Discussion in 'Politics' started by hapaboy, Jan 29, 2003.
Looking forward to some good debate here.
No debate on this at all.
Here is your answer from the horse's mouth:
"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."
Wednesday June 4, 2003
Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.
The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.
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."
wild, sorry to borrow your favorite news service but this was too important not to quote
Well at least some of the Oil Shrub Mafia and Co are starting to come clean. What??? No news coverage every hour on the hour?? ggggg
Typical distortions from the GUARDIAN - rather similar to the same twisting of Wolfowitz's words done with his WMD statements, but even more blatantly dishonest. Typical willingness from Trader556 to swallow it whole, unquestioningly.
Here's how Daniel Drezner - one among many observers - explained the events. After quoting the same GUARDIAN article, he continues as follows:
In addition to being stupid, manipulatively distorting someone's words is extremely dishonest. Coming from those who like to pose as brave truthtellers, it's repulsively hypocritical.
I gotta agree with ya, Brother KymarFye... the Guardian is a commie rag with connections to Al-Quaeda... we should blow their offices up... God Bless America...
This is the original thread I started:
How did you edit the original thread down, like my first post, and also cut out the pages of replies? Are you in fact a moderator?
The original thread consisted of a poll, and my entire first post stated this:
Very suspicious, Trader556. Why didn't you just tack on your post at the end of the original thread instead of creating this new one?
Let it be clear: I DID NOT START THIS THREAD.
This needs to be looked into as on the main Chit Chat page it clearly lists me as the thread starter.
Separate names with a comma.