Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

[nicky g]

Ahem


4.30pm update

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about 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."

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 post 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' harbouring 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.

War was about oil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html)

[MMMMMM]

nicky I fear you may be muddying the difference between "factor" and "motive" a little bit.

If Iraq could hold a large part of the world's oil supply hostage (through nuclear blackmail or other means) that's a HUGE factor, especially given Saddam's lack of hesitation in setting the oilfields ablaze previously.

That doesn't mean we did it to steal their oil or anything remotely close to that. Nor do Wolfowitz' comments imply such. Ensuring access to world oil markets is a good thing for everyone including the Iraqi people.

I think you may be oversimplifying and muddying just a wee bit here.

And come on why don't you just admit it: that all in all, the war was a very good thing, with many large positives and far fewer negatives than anticipated--in other words, it was a big plus for the world and even a big plus for the Iraqis.

[Dr Wogga]

....he is blinded by anti-Bush, anti-Blair, anti-US, pro-French, pro-Arab attitudes to ever admit that any good came out of the Iraq war. If anybody starts up a "Send Nicky G to Iraq or France Fund" put me down as a contributor. Yessirree baghdad bob. Count me in on that one

[nicky g]

Well now, I didn't actually say anything in that post - it was all the article. But the point isn't about "stealing" oil - it's about oil being the real main factor, as opposed to WMD, human rights, etc. Wolfowitz make it clear that that without oil, thered have been no war - that's how important it was. Access to oil markets may be important but it's not a legitimate reason to invade countries and topple governments. The main reason Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 was because Kuwait was depressing the price of oil by exceeding its OPEC production quota, crippling Iraq's economy. Your logic pretty much justifies such a decision - oil markets are important enough to invade sovereign countries.

There don't seem to be any reliable figures on Iraqi deaths in the war, but most figures I've seen suggest about 4000-5000 civilian deaths and 10000-20000 dead soldiers. A BBC embedded correspondent said at a talk I went to that the military were privately saying that the number of dead Iraqi soldiers was far higher than public estimates. He said he couldn't believe how much destruction he saw. That's a lot of dead people. Furthermore the country is now in a total state of collapse. Of course, that's not newsworthy. It's not being democratically governed and only a "representative" Iraqi government is promised - and that not for another year. The country is covered with depleted uranium and unexploded cluster bombs, which were illegally fired on civilian areas, as the British Ministry of Defence now admit (I'm sure the war crimes tribunal will come a long any day now). Oh, and to top it all off, following a war we're laughably told was meant to prevent the proliferation of dangerous materials, Iraqi nuclear sites have been looted and a bunch of radioactive material is missing - quite possibly enough to build a dirty radioactive bomb. Yeah man, the war was just terrific.

[nicky g]

All you have to do is convince my wife. Do that, and I'll pay for my own ticket. (Don't bother to address the article, by the way, that'd be irrelevant).

[Dr Wogga]

[HDPM]

It's hard to argue with stuff that comes out of Wolfowitz's mouth. I'm actually a bit surprised by the statements, although I am much more surprised by their honesty than content. Pretty damning statements all in all.

[Dr Wogga]

....hopefully you will answer yes or no, without dancing and weaving:

is it your position that Iraq with Saddam Hussein is preferable to an Iraq without him?

[Graham]

....hopefully you will answer yes or no, without dancing and weaving:

errm, the weaving started with M and yourself without nicky posting a word of his own. Basically it went (paraphrasing):

nickyg: "here's an article that has Wolfowitz saying the war was about the oil and WMD was the excuse"

M: "nicky, you're muddying and confusing things", followed by side-arguments away from the subject that the war was just a good thing anyway and putting words in nicky's mouth about "stealing oil, so that M can then refute them".

Dr Wogga: "Sure, we know that, silly." (...well, that would have been your best response to "here's an article that has Wolfowitz saying the war was about the oil and WMD was the excuse")

G

[MMMMMM]

1. nicky's "ahem" showed that he shared Mr. Wright's opinion that Wolfowitz had said the war was all about oil

2. Reading Wolfowitz' comments carefully, one can see that this is not what Wolfowitz said. Saying oil was a major or even pivotal factor is very different than saying the war was all about oil.

