[Oswald Defense Lawyer]

from here

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.

[maxelson]

Interesting. I eagerly await comments and a more full context.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer:
from here

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.

Quoted in its entirety for your scrolling pleasure.

The only direct quote in the article does not quote the entire question that was asked of Mr. Wolfowitz. While I have no doubt that Iraq's oil production capacity will prove to be a strong, economic aid to the Iraqi people and their rebuilding of their nation, I highly doubt that his assertation was 'it was all about oil'.

Nice try, but I'll wait for a transcript of the entire dialogue before giving a nod to this.

[davesimondotcom]

I like how the Guardian rehashes the Vanity Fair "customized" version of what Wolfowitz said.

[Lerkfish]

well, even though I personally think oil, or rather CONTROL of the oil infrastructure was a primary motivator, even I do not conclude from wolfowitz's statement here that it was "all about oil".

I find his statement perplexing and confusing, but I am not drawn to only that specific conclusion.

If we look at the statement again:

"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."

This could also mean that economic impact from invasion needed to be accounted for differently, because of the oil-based economy. (though I still find that confusing, since wouldn't that mean that invasion should NOT have been an option?).

I admit it is a very confusing quote. The interpretation you point to is certainly plausible.

On to the more important issue brought up in the article, though. WHY is this type of thing happening NOW? if Wolfowitz is this much of an embarrassment, why does he continue talking? Why is Rumsfeld soft-shuffling the WMD issue? Why did several top people resign a week or so before all this stuff started coming out? Did Ari know he was going to have to handle a hot potato and said "no thanks"?
Certainly, this seems non-cohesive of the administration at best, and rats deserting a sinking ship at worst. Something weird is happening, that's for sure. What, exactly, I have my guesses but otherwise no real indication.

[davesimondotcom]

(Why isn't Day by Day syndicated and Cathy is?)

[voodoo]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I like how the Guardian rehashes the Vanity Fair "customized" version of what Wolfowitz said.

You do?

[boots]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
img http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/06-04-2003.gif

(Why isn't Day by Day syndicated and Cathy is?)

That's pretty funny, and could be used for nearly half of the flame-fest we get going here.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by voodoo:
You do?

Nah, you just missed my invisible <sarcasm> tags.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Nah, you just missed my invisible <sarcasm> tags.

i think he was joking too

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
i think he was joking too

Oh, see - I have no sense for these things...

[voodoo]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Nah, you just missed my invisible <sarcasm> tags.

gah! pesky invisible <sarcasm> tags!

[maxelson]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:


(Why isn't Day by Day syndicated and Cathy is?)

Now with Doonsbury- this makes up my daily cartoon ritual.
I thankee.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have a year's worth of back strips to see to.

[Oswald Defense Lawyer]

All for oil.



All for oil.



All for oil.



All for oil.

[Spliffdaddy]

YAY, now there will be a lot fewer citizens killed by Hussein's regime.

Let freedom ring.

[Safari]

You know when you stay at a hotel you see those flyer's advocating conservation of natural resources, they read something like: "PROJECT PLANET, We invite you to join us (the hotel) to conserve water by using your towels more than once." (So they don't have to wash them.)

I always feel like I'm being lied too or conned when I see them. I mean i'd just feel so much better if they'd just say it... "WE WANT MORE PROFITS, STOP RUNING UP OUR WATER BILL!!!...oh and you also get the benefit of less wasted water"

Well, I got the same feeling with "The War With Iraq".
But doesn't if feel so much better just to have it out in the open?

"Yeah it was about oil, fine alright we did it. But can you blame us, i mean look at all the profits we're getting....Halliburton ect. Plus look: you get the added benefit of 'liberated' Iraqi people."

Of course we knew all along it was about oil. I'm just glad/surprised Mr. Wolfowitz had the guts to start dishing out the truth being in the administration and all.

Just my 2 cents...

[adamk]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
YAY, now there will be a lot fewer citizens killed by Hussein's regime.

Let freedom ring.

