World's newest state (20 Viewers)

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
115,916
Wolfowitz: "Iraq War Was About Oil"
By George Wright
The Guardian

Wednesday 04 June 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."

Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbours - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.

His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "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."

Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war.

Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are both facing fierce criticism at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war.

Amid growing calls from all parties for a public inquiry, the foreign affairs select committee announced last night it would investigate claims that the UK government misled the country over its evidence of Iraq's WMD.

The move is a major setback for Tony Blair, who had hoped to contain any inquiry within the intelligence and security committee, which meets in secret and reports to the prime minister.

In the US, the failure to find solid proof of chemical, biological and nuclear arms in Iraq has raised similar concerns over Mr Bush's justification for the war and prompted calls for congressional investigations.

Mr Wolfowitz is viewed as one of the most hawkish members of the Bush administration. The 57-year old expert in international relations was a strong advocate of military action against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Following the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harboring or sponsoring of militants.

Prior to his appointment to the Bush cabinet in February 2001, Mr Wolfowitz was dean and professor of international relations at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), of the Johns Hopkins University.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
115,916
Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

Graham Paterson

Greenspan on the 'irresponsible' Bush

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Former chairman of the Federal Reserve critical of President’s economic competence in his memoir published tomorrow.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

_________

Vinni, Alan Greenspan was probably the top FED Chairman in history. Are you going to discredit this guy, too?
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
115,916
Shouldn't you be cleaning out Pep Guardiola's ear wax, or something?
Check out this little conversation via pm with m_elayyan. :weee:

Andy said:
m_elayyan said:
Andy said:
m_elayyan said:
fuck you asshole :spliff:
Song dai, dai song.
stupid american , you cant be better than your president :lol:
My President is zeeeee greatest! One day i went to him and said, hey YOOOO, Mr. President, come inghyar while I drink oil! He said a to me...... Frank Riijkard is the one true God and Messi is his prophet!

I AGREEEEEEEEEEEEE!
:seven:
 

Arvin

Juve Star
Dec 30, 2004
1,600
Wolfowitz: "Iraq War Was About Oil ??
now he says the truth
hehe...


btw,

correct me if i am wrong

"an english dude was gonna blow the oil pube once and he got arrested by iraqi police and he was in jail after english man came with tnks and distroyed everything and thy killed all iraqi forces and releseas thier friends.." never heard this before but is this true???.
 

Osman

Koul Khara!
Aug 30, 2002
61,487
What's the point of taking over a country that's already in their control? Do you think the Saudi government thinks for itself?
The reverse has been true for a LONG LONG LONG time though. That the Saudi's have had a big influence on the US govt since their unholy alliance after the WWII.

I mean, they are talking about war on terror, while the country its "illega"l to even mention the Saudi's in CIA reports or investigations, despite the fact the fund the majority of islamic extremist terrorism and that most chunk of terrorists come from there.

Its funny how they deflect everything from the Saudis, makes much more sense that the US govt and likes of big kahunas like Ron Pearl said to George Tenet (then CIA chief) in govt meeting the day after 9/11, that Iraq has a hand in this and that the CIA should find them ways to go after this (meaning invent reasons to attack them). Everyone in the room just nodded and agreed. While Mr CIA chief was baffled and said the CIA has zero connection with Iraq in global terrorism, or have influence outside their boarders at all. He said Iran, Syria and Pakistan are more viable threats, and that he laid out several times how the Saudi's are 5 times more of a threat then everyone else (Pakistan are threat because its an anarchy that has training camsp....but they are funded and lead by saudis).


Sorry for the rant, but its funny the influence the Saudi's have, instead of being typical puppets, they are the puppeteers at times. The US doesnt need to invade them for oil, not in their interest and they its a self-destructing move (no offense, but even the most docile western friendly muslim would go Osama nuts if the US invaded and took over anywhere close to the Mecka).

P.S If you are wondering to the corious little bit I mentionned about George Tenet and how the US govt was already set on invading Iraq, made up their about it and just took some year or 2 to invent reasons to invade them, well this former CIA chief said all of this in his book. And also a big special in 60 minutes. Pretty fucking interesting how direct and obvious their are in their distorting and self-interest.
 

Azzurri7

Pinturicchio
Moderator
Dec 16, 2003
72,692
I don't want to go off-topic here, but just felt like saying that the war on Iraq isn't really about the Oil.

George Wright isn't spot on on that.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 20)