By the way, in the last U.S. Presidential elections, the Florida vote was pivotal. This isn't nearly the same as the election being all about the Florida vote.

[Cyrus]

A piece of friendly advice: Trying to offer excuses for the Iraqi War when the top dogs themselves have ceased to care about appearances and excuses is a losing proposition.

"Iraq could hold a large part of the world's oil supply hostage [and] that's a HUGE factor, especially given Saddam's lack of hesitation in setting the oilfields ablaze previously."

Oh, I see. So the invasion was about preventing Saddam from burning up the oil? I mean, you are saying that the U.S. invaded Iraq in order to prevent Saddam from burning the Iraqi oilfields ....which he would burn if he was invaded !?! That's fantastic.

"That doesn't mean we did it to steal their oil or anything remotely close to that."

Heavens, no! [shudder]

"Nor do Wolfowitz' comments imply such."

Of course, not! Tsk tsk tsk. (Nah, come on, seriously, take to heart my piece of advice and cut your losses: Wolfowitz and the gang will stop giving a damn and will start calling a spade a spade. They will have no use for apologists.)

"Access to world oil markets is a good thing for everyone including the Iraqi people."

So, if I get this straight, the U.S. invades Iraq in order to restore the world's access to Iraqi oil ...which the U.S. had forbidden in the first place.

Impeccable! (See what happens when you try to defend the indefensible?)

--Cyrus

PS : Of course, Washington uses English words differently than you and me. They say "access" but they mean "control. Like in the recent Congress vote about media : They say "competition" but they mean "concentration".

[Jimbo]

Where do you come up with these replies?

[andyfox]

"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."

Of course whenever someone on the left said "no blood for oil" they were ridiculed.

Chris Alger long ago mentioned that the only good reason that could be argued for going into Iraq was a moral one. The administration obviously didn't see this as a moral issue, since they only fell back on that argument when doubts were expressed about the terrorism-prevention and WMD arguments.

[Cyrus]

"Is it your position that Iraq with Saddam Hussein is preferable to an Iraq without him?"

The answer of course to the above can only be a straightforward and loud YES.

The side asking the question then goes into a delusion of Socratic grandeur and believes that the Iraqi War has been justified. Of course, a second look at the question reveals it for the con it is.

It's like asking

"Is it your position that it's preferable to get the 2.5 million dollars first prize at the WSOP No-Limit main event than not get it?"

The answer being the same as the one about Saddam, it inevitably dawns to the person being asked that the HOW he gets that preference to turn into reality is the biggest factor in the situation.

[Cyrus]

"John Barleycorn must die."

I'm glad you feel that way, Jim. (I used to think it was just a cool record title, till I found out what barleycorn's about.)

[MMMMMM]

I'm not apologizing for Wolfowitz et al, because I don't believe there is any apology needed.

There were many good reasons to go to war with Iraq. Averting the specter of having a megalomaniacal psychopath sitting atop the world's oilfields armed with WMD was only one good reason.

The administration's focus on Saddam's WMD programs and on his continued defiance of the 1991 cease-fire agreement and subsequent U.N. resolutions makes sense too--especially because it was an issue all in the administration could agree on.

It's a damn good thing he's gone now, also. Iraqis are no longer being routinely tortured and murdered by their own government, and the price of gas in the U.S. has dropped sharply. Other Arab governments which support terror have also gotten the message that we aren't f----ing around this time.

I guess there's just no pleasing some folks;-)

[MMMMMM]

They were all good reasons for war--some were just better than others.

"No blood for oil" was a stupid slogan in more ways than one. Firstly because the war was about more than oil, although the future security of the world's oilfields was an important factor. Secondly because it is worth spilling some blood for oil. Considering the importance of oil to the world economy, I don't see how that can be disputed.

