Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

Its strange when high officials finally start to say what they are really up to.

Could this be real? Uncle Scrooge Wolfowitz learned his lessons after the visits from the three spirits, and decided to be honest with his conscience. Tell the truth. Will the three spirits visit Uncle Blair and Emperor Bush soon?

Or is Uncle Scrooge Wolfowitz trying to screw Blair while his countryman are pounding on him for fixing the intelligence on Iraq?

posted on Instapundit:

READER JOHN KLUGE EMAILS FROM IRAQ:


I am in Irbil in Kurdistan northern Iraq. Someone explained the history of this place to me today. The mountains here are bare and devoid of trees. They used be forested. Covered with trees. There used to be so many trees in Irbil that you couldn't see around corners. Now it looks like Kansas or really more like parts of Montana.

The reason is that Saddam cut down all of the trees in Kurdistan in 1988. He bulldozed 4000 of the 5000 villages in Kurdistan and the Kurds ran to the mountains for safety, so he cut down all of the trees on these mountains and killed all of the game, so that the Kurds would have no wood for fires and no food to eat. He was incredibly effective. The Kurds are now replanting the trees. You can see hundreds of tiny trees if you look closely at the mountains. I didn't notice them until they were pointed out to me. In Kirkuk they found a mass grave of Kurdish children. One of the U.N. guys offered to take us out and show it to us. I haven't taken him up on it. I have no reason to go there and I feel like it would be disrespectful to go and gawk. I guess some of the children were buried with their toys and dolls.

It makes me sick everytime I surf the net and see all these people in Europe and back home saying that the war was not justified because we haven't found 50 tons of sarin gas yet. I wish those people would come to this country and look at ruined villages between here and Kirkuk and the bare mountains. Anyone who protested against this war and defended Saddam ought to be ashamed of themselves. Its just unimaginable the things that went on here.

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. Regardless, however, this story will now make the rounds of the international press (it started in Germany) and conspiracy theorists will have new fodder to peddle their noxious claims that the U.S. went to war because of oil.

BTW, here is Wolfowitz's take on accusations the U.S. went to war in Iraq to control its oil supplies:

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."

We -- as the whole world knows -- have in fact found some significant evidence to confirm exactly what Secretary Powell said when he spoke to the United Nations about the development of mobile biological weapons production facilities that would seem to confirm fairly precisely the information we received from several defectors, one in particular who described the program in some detail. But I wouldn't suggest we've gotten to the bottom of the whole story yet. We said, when Resolution 1441 was being adopted, that the most important thing was to have free and unintimidated access to Iraqis who know where these things are. Simply going and searching door to door in a country the size of the state of California is not the way you would find things. You would find things when people start to give you information -- we're still in an early stage of that process and there is no question we will get to the bottom of what's there.

But there should be no doubt whatsoever this was a war undertaken because our President and the Prime Minister of England and the other countries that joined with us believe -- and I think they believe correctly -- that this regime was a threat to our security and a threat that we could no longer live with. It is also the case that, beyond a shadow of any doubt whatsoever, this regime was a horrible abuser of its own people and that there is no question the Iraqi people are far better off with that regime gone."


Remember - VERIFY SOURCES IF AT ALL POSSIBLE! (Just cause you think it's true doesn't mean it can't have been spun so you like it...)

"jokers to the left of me/jokers to the right/bla bla..." damn, wish i could remeber the lyrics!

"spin to left of me/spin to the right/..."

i think it's interesting the amount of work this person has put into defending mr. wolfowitz. and how quickly this person came to his rescue. almost as if on a damage control mission, shoring up the bulworks. this person should be a paid spokesperson on mr. wolfowitz's staff.

So now quoting what someone actually said, (rather than what was misquoted and out of context) is "damage control"???

This is getting really sad. I thought the Left was supposed to be for honesty, and integrity. I guess none of that matters when you hate so much.

I am sick of hearing people say things like "this war on Irqa is justified because he killed his people...." Listen up, all you narrow minded right-wing morons, NO ONE defends Saddam for his crimes.