Q:_ I'm Satoru Suzuki with TV-Asahi of Japan._ Mr. Secretary, eleven weeks have passed since the coalition forces moved into Iraq._ Yet you've found no weapons of mass destruction in that country -- no convincing evidence yet._ Given that, are you still convinced that you'll be able to find such weapons eventually and, in the absence of such weapons, how can you still justify the war, and what would you say to those critics in Japan and the rest of the world who've been saying that the war was mainly about oil?_

Wolfowitz:_ Well, let me start with the last part._ The notion that the war was ever about oil is a complete piece of nonsense._ If the United States had been interested in Iraq's oil, it would have been very simple 12 years ago or any time in the last 12 years to simply do a deal with Saddam Hussein._ We probably could have had any kind of preferred customer status we wanted if we'd been simply willing to drop our real concerns._ Our real concerns focused on the threat posed by that country -- not only its weapons of mass destruction, but also its support for terrorism and, most importantly, the link between those two things._ You said it's eleven weeks since our troops first crossed the Kuwaiti border, and coalition troops first entered Iraq, as though eleven weeks were a long time._ Eleven weeks is a very short time._ In fact, unfortunately, significant elements of the old regime are still out there shooting at Americans, killing Americans, threatening Iraqis._ It is not yet a secure situation and I believe that probably influences to some extent the willingness of Iraqis to speak freely to us.

from Department of Offense - did not see the quote from the guardian in this transcript.

bunch of other transcripts at the DoD site if anyone else wants to look them up. im going home now.

"all for oil" pics - whatever the reasons for the war (oil/liberation/imminent threat), that is what the consequences of war look like. those pics are why people should be against war. in my opinion of course.

adam

[moki]

ARGH!!! More comments taken out of context and interpreted by people with either agendas or 4th grade reading comprehension levels. Let's see what he really said:

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."

In other words, *economic* pressures on Iraq would not work because the country has vast natural resources that inscrutable countries are eager to snap up. Indeed, seeing the documented corruption in the "oil for food" program, it's quite clear.

Contrast this with North Korea, a country with no real natural resources, that are highly dependent on food, oil, and money from China, Japan, South Korea, and the US.

I'm stunned this even needs to be explained. People must be pretty desperate if they are going to attempt to distort and misquote to this extent.

What a joke.

[boots]

Originally posted by moki:
ARGH!!! More comments taken out of context and interpreted by people with either agendas or 4th grade reading comprehension levels.

...

What a joke.

Yeah, I've got to side with Moki on this one. I think people are itching to justify their respective positions and are willing to take anything out of context.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer:
All for oil.



All for oil.



All for oil.



All for oil.

Funny, those look pretty much like the hundreds of thousands of people that Saddamm killed. Along with these:









But if you insist on telling stories via pictures....then you might as well include these:

[nvaughan3]

In regards to the comment he made...no suprise that trash tabloid took it out of context.

Lets read it again:

"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."


Meaning, in terms of the diplomatic tools of pressure we have available to help force a country to comply with international pressure, energy would obviously not work with iraq since it has enough internally. N. Korea obviously does not, hence the (broken) deal to supply nuclear reactors in return for stopping development of weapons programs. That's it. Simple enough for a moron to understand.

[thunderous_funker]

Oil is the primary reason Iraq is a strategic interest. The secondary reason is it's threat to Israel. Third, it's general threat to the regional stability.

If Iraq was a non-oil producing African state or island, endless atrocities there would hardly matter to anyone other than the occasional condenmation and flowery speech.

That's not to say the war was about oil, but let's not forget that the meta-narrative to any geopolitics in the middle east certainly is about oil.

I don't think Wolfowitz said anything more than that.

[maxelson]

In response to nvaughn's little gallery:

Of course, you will now be willing to run off and find pictures of attrocities committed in all parts of the world- because you are all about fairness in representation, correct? I mean, we are outraged at crimes against humanity WHEREVER they may occur. Or was that... just when it is politically convenient.
So fine of you righteous folks to flash those pictures now when it has been happening for 20 ****ing years. Where was the justification then? Hm? THe willingness to invade? What about the rest of those "trouble spots" in the world, hm? Are they worth invading on this... pretense as well?

You use the pictures as CONVENIENT EXCUSE and it is PATHETIC and OFFENSIVE.

You are INSULTING posting these pictures. INSULTING. It never mattered to the US before. Were you OUTRAGED then? Or are you MERELY using them to support a rabid argument. How DARE you.

You are LOW, man. LOW.

Oswald, too, man. That's just friggin' WRONG.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Now with Doonsbury- this makes up my daily cartoon ritual.
I thankee.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have a year's worth of back strips to see to.

That's exactly what I did when I found Day by Day - went back and read them all from the beginning...

[moki]

Originally posted by maxelson:
You use the pictures as CONVENIENT EXCUSE and it is PATHETIC and OFFENSIVE.

You are INSULTING posting these pictures. INSULTING. It never mattered to the US before. Were you OUTRAGED then? Or are you MERELY using them to support a rabid argument. How DARE you.

You are LOW, man. LOW.

It is equally offensive for him to use the pictures of wounded Iraqis to cynically further his own agenda. And given the article he posted, and the misinformation it contains, it is pretty clear that agenda is all this is about.