[Dr Wogga]

....as much as I despise cyber-sniper cyrus, he at least had the guts to answer the legitimate question posed by the ever-good Dr. That his answer is wrong is besides the point. What about the rest of you lefties??? C'mon out with your commie agendas. C'mon answer the damn question, at least cyrus (....puke....) did

[IrishHand]

My sentiments exactly - pretty amazing that a member of the club would admit to something that effectively torpedoes their position.

[Graham]

M,

I only wish I was half as eloquent as Cyrus or yourself. I may be only slightly ahead of the Dr.

You're right - Wolfowitz' words don't quite literally state that the war was all about oil.

G

[MMMMMM]

HDPM, please take a closer look please at what Wolfowitz was actually quoted as saying in the article (two quotes lower in the article) vs. what Wright used the quotes to imply (especially earlier in the article).

Wright called Wolfowitz' prior statement a bureaucratic "excuse" yet the quote in question (provided below in his article) offers no reason to presume it is an "excuse": after all it does make sense to focus publicly on a primary reason all administration offcials could agree upon.

Wright also cleverly positions the quote about swimmming on a sea of oil in such a way that the reader is nudged to conclude that the goal was somehow to grab or control their oil rather than merely ensuring future access and regional stability, and the article provides a mood backdrop to help effect this conclusion.

The bottom line is that while some suspicion may be warranted, the actual quotes in the article from Wolfowitz do not firmly lead one to such conclusions. Obviously however they led Mr. Wright to such firm conclusions.

[MMMMMM]

Well that was fairly eloquent;-)

Yes, Wolfowitz' words do raise suspicious eyebrows--and I'm not saying that there shouldn't be room for suspicion-- I just don't conclude from those two quotes that anything underhanded was necessarily going on.

Actually the two points Wolfowitz made could just have easily been made prior to the war: 1) that among reasons for war, one reason the entire administration agrees upon is the need to address the growing threat from Saddam's WMD programs, and 2) that the strategic security of the oil region must not be left at the mercy of an aggressive butcher like Hussein. Those two points, if stressed before the war, probably would have been well-received.

[HDPM]

You are apologizing too much for Wolfowitz. I don't think the only reason that we went to war was oil. Nor do I think we went with the intent to steal the oil. (And I would steal the oil once we went to the trouble of kicking the crap out of them.) But the Wolfowitz statements show our policy is not one that is as pure as the Administration wants us to believe it is. It exposes a pretty cynical policy stance in that we blather on about the "Axis of Evil" yet what we really mean is a "Pretty bad regime that has a lot of problems and has some connection to terrorists and is an important piece in the world's resources puzzle and we can't jeopardize our oil. And they are easy enough to beat up on and China and North Korea aren't." The war still may have been the better choice, but it sure is hard to go celebrate a whole lot. Or take it very seriously when Bush lands triumphantly on an aircraft carrier in his campaign or whatever.

[MMMMMM]

I don't know--maybe it's just because I think there were so many good reasons for the war that this seems to me rather inconsequential. Maybe too the administration shouldn't have focused publicly so heavily on the WMD issue, but even that I believe was a real issue.

The funny thing is I'm not even trying to apologize for Wolfowitz: I think the war was a damn good thing whether it was solely for the WMD-program reason, or whether it was for the WMD-program reason combined with other reasons.

[andyfox]

The president said that he had proof that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He did not. The president said that we were in imminent danger from Saddam Hussein. We were not. Those were not good reasons for going to war since they were falsehoods. Ray Zee's post in response to Thomas Friedman's article in the New York Times sums it up in pithy fashion.

"No blood for oil" was criticized by the pro-war faction because they felt it was disingenuous to accuse the administration of going to war to help our giant oil corporations. Now Wolfowitz's comments have shown that it was a major factor. As you point out, how could it have been otherwise?

As a leftist, I have no problem admitting that most of the liberal presidents in my lifetime (Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton) lied to us when it suited their purposes. It is clear the administration lied to us about Iraq. Let's admit it and get on with things. Why is this so difficult?

The pro-Kim Bush administration ought to trust the American people more than it evidently does.

[MMMMMM]

"The president said that he had proof that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He did not."

Saddam almost surely did have WMD's. Bush also did have evidence, although some of it is now dated and some may have been originally unreliable.