U.S. is responsible for the killings of Saddam's own people because WE backed up him and his regime with money and WMD. U.S. laws clearly spell out those of provide weapons to criminals who kill are just as guilty as the criminals who execute the crimes.

Bush Supporters, who're the real criminals?

[Back to Uncle Scrooge Wolfowitz...] It's apparent that Uncle Scrooge Wolffie either had a Freudian slip or his conscience (if he has one) took over momentarily for the second time in the past week. Three Cheers to Possibily Nearly Rehabilitated and Recovered Uncle Wolffie !!!

Gee. Can't even put up what was really said, instead of how the Guardian interpreted it without it being spun as 'supporting' ?

What's next - should we just wait for some news agency to fabricate things out of thin air?

If you don't make sure they're honest and reporting what was said, they'll feed you lies! Or haven't you learned from the NY Times problems?

When putting up what was actually said (which got cut & pasted from elsehwere, BTW, and checked against DOD transcripts - which is where the Guardian likely got it in the first place) is spun as damage control - you bring the day closer where the media can feed you ANYTHING and you wouldn't believe any corrections.

jbusch, I am glad you just committed a Freudian slip. You wrote that you thought Left are supposed to be honest.... You do agree that the liberals are generally more honest than the conservatives. Thank you very much. I take that as a compliment.

It looks like your other idol, Uncle Wolffie, also had a similar experience as you - he experienced at least 2 Freudian slips in a row.

Conscience CANNOT be suppressed forever. It'll always find its way to Speak the Truth.

Is that the best you can do? I said "supposed to be". There are many on the Left (or used to be) who prided themselves on their integrity. There are many conservatives whose integrity is impeccable. I don't think it is possible to know which side is more honest than the other. (you know what I suspect, though..)

What is sad is that contemporary Leftists have utterly given into their hatred of capitalism, religion, and American ideals- which they see embodied in Bush (rightly or wrongly, he is the target) They so loathe him that the truth simply does not matter to them anymore. I have seen only grudging admissions from any Leftist that their dire pre-war predictions about WWIII, increased terrorism, massive casualties, etc...were ?ALL wrong. Few will even admit that Saddam deserved to be deposed.

It is very sad for you, but a good thing for our Country now that the Left is marginalized for another generation.

As "Operation Desert Shield" was gaining momentum in the last months of 1990 and the first months of 1991 it was widely reported that the Iraqis had carried out appalling atrocities in Kuwait. The worst of the individual atrocities, which made headlines around the world, involved over three hundred premature babies who died after Iraqi soldiers took them from their incubators in order to cart the equipment off to Iraq. The Red Crescent Society, the Muslim equivalent of the Red Cross, was the first organization to report the terrible incident. Several eyewitnesses, including a young, obviously distressed Kuwait woman who remained anonymous for reasons of security, appeared in dozens of television news items and confirmed the verity of the story. Kuwait's embassy in Washington publicly condemned Iraq for this act of barbarity, and numerous world leaders, including President Bush on several occasions, cited it as evidence of Iraq's brutal maltreatment of innocent Kuwaiti civilians. That the incident occurred was said to have been proven "beyond doubt".

Nonetheless, within weeks of the US-led coalition's stunning victory over Iraq, it was discovered by ABC journalist that the "incubator atrocity" never occurred. Many premature babies had indeed died, but not as a result of Iraqi brutality. Basically, they died because the nursing staff deserted them and because the maternity hospital itself locked the incubators away in storage rooms. Dr. Mohammed Matar, who ran the hospital, admitted that the widely-circulated atrocity claims were "just for propaganda".[1] It later turned out that the much-publicized "eyewitness" was the daughter of a Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, that she had not even been in Kuwait at the time the atrocity was said to have been committed, and that her story was entirely concocted.

Sorry. My mistake. It DOES matter that our President was selected. NOT elected. Bush is an illegitimate President. Cooking up intelligence to support this illegal and unjust war matters. No WMD matters. We have a totalitarian government inplace, then of course none of this matter.