I mean seriously. The conclusions drawn in that article sound like the reincarnation of the Iraqi Information Minister.

[boots]

Originally posted by moki:
It is equally offensive for him to use the pictures of wounded Iraqis to cynically further his own agenda. And given the article he posted, and the misinformation it contains, it is pretty clear that agenda is all this is about.

I mean seriously. The conclusions drawn in that article sound like the reincarnation of the Iraqi Information Minister.

Yep. Both posts were offensive. The first one less so because it was an unsanitized depiction of the horrers of war, not just barbarism. That should make everyone take a step back regardless of what you think the reasons for the conflict were. The offensive part is not posting the pictures (either of the posts), but tying the agenda to it.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Oswald, too, man. That's just friggin' WRONG.

...and I just ate lunch...

[docbud]

Here's what Wolfowitz said:

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.

From the DOD transcript: LINK

(adamk's transcript link was the Tokyo meeting, and not the Q&A in Singapore)

[boots]

Originally posted by docbud:
Here's what Wolfowitz said:
From the DOD transcript: LINK

(adamk's transcript link was the Tokyo meeting, and not the Q&A in Singapore)

Yep...which brings us back to Moki's analysis of the whole thing.


Moki: +1

[Logic]

I'm sorry but even if mokis analysis makes some sense it isn't completly correct. We had several options, unfortunatly it would hurt the Iraqi people even more than the sanctions. We could have put an all out ban on buying oil from Iraq, we could have gotten a UNSC resolution that would mean that countries buying oil from Iraq would also get some sanctions. We had other options than invasion, but those options were not PC enough for any politician to take it. So even if mokis analysis is somewhat correct, we had options.

Oh, and BTW. There is a big difference in posting pictures of the effects of a war we started and in posting pictures of what SH did while he was our "friend" with material WE gave him. I'm with max on that one.

[boots]

Originally posted by Logic:
I'm sorry but even if mokis analysis makes some sense it isn't completly correct. We had several options

The analysis said nothing about "other options" because it was an interpretaion of the Wolfowitz quote, not a debate about the larger issues. And given the further quotes we've seen from DOD, Moki was dead on. The need for it to go down the way it did is an entirely different issue (wherein I pretty much agree with you).

[Oswald Defense Lawyer]

People on here who support killing children for oil should be made aware of the consequences, and not moan about seeing these kind of images. These victims could be your children, or brothers or sisters.

[davesimondotcom]

A fairly good response to this from The Belgravia Dispatch

This time Wolfowitz is accused of now admitting the U.S. went to war because of oil.

The Guardian is headlining as follows:

"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."

But this quote is inaccurate on its face as well as taken completely out of context. Wolfowitz was answering a query regarding why the U.S. thought using economic pressure would work with respect to North Korea and not with regard to Iraq:

"The United States hopes to end the nuclear standoff with North Korea by putting economic pressure on the impoverished nation, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Saturday. North Korea would respond to economic pressure, unlike Iraq, where military action was necessary because the country's oil money was propping up the regime, Wolfowitz told delegates at the second annual Asia Security Conference in Singapore."

"The country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse," Wolfowitz said. "That I believe is a major point of leverage." "The primary difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options in Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil," he said. Wolfowitz did not elaborate on how Washington intends to put economic pressure on North Korea, but said other countries in the region helping it should send a message that "they're not going to continue doing that if North Korea continues down the road it's on."

Now it might not have been smart of Wolfowitz, on the heels of the Vanity Fair interview imbroglio (however much the press distorted his comments there too) to describe Iraqi oil supplies using evocative language like "the country floats on a sea of oil." But any judicious analysis of his comments begs the conclusion that he was making an explicit reference to his contention that there were no viable punitive economic options with regard to pressuring Iraq on compliance with relevant U.N. resolutions given the monies the Baathist regime could access because of its oil supplies. This is patently different than the Guardian's spin (no, lie) that Wolfowitz said the U.S. had "no choice" regarding going to war in Iraq because of a too-tempting-to-pass-up-neo-imperialistic-oil grab-opportunity.

It is hugely irresponsible of the Guardian to run such a distorted, tabloid-style headline.

That's just the portion quoted on InstaPundit - the whole thing is longer.

[Logic]

Originally posted by boots:
The analysis said nothing about "other options" because it was an interpretaion of the Wolfowitz quote, not a debate about the larger issues. And given the further quotes we've seen from DOD, Moki was dead on. The need for it to go down the way it did is an entirely different issue (wherein I pretty much agree with you).

Well you are right. I read it again and if it is just an analysis of what Wolfowitz said it is correct. Unfortunatly that means that Wolfowitz wasn't telling the truth. We all know that we had several other options, unfortunatly they weren't very "good" options. No politicians would be willing to starve the Iraqi people more, but that was still an option. But that wasn't the only option.