"The president said that we were in imminent danger from Saddam Hussein. We were not."

As I recall Bush said the danger from Saddam's WMD program was "growing" or "growing rapidly" not "imminent." I guess it may depend on exactly what time frame one defines as "imminent." But one thing's for sure: if the danger was "growing" we would have been fools to let it become "imminent."

One last point. If I'm ever looking for something and can't find it as soon as I think I should be able to, I'm just going to assume it doesn't exist anymore. For if it exists I should surely be able to find it in what I think is a reasonable--or even generous--period of time. And if I find something that is only very much like what I'm looking for--but not exactly what I had hoped for--I'll just discount it.

[nicky g]

"is it your position that Iraq with Saddam Hussein is preferable to an Iraq without him? "
No. That is not my position. Iraq is clearly better off without Saddam Hussein. My reasons for opposing the war
were that I do not think it is so much better off now that the war was justifiable (for a variety of reasons, including, amongst others: the war killed lots of people; the wrong people are in charge of Iraq; Iraq is being badly governed and is in a state of chaos; Iraq is covered in unexploded cluster bombs and depleted uranium); that the stated reasons for the war were clearly lies; and that the war has lead to an international situation in which the most powerful can simply do as they please without constraint.

[John Cole]

M,

Grow? Growing? Had grown? Would have grown? Well, certainly someone had something that grew.

John

[John Cole]

". . . the only good reason that could be argued for into Iraq was a moral one."

That reason, of course, can never be argued.

John

[Dr Wogga]

...first of all, I don't think the "reasons stated for war were clearly lies." Let's see what information comes out. Bush, Blair, Spain's PM are all under a lot of political pressure to divulge what information they were basing their [choose among the following: growing/imminent/impending/yada, yada, yada] WMD pronouncements. Bear in mind that the UN inspectors and the internation atomic energy group had volumes of documentation from Iraq, circa '98, that supposedly detailed their nuclear and biological weapons arsenal.
Were these weapons destroyed, moved to Syria or parts unknown? Are they still hidden in Iraq? Was the list out and out bull-sh*t? Who knows? That Iraq was in violation of UN resolution 1441 is not deniable, because they (Iraq)bore the burden of proof as to what they did with these weapons that were on the lists they provided.

The last point you made "that the war has lead to an international situation in which the most powerful can simply do as they please without constraint" is a semi-valid concern. The party line is that the coalition of the willing were enforcing 1441, making it a legitimate international action. There are many other UN resolutions that, of course, are not enforced. However, no apology is needed for the Iraq action. None whatsoever. The world is better off without Hussein. Also, the ties of his corrupt government to terrorism are indisputable. The US is at war with terrorism Nicky, whether you like it or not. The arab terrorist bastards you and the scumbag french, canadians, germans, etc support, have killed innocent American men, women, and children. Killed them on planes, in their offices, in their homes. Eff all you apologists.

We should take out Iran and Syria, then North Korea. As long as it doesn't interfere with football season, I can't wait. A world without terror - how nice. Too bad you can't wave your dopey wand and make it all just stop. You can't do that Nicky can you? You can't tell bin laden and scum like that to just stop bombing innocents, stop suicide bombings - know why? They won't LISTEN TO YOU Nicky. They don't even LIKE you Nicky. So guess what? Someone has to go get those bastards Nicky. Someone has to go KILL THEM NICKY - or guess what? They are going to kill YOU and well-meaning lefty apologists like yourself, as well as the people on the right and in the middle. Sorry to shatter your idealistic world - your rodney king "can't we all just get along" farsical, idiotic fantasy-land. We have to kill them Nicky. Its that simple. No apologies necessary. None. Have a nice day.

