.",
5) "end"

1, 2, and 5 were used in what the reader will assume are paraphrasings of what Wolfowitz said; it would be very easy for these to have been taken out of context, as they are single-word quotes.

3 is odd, but it is of note that it doesn't say exactly what was asked, just "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". Had the exact question been "Why is North Korea being treated differently from Iraq?" with the part about nuclear power and WMD's being added later, then 3 could simply be a portion on a cognizant essay on why a regeme change in NK wouldn't work well - NK doesn't have much in the way of resources that would be necessary for rebuilding the economy, while Iraq does.

4 Isn't necessarily condeming. It could readily have been a matter of some people not thinking that Human Rights violations weren't enough to warrent intervention while others thought that treaty violations weren't enough to warrent intervention so they settled on WMD's. All the options listed here could have been cases made, and all could have been true (in that Iraq was doing Human Rights violations, violating the treaty, and holding WMD's); however, if everyone involved disagreed on what exactly constitued sufficent cause, but everyone agreed on the WMD's as being sufficent cause, then 4 would still make perfect sense to utter.

[ June 04, 2003, 20:54: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[kalthalior]

I also found this interesting seeing as how I was on the DoD site anyway.

DoD reply to intel questions raised in the press

[rextorres]

Originally posted by kalthalior:
Once again, Rex Posts a link to a secondary source that takes a statement out of context and puts its own spin on a perfectly innoculous statement.

I just posted the link without any comment. You can believe what you want. The first place the troops went, though, when they invaded Iraq were the oil fields. I guess that's just a coincidence.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by rextorres:
I just posted the link without any comment.

Kalthalior didn't say you commented on it. Why this sentence now?

Originally posted by rextorres:
You can believe what you want. The first place the troops went, though, when they invaded Iraq were the oil fields. I guess that's just a coincidence.

Even if it isn't a coincidence, it doesn't imply anything nefarious. It could simply be a matter of safegaurding the area's most economically valuable resource to make certain it will be there when the country needs rebuilding. Besides, as I recal, Saddam had set them on fire, and they were covering the countryside in noxious (but not fatal) smoke; they needed to be put out, and Saddam wasn't going to do so, as he had ordered the fires set in the first place.

[ June 04, 2003, 21:21: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[tesco samoa]

narrew. time will tell if this is correct *** usa's foreign policy***

P-D.

Lets take a busy street conor.

Now lets let off some gas. ( gas has been proven to be a very inefficent means of combat, more for terror than any thing else )
Now lets let off a cluster bomb
You tell tell me what is a 'wmd' in this situation.

[tesco samoa]

Geo... you have to come and work in a stamping plant. When it is quiet... It is really quiet... Then all hell breaks loose... ( like the venom song ) then quiet.... Then code away and then when you have to document the stuff... you look at web sites... Any thing to avoid documentation... ( p.s. I know that this is typing as well ... Irony yes. CMM and Iso No. )

His quotes are quite classic....

If SNL was in its hey days... there would some fun at his expense... I know this is ot... But I always loved the Ronald Regan ones where he is running everything...

[Fyron]

If SNL was in its hey days... there would some fun at his expense... I know this is ot... But I always loved the Ronald Regan ones where he is running everything...

I don't think I have ever seen a rerun of SNL that had a skit with Reagen in it. They must not like playing those episodes.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by rextorres:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kalthalior:
Once again, Rex Posts a link to a secondary source that takes a statement out of context and puts its own spin on a perfectly innoculous statement.

I just posted the link without any comment. You can believe what you want. The first place the troops went, though, when they invaded Iraq were the oil fields. I guess that's just a coincidence.

---

Let's see... there are oil fields in southeast Iraq, and troops from Kuwait (roughly SE of Iraq) had to go northwest (and through those oil fields) to get to Baghdad. Yeah, must be a conspiracy.

Do you truly believe what you say, or are you just trying to get reactions?

[oleg]

The only building guarded by US first week in Bahdad was the oil ministery. Practically across the street mob looted Bahdad national museum and hospitals. No US troops were posted there. That set priorities right.