IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL (isn't it?)

hapaboy · Jan 29, 2003

Looking forward to some good debate here.

trader556 · Jun 4, 2003

Quote from hapaboy:

Looking forward to some good debate here.
More...

No debate on this at all.

Here is your answer from the horse's mouth:

Wolfowitz:
"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."

George Wright
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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html

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

LiverNoMore · Jun 4, 2003

KymarFye · Jun 5, 2003

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:

Sounds pretty devastating, right? The quote makes it seem like Wolfowitz is arguing that Iraq was such a lucrative prize that it would have been stupid not to invade and grab the oil.

Now let's go to the actual transcript and see what Wolfowitz said in context [responding to a question about why the U.S. thought using economic pressure would work with respect to North Korea and not with regard to Iraq]:

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. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.

Clearly, what Wolfowitz meant was that Iraq's oil made it easy for Saddam Hussein's regime to survive economic sanctions, while North Korea might be more vulnerable to economic pressure.

This is how every other news outlet -- UPI, AP, Fox News, The Australian -- covered the story. [...]

The Guardian's version of events in such a ludicrous distortion of Wolfowitz's words that it falls into the "useful idiots" category. By apparently relying on a German translation/distortion of Wolfowitz's words -- when multiple English-language sources of the actual comments were available -- I have to wonder if the Guardian is guilty of libel in this case.
More...

http://drezner.blogspot.com/2003_06_01_drezner_archive.html#95299121

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.

candletrader · Jun 5, 2003

Quote from KymarFye:

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.

More...

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...

hapaboy · Jun 5, 2003

This is the original thread I started:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13353&highlight=Its+all+about+the+oil

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:

Quote from hapaboy:

If posts can contain something more insightful than slogans perhaps there can be some good debate here.

It would be especially helpful if voters would post the reasoning behind their votes.

I voted for option 4 because I feel the "this is all about the US wanting to take over the world's oil" argument is ridiculous. America has had numerous opportunities to have taken over the oil supply of many a nation due to an overwhelming military advantage, yet we have NEVER done so.

We had the opportunity after WWII when we were the sole nuclear power. What did we do with our unprecedented, one-sided power? We helped the world rebuild. Indeed, we helped our greatest enemies in the conflict, Germany and Japan, become economic powerhouses.

We had the opportunity after Desert Storm. Did we take advantage of the beating we dealt to the Iraqis then and press on to Baghdad? Did we take over Kuwait's oil fields which Saddam tried to destroy? No. We helped Kuwait put out the fires and then..... left.

Those of you on other threads (Candle, Madison, traderfut2000, bungrider, et al) who have posted that Bush is doing this solely to control the oil have an opportunity here to state your reasoning. Hopefully you will not avoid the issue as you have on those threads. If you do avoid it, we can then assume you have no argument. Your silence will indeed speak much louder than your empty slogans.
More...

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.

Log in or Sign up

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL (isn't it?)

hapaboy

trader556

LiverNoMore

KymarFye

candletrader

hapaboy