[nicky g]

But this is what I honestly don't understand: if you want to go after terrorists, go after them, and go after the people that support them. But those aren't Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Iran and Iraq have supported Palestinian factions but those have don't pose a threat to the US, and neither have ever supported al-Qaeda, who are idelogically opposed to both Saddam and the Shia mullahs (OK Saddam is gone, but you get what I mean). The support comes from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two US allies. Pakistan's ISI effectively created the Taliban and had, and probably still has, al-Qaeda links. Bush goes on about al-Qaeda fighters in Iran, which there is little or no evidence for, and yet there are without any doubt al-Qaeda in Pakistan. Furthermore, Pakistan openly has nuclear weapons, while Iran may or may not be attempting to acquire them. I wish you would see that the administration is using the war on terrorism as an excuse to settle other scores - its main commitment is clearly very little to do with fighting al-Qaeda, and everything to do with dominating strategically important regions. You criticise the international community as ignoring the terrorist threat to America, but the countries you list supported the overthrow of the Taliban. They opposed the invasion of Iraq not because they don't care about terrorism but because they knew Iraq had nothing to do with the main terrorist threat.

[Jimbo]

"You criticise the international community as ignoring the terrorist threat to America, but the countries you list supported the overthrow of the Taliban. They opposed the invasion of Iraq not because they don't care about terrorism but because they knew Iraq had nothing to do with the main terrorist threat."

This is hardly the case. The members of the international community that opposed Saddam's overthrow opposed the coalition due to selfish economic reasons, not some altruistic sense of right and wrong.

[nicky g]

I don't see how you come to this conclusion. Russia for instance has been told that the billions Iraq owed her will be repaid. France has oil companies that were unable to exploit Iraq's oil under sanctions, and will be now. What economic interests did Germany have in Iraq? Or China? Or Chile? Or Angola? I can't understand how you could possibly believe that this was more of a factor in their decision making than it was in the US decision to invade Iraq.

[nicky g]

Furthermore, many of the smaller countries that refused to come round would have been offered substantial economic sweeteners to come on side (and probably economic threats if they refused; have a read about what happened to Yemen when it voted against the first Gulf War), and you can be sure that French and Russian oil companies would have been proimised a substantial slice of the pie in post-war Iraq had they played nicely.

[Jimbo]

nicky this is all after the fact. Before the war began these countries were shivering in their boots afraid they would be exposed for supporting the regime of a mass murderer and lose the nice little contracts they had exclusive to their clique. Using evidence of what will happen to the distribution of wealth after the war for their opposition prior to the war is not reasonable. That covers France and Russia as for Germany it was simply a political decision to add secutity to his position as Chancellor. Chile and Angola are irrelevant in world policy and China is simply worried about what happens in their backyard after Iraq.

[nicky g]

The decision to guarantee the Iraqi debt to Russia was after the fact, but Putin clearly could have negotiated this before the fact if he supported the war. France's economic ties to Iraq under Saddam were pretty neglible, anyway. Similarly, as I said, if all France cared about were its economic interests, it too could have negotiated its way on side. Once the war became inevitable (quite a long time in advance), this would have been the only reasonable strategy to protect its economic interests. Chile and Angola are irrelevant to world policy but they were two of the countries on the Security Council that the US tried and failed to persuae to back its cause, so they are relevant to this case. And as for Germany, acting in line with public opinion isn't so terrible a crime for a democratic government. At least you'll admit it wasn't acting out of commercial motivations.

I'll repeat, I don't understand how you can find so many ulterior motives for all these other countries, yet manage to ignore the glaringly obvious US commercial and strategic interests in a "friendly" Iraq. If you look at a who's who of countries intervening in Iraq to secure commercial interests over the last 100 years, you won't find France and Russia; you'll find Britain and the US.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, and whether it was the threat from Saddam's WMD program, or whether it was a pile of somehow unreliable intelligence information, or whether it was Bush's nose, or whether it was some combination of the above, is as yet undetermined. I favor the first two, but much remains to be seen.

I just don't see how it can be justified at this point to draw the conclusion that Bush lied--unless I missed something very significant on the news.

[MMMMMM]

I'm curious why you say this, since I feel the war would have been justified on moral and humanitarian grounds alone.

Saddam tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of his own people during his reign. The casualties of the war were quite small compared to this, and very likely far lower than the number of people Saddam and his sons would have continued to torture, terrorize and kill over the next ten or twenty years. To me, that seems ample moral and humanitarian justification for the forcible removal of Saddam's regime. For what reason(s) do you see it differently?