That was what I meant.

ps I hope this sounds more clear than my earlier post. This damn job of mine seems to be killing my language/posting skills

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer:
People on here who support killing children for oil should be made aware of the consequences, and not moan about seeing these kind of images. These victims could be your children, or brothers or sisters.

Dude, enough already. We know your point of view.

Don't turn this into a "I can show worse pictures than you" thread.

NOBODY supports killing children for oil. When you say that, someone will post pictures of horible things Saddam did and accuse YOU of supporting mass killings (which, by definition, precede mass graves.)

This kind of thing just degrades a thread to the point of a flame war. It doesn't elevate the discussion at all.

[Logic]

Well after reading the article dave posted it seems like the US(and others) are willing to starve a nation even more than we(as in the allies) do now. This means I might have been wrong in my post above. Sorry

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Logic:
Well after reading the article dave posted it seems like the US(and others) are willing to starve a nation even more than we(as in the allies) do now. This means I might have been wrong in my post above. Sorry

The US isn't starving the people of North Korea - it's leaders are.

[Logic]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
The US isn't starving the people of North Korea - it's leaders are.

True and false.

It is true since the NK leadership is completly incompetent in building up their own nation.

It is false for two reasons:
1. It isn't only the US who is starving them.
2. We have a choice in what we will do. One of the reasons the NK people are starving is because we want their leaders to act in a way we proclaim is right. We have several choices in how to deal with this without increasing the hunger and illnesses in NK. We can invade since that seems to be an acceptable way to "liberate" people. We can make sure that the people get food and medicine while putting economic pressure on the NK government. But since I'm not in charge of anything(except my own life) I won't list every possible option available, both good and bad options. The thing is that we could help the people of NK if we wanted too.

[moki]

Originally posted by Logic:
Well after reading the article dave posted it seems like the US(and others) are willing to starve a nation even more than we(as in the allies) do now. This means I might have been wrong in my post above. Sorry

As an exercise, what happened concerning North Korea and the US in 1994?

[Oswald Defense Lawyer]

It doesn't elevate the discussion at all.

I think these kind of images can have a positive effect, sometimes in the most suprising people - as an excerpt from a Washington Post article shows:


Bush called Sharon a "man of peace" last year, infuriating Arabs angry over the Israeli army's actions against Palestinians in the West Bank. Bush publicly has not backed off that statement, but last year he privately rebuked Sharon when the Israeli leader began to repeat the comment to the president, administration officials said.

Bush interrupted Sharon when he began to say he was a "man of peace and security," according to a witness to the exchange who recounted it. "I know you are a man of security," Bush said. "I want you to work harder on the peace part."

Then, adding a bit of colloquial language that first seemed to baffle Sharon, Bush jabbed: "I said you were a man of peace. I want you to know I took immense crap for that."

Aides said the one leader in the region who has earned Bush's respect is Abdullah, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, who forcefully challenged the president over his handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a visit to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Tex., in April of last year.

In a scene that one senior Bush adviser later likened to "a near-death experience," Abdullah arrived at Crawford with a book showing pictures of Palestinian suffering and a 10-minute videotape of images of children shot and crushed by Israelis that had appeared on Arab television.

The adviser said Abdullah spoke eloquently about what these images meant -- conveying a respect for life rather than a hatred of Israel -- and then laid it on the line for Bush: Was he going to do something about this or not?

Current and former officials said Abdullah put it this way: I will work with you if you are willing to deal with this issue. If you can't, let me know now. No matter what, I'll always say positive things about you in public. But I have to make certain calculations on my own if you aren't going to step up to the plate.

Bush replied that he was working on a vision and would present it soon, the current and former officials said.

"It certainly made an impact on the president," one official said.

Few leaders had ever spoken so directly to Bush. The president, the official said, concluded that Abdullah was a good person who has a vision of where he wants to lead his country. Since then, the president frequently asks aides whether Abdullah believes Bush is living up to the commitments he made at Crawford.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer:
I think these kind of images can have a positive effect, sometimes in the most suprising people

I think that in this medium, it does nothing more than start a flame war.

[boots]

Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer:
I think these kind of images can have a positive effect, sometimes in the most suprising people

But not when presented with inflamatory rhetoric. I don't think the news should be sanitized, but say "This is what your thirst for oil brings" and then showing the photos is a gross misrepresentation of the context. The photos are of the horrors of war. The rhetoric is an opinion you have formed based on the information presented. There is a big distinction. And that distinction was even alluded to in the article you posted...the photos/video was framed in a "respect for life" not a "hate Isreal" context.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer:
I think these kind of images can have a positive effect, sometimes in the most suprising people

I disagree. It does not change my views on abortion to see pictures of an aborted fetus, it only hardens me to the insensitivity of the person shoving the pictures in my face.