Again, U.S. is responsible and accountable for the atrocities in Kuwait. Saddam was our favorite son. We spoiled him like (many others dictators). "We could never imagine our nurtured dictators would kill people!"

It's time to clean house and take back our nation. Starts w/ regime change at home, repeal the Bush's tax cuts, new national energy policy, new foreign policy, new economic policy... Work with us for a safer and stronger and healthier nation, and a better world !

and how different people interpret it differently...

>Q: Sorry to come back to North Korea, but it seems that Russia, Japan, China, the U.S. and South Korea essentially agree on one thing only, and that is to prevent the invention of a repugnant and unpredictable regime which has outlawed weapons programs including chemical and biological as well as nuclear. Now maybe this is prudent, and maybe given the dangers that North Korea poses there’s no choice. But isn’t the message of this that essentially non-proliferation is a dead letter, but is the result of Iraq’s ability to defy the U.N. for twelve years. And isn’t that the last impression that the United States would wish to give to other countries such as for example Iran?


Wolfowitz: I am afraid that I don’t understand the premise of the question. It seems to be that non-proliferation is not a dead letter at all and in fact the implication of preventing the implosion of North Korea is that they are on a course that is going to lead to that implosion unless they change and that change requires both giving up their own nuclear program in the second instance, but in the first instance not exporting it. No, I think the North Korean nuclear problem is front and center on our agenda and if they want to save themselves from the dead end they are going down, I think they have to address our concerns. I think that’s fairly clear.


Q: What I meant is that essentially North Korea is being taken more seriously because it has become a nuclear power by its own admission, whether or not that’s true, and that the lesson that people will have is that in the case of Iraq it became imperative to confront Iraq militarily because it had banned weapons systems and posed a danger to the region. In the case of North Korea, which has nuclear weapons as well as other banned weapons of mass destruction, apparently it is imperative not to confront, to persuade and to essentially maintain a regime that is just as appalling as the Iraqi regime in place, for the sake of the stability of the region. To other countries of the world this is a very mixed message to be sending out.


Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. It’s is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation goals.


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.<

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html

so...

... according to wolfowitz, america had no economic options that would force saddam to comply because iraq sits on an ocean of oil.

hmm. this is a very, very interesting comment, open to multiple interpretations.

i am not anyone else except me, so here is my interpetation.

>we had virtually no economic options with Iraq<

this is bullshit. an oil embargo? an oil blockade? u.s. warships off the port of umm qasr patrolling the persian gulf, denying ANY iraqi oil shipments out of the gulf? if we really wanted to make sure no iraqi oil got out, and therefore ensuring hussein got no oil profits with which to build up his weapons, OF COURSE we could do it. we could even get the u.n. to approve it. it's easier than war. if we can do a war, then of course we could do a total oil blockade.

hell, it would much, much different from the "oil for food program." why? because in that program, oil profits still got back to hussein, and iraqi oil still was sold on the world market. if there was a total embargo, a total lockdown and military blockade, then there'd be no way hussein could use any of that oil profit.

seems like we do have an economic option to force hussien to comply, or at least to put some serious pressure on him. but wait...

>because the country floats on a sea of oil.<

oh shit. wolfowitz is absolutely right. WE NEED THAT OIL. THE WORLD NEEDS THAT OIL. we CAN'T turn off that iraqi spigot all the way, or we're be done for. so we don't have any economic options in iraq because the only pressure point we could use IS THE VERY OIL THE WORLD NEEDS.

yeah, i know, we don't get much of our oil from the middle east do we? yet why is it that OPEC has so much power? if we don't really need that middle eastern oil, if it's just "excess" oil, if it's just "icing on the cake" oil, then why do we keep buying barrels of it every single day? that oil has to be important to somebody right? hmm....

so we can't bring economic pressure on iraq like we can on north korea. even though north korea has actual weapons of mass destruction, and therefore presents a somewhat similar threat situation. north korea badly needs export markets, but north korea doesn't have any resources or products we need, so we can put the lockdown on them, and make them hurt real bad without hurting ourselves real bad. but iraq, there's no way. not with all that oil.

so, i guess without any peaceful way of applying pressure, like we can with north korea, we'll have to use military force to attack iraq. we have no options other than war. because of the oil.

anyways, that's my interpretation.