[Jimbo]

"I'll repeat, I don't understand how you can find so many ulterior motives for all these other countries, yet manage to ignore the glaringly obvious US commercial and strategic interests in a "friendly" Iraq."

I'm not ignoring them at all nor have I meant to imply they do not exist. I was attempting to refute your position that the countries you outlined had no ulterior motives which they were using to ignore the damage Saddam had and would likely continue to inflict not only on his own people but likely the USA and our allies.

[MMMMMM]

"...and that the war has lead to an international situation in which the most powerful can simply do as they please without constraint."

nicky this has always been the situation throughout human history.

When the USSR wanted to go into Afghanistan they went. When we wanted to go into Afghanistan we went.

The U.N. has never exerted much real influence on such things when the chips were down. It's an illusion to think otherwise. In fact the U.N. exerted considerably more influence prior to the Iraq war than it did prior to most other wars. It just so happened that this time the ultimate paper-tiger-nature of the U.N. somehow got more attention.

On another note, just be glad that the West, not the USSR, won the Cold War, and that the U.S. (and U.K.) exhibit some restraint. Had the USSR emerged as the sole superpower I'll bet we would have seen a lot more unbridled military aggression on a worldwide scale by now, and Europe would already be under Communist rule. Then the Soviets would have taken over the world and everybody would have eventually gone broke except the Russian Mafia.

[andyfox]

With all due respect, my friend, your missing the point. Ray Zee said is clearly and concisely. We were lied to. Being deceitful to the public and going to war on top of that deceit makes our leaders more like the tyrant we defeated.

We must demand truth from our leaders. After 9/11, it seemed to me that the administration took its time, assembled the evidence against Al Qaeda and the support of Al Qaeda by the Taliban in Afghanistan. But in Iraq the evidence was manufactured.

By the way, this is not a left-right issue. Politicians on the left are equally capable of such deceit (for example, in Vietnam).

I have no doubt, as I have posted before, that the WMDs will either be found of "found." But that does not change the point of the argument: we were lied to and we went to war on the basis of that lie.

[nicky g]

I suppose you are right that that has always been more or less the case. At least previsouly there was a pretence that the the US and UK were supporters of international law, though it obvisoul wasn't true.
As for the cold war, I am certainly glad the USSR did not win it, but I think an awful lot of it was less of a war than we were told; eg neutral, nationalist or independent countries being presented as Soviet threats or Soviet fifth columnists. I don't think the Soviets were as interested in world domination as we were told, though they were certainly interested in regional domination.

As for the Russian mafia, they are a decidedly post-Soviet phenomenon.

[Jimbo]

Andy as much as I respect Ray Zee I doubt he knows (to use a quote by Hillary) "What Bush knew and when he knew it". Again the left is acting like we have searched every square inch of Iraq both above and below ground and found no WMD's. Heck, just this week is another military unit with true expertise able to safely move into Iraq to do a proper search for WMD's. Let's give this horse some time to die before we bury it and say the last rites!

[MMMMMM]

All good points...IF...we were lied to. Before going off all over that tangent why don't we try to establish it as a fact first. And as far as I know, nobody has yet presented any convincing arguments of this.

[Dr Wogga]

....no question. But, I think Musharraf IS trying to get out of terror-sponsoring - witness the joint Pakistani-US-Coalition capture of a number of al-qaeda operatives - khalid sheik muhammed being the most notorious. I also think he does not have nearly full support in his country for trying to move Pakistan into the mainstream. Everytime an al qeda arrest is made, it comes from towns where retired Pakistani generals and intelligence operatives live/"rule" the area. No doubt there is support for al qaeda and Taliban remnants in these parts of Pakistan. However, I think you have to ask yourself if support for al qaeda is state-sponsored vs. "faction-sponsored." No doubt there are para-military, extreme Muslim factions within Pakistan completely pro-al qaeda and anti-US. Sadly, I think this is probably true of just about every Arab nation.