FWIW, I agree with you on the cost of war, and I"m against this and all wars, but I don't think the photos are an effective tool in persuasion.
I think they are more a case of "rubbing your nose in it" than of actual proselytizing.

[nvaughan3]

Of course, you will now be willing to run off and find pictures of attrocities committed in all parts of the world- because you are all about fairness in representation, correct? I mean, we are outraged at crimes against humanity WHEREVER they may occur. Or was that... just when it is politically convenient.

We are not talking about other conflicts, but you are free to notice my satirical comment "But if you insist on telling stories via pictures..." You want me to post pictures of the cannibals who eat pygmy's and sell their skin for profit in Africa? What exact good would come of that? I've put in my two cents at another forum, if you were to raise the issue I'd gladly post any pictures I can find. However, I'm having a little trouble finding threads you have started on the subject...would you care to post the link?

So fine of you righteous folks to flash those pictures now when it has been happening for 20 ****ing years. Where was the justification then? Hm? THe willingness to invade? What about the rest of those "trouble spots" in the world, hm? Are they worth invading on this... pretense as well?

I made no statement in this thread to that effect, or pretense. Simply showing the absurdity in ODL's post".

You use the pictures as CONVENIENT EXCUSE and it is PATHETIC and OFFENSIVE.

You should be talking to ODL for defaming the reason these people died. But it wouldnt matter to you. You already given up on one thread, why rationally debate when you can throw around emotional arguments.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
True and false.

It is true since the NK leadership is completly incompetent in building up their own nation.

It is false for two reasons:
1. It isn't only the US who is starving them.
2. We have a choice in what we will do. One of the reasons the NK people are starving is because we want their leaders to act in a way we proclaim is right. We have several choices in how to deal with this without increasing the hunger and illnesses in NK. We can invade since that seems to be an acceptable way to "liberate" people. We can make sure that the people get food and medicine while putting economic pressure on the NK government. But since I'm not in charge of anything(except my own life) I won't list every possible option available, both good and bad options. The thing is that we could help the people of NK if we wanted too.

Logic, are you aware that the US is still providing food aid to North Korea? Even though we know a lot of it gets diverted to their (enormous) army, the Adminstration (and the previous Clinton Administration) have made a conscious decision not to play politics with hunger. If only Kim Jong Il would take the same position.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Logic, are you aware that the US is still providing food aid to North Korea? Even though we know a lot of it gets diverted to their (enormous) army, the Adminstration (and the previous Clinton Administration) have made a conscious decision not to play politics with hunger. If only Kim Jong Il would take the same position.

Yes.

Are we doing everything we can to help them get food and medicine? Are we making sure the food goes to the public rather than the military? What implications will economic sanctions have?

And yes, if only that idiot of a dictator(as well as most other) could understand that their people would actually like 'em more if they only got some food and medicine.

ps. So have you been checking peoples shoes lately?

[voodoo]

<sigh> I have *got* to get out of here!

::dials NASA::

[Nicko]

Originally posted by voodoo:
<sigh> I have *got* to get out of here!

::dials NASA::

TAKE ME WITH YOU!

[boots]

Originally posted by Logic:

Are we doing everything we can to help them get food and medicine? Are we making sure the food goes to the public rather than the military? What implications will economic sanctions have?

How, exactly, do we do that? It's not like we have free reign to just go in a knock on peoples doors. If the government doesn't give the civilians their due, how do you "ensure" that aid goes where you'd like it too.

[Logic]

Originally posted by boots:
How, exactly, do we do that? It's not like we have free reign to just go in a knock on peoples doors. If the government doesn't give the civilians their due, how do you "ensure" that aid goes where you'd like it too.

There are numerous solutions to that problem.

1. Tell them that you want the UN(or China, or whatever country we trust and is at the same time somewhat friendly to them) to distribute the aid to the people. If they say no, sorry no aid.

2. If you have information that states that the aid goes to the military, confront them and say that you will not accept that.

I could go on but I won't bother. There are always a solution to every problem. It only matters that the aid we deliver gets to those who most need it. If the aid going to NK isn't of much use for the people there we have several other countries in need of aid. Send it there. Whatever as long as it will be on NK leaderships shoulders that their people are starving. At least put some other pressure on them for aid instead of demanding that they act just the way we want them to.

I'm tired and maybe this doesn't make complete sense when I post it here but I hope you see what I'm getting at.