I read the U.S War Department's transcript. The verdict still stand. He talked about the geopolitical difference between the 2 nations. One sits on a sea of oil (w/ no WMD) and the other is broke (but w/ WMD).

Realistically, everyone would worry most about a flat broke nation w/ WMD. Instead, we ignore N. Korea and occupied Iraq. Why? Because Iraq is easy and they have the oil we need.

I agree. Wolfolwitz spoke the truth. The Iraq war is for oil.

No, what it said is that the reason for NOT going to war over North Korea is that there are other options- like starving them out economically. You have it completely backwards.

here again, for the slow people is what he said:

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.

Don't just read what you're given. Read, comprehend, and analyze.

A flat broke nation w/ WMD is the most dangerous combination. No prudent politician would risk and take a stand of Wait and See. "Let's wait for N. Korea sell off all their WMD to the terrorist to buy food for their people, then we'll take action against N. Korea..."

Does that make sense to you?

>what it said is that the reason for NOT going to war over North Korea is that there are other options<

yes. true. but see, the reason FOR going to war over iraq is because there WEREN'T other, economic options.

wolfowitz is comparing two situations. there are two conclusions.

they don't like debate.

and isn't it amazing how folks will avoid debating with you...

So, because they avoid debate with you - you must have the upper hand.

Therefore, opinion is more important than fact.

So simple, isn't it?

Daniel W. Drezner

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

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

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

By the way, almost all of the above information comes from The Belgravia Dispatch -- unfortunately his permalinks aren't working, which is why I've blogged about it here. He also has a link to Wolfowitz's actual response to a direct question about whether the war is about oil.

****************

t a c i t u s: All about, part 2

UPDATE: Okay, playing with translations now -- the Guardian snippet was, er, incomplete -- and I think I'm getting more of a handle on it. (German speakers, please weigh in.) Contrary to the expected conclusions drawn at Kos, Wolfowitz is not saying that the war was fought for oil. Instead, he seems to be saying that Iraq's oil supplies rendered it immune to the economic pressures we can bring to bear on North Korea, hence making the military option the only one.

This still needs further clarification, but it doesn't seem quite so stupefying to me at this point.

UPDATE 2: Still not sure why it's only in the German press, though.

UPDATE 3: Atrios falls for it. No, not Atrios....Lambert? What?

*****************The Belgravia Dispatch

It is hugely irresponsible of the Guardian to run such a distorted, tabloid-style headline. Regardless, however, this story will now make the rounds of the international press (it started in Germany) and conspiracy theorists will have new fodder to peddle their noxious claims that the U.S. went to war because of oil.

But we could have gotten the oil a lot cheaper by ending sanctions if it was all about the oil...

Well, that was a nice sampling from the Prowar Echoblog. However, it does nothing to disprove The Guardian's contention. Wolf is basically saying that the U.S. needs control of Middle East oil to prevent challenges to it by hostile regimes that could pose a strategic threat. (His definition of a hostile regime, by the way, would include a democratically elected Iraqi government that didn't toe the U.S. line on Israel.)

And the notion that a threadbare regime like North Korea could be "ecomomically" sanctioned is absurd. It doesn't care about its people; like Saddam, the leadership can get any food, cars, etc. it wants and let the people eat scraps. There's no economic punishment that will have any effect on it.

So Wolf is confirming Chomsky's view that the war is about the strategic advantage of the oil for U.S. foreign policy, not about our needing it for domestic consumption.

REPEAT AFTER ME: IT'S NOT ABOUT THE SUPPLY OF THE OIL. IT'S ABOUT THE STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE OF THE OIL.

