initial disbelief in b.liar
then strong rallying behind the troops
Share This Page:
Do you still agree with the 2nd Iraq conflict....?
-
Midshipman786
- Guest
exactly my point, the only reason approval ratings for the war soared was because blair the slimy toad played the "back-our-troops" card for all it was worth and hes still playing it. by associating himself with the forces hes implying that not supporting the war is dishonouring the troops who lost their lives and thats whats really making me mad. i backed the forces to the hilt before and after, they did an A1 job.
before the war they couldnt stop mentioning WMD and now people like jack straw are coming out with incredible statements like "nothing is needed afterwards to justify what we did."
does he think we're all fools suffering from amnesia or something??
as for liberating the iraqi people from tyranny, do u honestly think US foreign policy is that benevolent? go and read some history.
and again today we've got Honest Tone tapping his nose and falling back on the old "i-know-something-u-dont" argument.
just look at his stance on Europe and the bloody IRA, is he an honest man? is he f***
before the war they couldnt stop mentioning WMD and now people like jack straw are coming out with incredible statements like "nothing is needed afterwards to justify what we did."
does he think we're all fools suffering from amnesia or something??
as for liberating the iraqi people from tyranny, do u honestly think US foreign policy is that benevolent? go and read some history.
and again today we've got Honest Tone tapping his nose and falling back on the old "i-know-something-u-dont" argument.
just look at his stance on Europe and the bloody IRA, is he an honest man? is he f***
-
Midshipman786
- Guest
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
The Guardian
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 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' 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.
The Guardian
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 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' 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.
-
MickElton
- Guest
fao Midshipman
Please don't get offended mate, but are you really a Middy in the Andrew. You seem to be very driven (not a bad thing) and judging by your politics and views would seemingly fit in right away in the Wardroom on any common or garden 42?Just testing a theory is all - no offence intended.
-
Frank S.
- Guest
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/ ... f0246.htmlFrank S. wrote:I was against it before and still against it now, although it's one of those rare cases where I would sincerely love to be wrong (again).
Is there a link or news source I could check out to read Wolfowitz' comments? Was it originally published in Vanity Fair?
-
Midshipman786
- Guest
Re: fao Midshipman
lol well thats charming that is! ill be honest with u im a muslim, and all this war business...its sort of personal for me. secondly im not in the RN (technically speaking) im in URNU.MickElton wrote:
Just testing a theory is all - no offence intended.