Iran and Syria IMO are state sponsors of terrorism. Exactly how many al-qaeda operatives have been turned over to the US by these bums? They talk the talk publicly, but it is clear to me they harbor, finance, and support terrorist organizations. As such, we need to go after them and KILL them. Not much option, unless there are internal regime changes in those countries. They, Iran and Syria, are coalition enemies BECAUSE they harbor and finance terrorist on a state-sponsored basis.

Saudi Arabia is a major quiestion mark IMO. I believe they are hybrid of both extremes in the Arabic world - and it is a little too convenient that every major terrorist activity has saudis up the wazoo as participants. Perhaps the 2-faced royal family will cut ties to one side or the other. It would not surprise me if it came out that saudi arabia has been the primary financier of al qaeda all along - witness their lack of cooperation in a number of other investigations they effectively stone-walled. Note also their lack of action with respect to the US asking for beefed-up security at the residential area that housed westerners, only to have the 2-faced saudi scumbags turn a deaf ear. OTOH, it is quite possible that the recent terrorist attack on their soil might finally wake them up. One can only hope. For the record, until they positively demonstrate they are not dealing from both sides of the pack, I, the good Dr Wogga, despise the saudis (as I do the disingenuous, dishonest, arrogant, anti-semitic, holier-than-thou cyber-snipers).

[Dr Wogga]

....but Bush-bashers can't wait that long.

[adios]

Please read my post under Ray Zee's. Andy conviently forgets about what Clinton stated about Iraq and the bombing of Iraq that Clinton ordered. Here's a link to what I'm referring to:

TRANSCRIPT: CLINTON ON PREEMPTIVE AIRSTRIKES AGAINST IRAQ (http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/clintoniraq.htm)

Notice the headline from 1998. How soon they forget. Clinton and Bush reached the same conclusions about Iraq and WMD's and the threat that was proposed. The two most likely scenarios are

1) That they both were lying

or

2) They both were proceeding on the same information.

My bet is on number 2).

[Jimbo]

Great link Tom I particularly liked the passage below:

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens
the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of
the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with
the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its
neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

[andyfox]

The point is not whether or not they had WMDs. The point is whether or not our government lied to us by saying they had proof they did and by saying they were a danger to us.

As I have said many times here, I have no doubt the WMDs will be found. And if not, they will be "found."

Powell's evidence as presented to the U.N. was faulty. Bush's reasoning and logic for going to war were faulty. Give us the truth, we're American's we can handle it. I believe we were given the truth about Al Qaeda flourishing in Afghanistan under the Taliban and being responsible for the attacks of 9/11 and I supported going after them (although I am disappointed in our follow-up). We were deceived on Iraq.

[andyfox]

Clinton lie? No way!

Seriously, Clinton was prone to overreact on foreign policy issues. For a while, he was blaming Bin Laden for everything that went wrong around the world. And is it not possible for two presidents to have reached the same wrong conclusion? Every president from Truman to Nixon reached the wrong conclusion about Vietnam. Andrew Bacevich's book American Empire argues that both Bushes and Clinton have followed esssentially the same foreign policy.

We now hear that Cheney made several visits to CIA HQ, reportedly to get them to modify their intelligence to suit the story being pushed by the administration.

[andyfox]

Note that Clinton said, "Saddam Hussein and the
other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down."

I wonder what serious debate that was? And if it would be beyond a man of Clinton's fine, upstanding character to exaggerate a foreign threat for other purposes?

[MMMMMM]

Well you keep saying we were deceived on Iraq (and it sounds like you mean deliberately, too.) Yet you haven't made a case for it at all--nobody really has, as far as I know--and I for one am FAR from convinced as of yet that we were deceived (especially deliberately).

I'm going away for a couple of days. Maybe you would care to outline the case for this claim while I am gone.

[MMMMMM]

Well if the threat wasn't exaggerated, it's a very good thing we dealt with it pre-emptively, and the Iraqi people got deliverance from a true despot as a bonus and are apparently happy about that. If the threat was exaggerated, the Iraqi people got deliverance from a true despot and are apparently happy about that.