No conspiracy here. It's all out in the open, as it's always been.

When analyzing America's actions vis a vis Iraq over the course of the past thirteen years it's important to keep in mind that:

1) the policy is overdetermined--meaning it can't be reduced to simply one motive, but instead a confluence of strategic prerogatives and interests (interests that are balanced against each other) enacted over time.

2) the policy, while never wavering in its attempt to preserve and extend the interests of American capital, isn't entirely coherent. this can be attributed to differences within the US ruling class as well as the general tendency of humans to make shit up as they go along.

Why did the US go to war in '91? Only fools think it had ANYTHING to do with protecting human rights, so we can cross that off the list.....

too tired to continue (woe is me), maybe i'll pick-up later....

Here's an official transcript from our US Department of State dated 12/19/2002. There ain't no WMD. We're back to square one, then this war is fought for oil. Sanctions kill the innocents only. It's rubbish to tell anyone we take on Iraq and not N. Korea because we'll starve Kim to death. How many of you out there were born yesterday? Any more spin on this one? A magic trick is still a trick !


19 December 2002

Oil Experts Say War with Iraq Wouldn't Be War for Oil
U.S. officials say purpose of war would be to disarm Saddam Hussein
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1219oil.htm

By Carolene Langie
Washington File Writer

Washington — In November 2002, Saddam Hussein told the Egyptian weekly newspaper Al-Osboa that the United States planned to go to war for Iraq's oil.

Questioned about a possible military confrontation with Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell told NBC News November 21, "This is not about oil. This is about a tyrant, a dictator, who is developing weapons of mass destruction to use against the Arab populations."

While President Bush and other world leaders continue to look to the regime of Saddam Hussein to destroy its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, some media outlets continue to inject the subject of Iraq oil into the foreign policy debate.

"That looks great in the media, to say ‘No Blood for Oil,' but that's a reach – to think that we're fighting Iraq to gain access to the oil," Robert Ebel, director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an interview with the Washington File December 13.

According to Ebel, going to war with Iraq in order to "control" Iraq's oil supply makes little economic sense. Iraq sits atop an enormous untouched oil reserve, second only to Saudi Arabia, but its productive oil wells supply only 3 percent of the world's market.

Ebel said that overthrowing Saddam would not immediately increase the amount of oil Iraq provides. "Let's presume that the morning after a quick and decisive victory – if everything falls into place – by the end of this decade we might see the volume of oil coming out of Iraq equal to about 3.5 percent of the world's oil supply," he said.

Even doubling the production of Iraq's oil – which would take many years due to poor maintenance of the country's oil production facilities – would not drastically affect the world's oil supply, Ebel said. Meanwhile, growth elsewhere would limit Iraq's contribution to the world market, he added.

Oil production depends on many factors, most of which take large amounts of money and time, Ebel explained. "It depends on the nature of the oil fields, their geology and the productivity of the wells. You just can't say that oil will flow in nine months or so. Is the capacity of the pipelines sufficient? All these issues have to be explored," Ebel said.

Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, shares Ebel's opinion. He wrote in the New York Times on August 25 that Iraq has marginalized itself as an oil exporter. "This spring, Iraq unilaterally cut off exports for a month, trying to instigate a new oil embargo. The world hardly noticed. And other exporters were grateful for the chance to fill the gap, sell more oil and make extra money," he wrote.

"The first task of a new regime would be to get production capacity, damaged by war and poor operating practices, back into gear. Fixing the immediate problems would take time and money," Yergin wrote.

Oil experts say the quickest and cheapest route to getting hold of Iraq's oil would be to do business with the country, not to create war.

"Many analysts have said if you really do want to develop some oil reserves, you can make a deal with Hussein right now," said John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute. But it is not in anyone's interest to see the market flooded with cheap oil, Felmy said.

"If you drive down the price of oil, it would make our investments in many parts of the world unprofitable," he said. "If you want to look at why would you want to make an investment in Iraq, you have to consider we don't know what's going to be the rule of law there or who will be running the oil organizations. Making a decision to invest in that type of climate would be very risky."

"It's nonsense to think war would happen there because of oil. It has virtually nothing to do with oil. We're not going to change our diplomatic policies, whether or not we import a drop of oil from Iraq," Felmy told the Washington File.

Larry Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Research Industry Foundation, said he, too, disagrees with the notion that U.S. military action against Iraq would be a pursuit of oil.

"If we go to war in Iraq, I believe it's because we believe the leader there is a threat to world peace," Goldstein said. "We can't always wait for events to happen. It's appropriate to take action against those we see as a threat. We simply don't have the luxury anymore to wait."

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, along with Secretary Powell, is adamant that a war with Iraq would not be about oil – but would be about weapons of mass destruction.

"I do know, emphatically, that it's not a war for oil . . .The concern that motivates a willingness to risk war is, it was horrible enough to see 3,000 people die [referring to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks], but seeing 30,000 or 40,000 die from anthrax is too much to contemplate," Wolfowitz said December 7.

Russia, France Offer Gauge for Iraq Policy
By David M. Shribman
Boston Globe
March 12, 2002
President Bush made it clear yesterday that the United States regards Iraq as a potential military threat - and as a potential military target.

But as the president examines his options in forcing a "regime change" - a new term of art here - in Baghdad, the leading indicators of American action might not be the movement of US special forces and support ships in the Persian Gulf but the movement of diplomats and financiers in Paris and Moscow.

Since the beginning of the decade-long struggle between the United States and Iraq, France and Russia have been the leading powers sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. Linked by oil contracts, military sales, and loans, they have been Iraq's partisans, protectors, and proxies. Now, with a growing sense that Bush sees Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs as regional or even global threats, the State Department is keeping an eye on France and Russia. If the two, members of the United Nations Security Council, deplore UN sanctions and help Baghdad buy more time in its efforts to restrict the movement of weapons inspectors or to keep them away entirely, the administration will know that diplomatic efforts will be unavailing. If, on the other hand, France and Russia begin to take a harder line against Iraq, they will be sending a potent message inside Iraq.

"If Iraq realizes that its principal supporters, France and Russia, have gone wobbly, then that will send an important signal to the people you most want to convince in Iraq that the regime will change - the upper-level technocrats," said Charles A. Duelfer, former deputy chairman of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq.

Indeed, the State Department is increasingly convinced that France and Russia could do more to avoid a military confrontation by standing up to Baghdad than by standing by Baghdad.

Here's why: France and Russia are far less concerned about the viability of Saddam Hussein than they are about the viability of their own oil and manufacturing contracts. By toughening their approach to Baghdad - and by prompting an internal rebellion against Saddam Hussein - they could help assure a new stability in Iraq that would actually help get their contracts renewed and their loans repaid.

Russian and French economic interests are not insignificant. Few reliable statistics are available, but trade between Russia and Iraq could run as high as $4 billion a year. The Russian firm Lukoil, which is trying to extract 667 million tons of crude from the West Qurna oil field, says its contracts could be worth another $20 billion. And Iraq still owes Russia $7 billion for weapons purchased during the Cold War.

France's economic stake is also substantial. The largest long-term contract in Iraq's oil-for-food program is with Paris. But Iraq has toyed with France, which has helped develop industrial support for Iraq's military and helped build the nation's electronics facilities. Shortly after France expressed support for a UN resolution on sanctions last year, Iraqi radio said, "France will not be given preference in trade transactions with Iraq in the future because of its support of the stupid anti-Iraq draft resolution on sanctions."

Yesterday, Bush went out of his way to speak of "our good ally France."

France and Russia have historically been more comfortable dealing with each other than with the United States and Britain. Though opposed in the Crimean War, Paris and Moscow were allied before and during World War I, when the center of Europe was dominated by Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, making the two other major continental powers, France and Russia, feel they were at the periphery.

The two nations, of course, have frequently been irritants, or worse, to the English-speaking nations. After World War II, the French alienated the United States by objecting to NATO initiatives and thwarted Britain's efforts to join the European Union.

Indeed, wherever Britain has pulled back, the French have moved forward, particularly in Africa and the Middle East. Britain once held the League of Nations mandate for the area that now includes Iraq, and when the British withdrew at midcentury, the French replaced them.

Right now the United States and the United Nations seldom deal directly with Iraq. They deal instead with France and Russia.

"The strategy-making between Russia and Iraq was very close," said Timothy V. McCarthy, a former weapons inspector in Iraq. "It's not that the Russians were Iraq's mouthpiece, but they were discussing the crisis together, figuring out how to respond together. It wasn't the Iraqis off by themselves. They were talking with the Russians." The State Department would love to know what the Iraqis are saying - but, even more important, what they are hearing.

... only the ecnomies of europe and russia use oil, especially oil from the middle east, and iraq in particular.

that's why the contracts to rebuild iraq's oil infrastructure and manage it for an indeterminant amount of time were awarded exclusively to russian and french corporations.

that's why no america corporations have any stake whatsover in iraq. in fact, the quantity of oil in iraq is totally irrelevant to the u.s. it has no strategic or ecnomic significance whatsoever to the u.s. our economy gets all it's oil from alaska and venezuela anyways, and besides all of our cars run on clean fuels, and not petroleum. so oil issues are just not a concern for america's economy or national security. hell, russia and france can have the iraqi oil they want...

and when america engages in war, it has absolutely no self-interest involved at all. it engages in war purely on the basis of selfless generosity, and not to gain anything or change anything to it's advantage.

Helloooo! Is there life in there? There in "this thing here"! You really crack me up.

Do me a favor. Pinch yourself anywhere on your body real hard. Do it 3 times, then re-post your comment here. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Next, please !

Abe - you just crack me up, you wacky anarchist you!

this thing here - the point is:

Why did France & Russia lead the opposition to the US-led outster of Saddam? Why has France fought for years to have the UN sanctions lifted, in spite of Hussein's failure to comply? Why did Russia consider a coup to remove Hussein, in the days prior to the US attack?

Follow the money. It certainly wasn't because they were concerned about the human rights of Iraqis - hell, they courted Hussein. It was for the oil.

Glad to make someone laugh with my sarcasm. Laugh is the best medicine for the people and the best weapon against fascists like Emperor Bush and the rest with unspeakable names....

Ok, here's a question: Assume that this war was entirely about oil (that should be easy for you...) It was a geopolitical grab for a large oil reserve...nothing else.

However, as a side result, one of the most vile, horrible, genocidal, maniacal, brutal dictators in history was removed. Twenty-three million Arabs have been freed from the clutches of a mad man. (they don't control "their" oil anymore, but didn't before, 'cause Saddam did...)

On balance, is the world still not a better place?

Before I go in to "Let's pretend... type scenario" to rebut, I wish to clarify that the Iraqis are NOT free. They are in a state of chaos. Iraqis are killed by the occupational forces in the name of keeping the peace. Rumsfeld repeatedly told the world he ain't gonna let Iraqis choose their own government if the new government is anything resembling the Iranian's. I see a lot of contradictions....

[The present Iran is qualified to be considered a democracy state. All their government officials are elected officials, not selected unlike our own Prez. Iran does have a unique power structure, and that is the religious sector currently has the ultimate power to veto and over-ride decisions from the elected political body. Personally, I see this can change as soon as they do not feel any threat from foreign power....]

Now my re-buttal:
Let's ignore all the past sins and crimes committed by anyone else but Saddam and his regime. And he's not going to change about his evil way.

And let's also assume that U.S. isn't interested in their oil. Better yet, let's say Iraq has no oil.

As the champion of fighting the evils and protector of the weaks, the "would-be-liberator" would first align with the common people, the resistors from within. Form an alliance. Make plan of invasion as well as plan for the after-liberated Iraq. The transition would have been much smoother. No chaos due to absence of legimate authority. No reason to stay long because a legitimate Iraqi government would be formed instantly. There would be no occupational force.

Back to the reality:
Look what's happening. Their infrastructure is completely destroyed. Why? Bush only knew how to kill and destroy. The lootings after a war is nothing new, and yet Bush administration did nothing about it. Records supported many groups voiced this concerns over and over. Still Rumsfeld simply said "we couldn't anticipate... or the plan is not perfect" or some far-fetched sorry excuses.

The Iraqis are in hell daily. Show me the money. What have they gained overall?

[We knew the leader of the exiled Iraqis' track record.
In fact, Clinton allowed $750 million dollars sent to them to covertly overthrow Saddam. The $ 750 million dollars all went away with nothing to show and accounted for.]

In summary, all the evidences indicate we're there for OIL, and nothing more.

this comes from a friend of mine:

June 5, 2003
Nicholas Kristof, pretty much a lone voice on Africa in the mainstream media, asks in the NY Times (5/27/03): "What Did You Do During the African Holocaust?"

My friend from the Congo devotes himself totally to awakening a sense of humane responsibility within his country and on the part of the world community. He and his friends have succeeded in forming The Ota Benga International Alliance for Peace in Congo. The Alliance tells us: that Ota Benga, a Mbuti, was put on exhibit in the Bronx Zoo in 1906Š. "After outraged protests led by African American clergy, he was removed from his prison - but his hopelessness and his inability to return to his homeland in the Congo eventually led to his suicide in Lynchburg, Virginia in 1917."


Tom Friedman thinks the skulls dug up in Iraq justified the war whatever the lies told and the lives lost (NY Times, 4/27/03). There are more skulls scattered in the Congo, and unnoticed by Tom, than were buried even in Saddam's Iraq. What a cry wells up from the Congo - but for peace, not war! The world owes a massive effort of support to Africa, to heal the ravages left by colonialism and the genocides of war and starvation. That's what an empowered United Nations could be doing if Bush wasn't hell-bent on making it "irrelevant", while he pursues what he likes to call "the wars of the 21stCentury".

Wait a minute, I thought it was illegitimate to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries? I'm confused..

No ones doubts that the people of Congo are suffering, but the International Community must take the lead. The US should not be the bully of the world, enforcing it own version of morality on other cultures...

sound familiar? It wasn't right applied to Saddam either.

I do agree the world has ignored the African nations. They're in dired needs for help and support from the international community.

I also agree UN's important roles and its significant contributions toward re-building the African nations. Bush definitely destroyed the establishment. Even though some may argue UN has flaws, but I think imperfection can be learned and minimize in the process.

My personal suggestion how we as the international body can better the world is via EDUCATION AND INFORMATION. How many of us can name more than 5 African nations and where they're located on the map. Our news media and school education are to be blamed at least partially. From my personal experience, only after the age of internet did I start learning more about the Middle-East, a little more about Africa, Asia.... None us know everything, but if the information can be communicated and learned rapidly, more progress can be made.

Another complain of mine, the recent FCC ruling on loosening the media ownership regulation will make us even more ignorant.

jbusch, Confused? I am glada to hear that. That's the first sign of hope. Hope that you can be brought back to the light from the dark side.

No one here has suggested U.S. to go alone. The common complain is Bush, your idol, has destroyed U.N. single-handely. And another good point is that there's much to be learned and do in order to better this world.

I hope jbusch will drop your name "jbusch" to something else. Something more positive. Not that I am prejudice anyone because of the name, but G.W. Bush, Brother Bush, Papa Bush, GrandPa Bush really had done it. They had poisoned and contaminated a previously perfectly good English name.

Well, I suppose I could change it....except that it is my name. Why don't you change yours to something less Jewish than "Abraham".

I became confused when I tried to fit the "hands off other cultures" dogma I have been hearing to the situation in Congo. Of course I am not confused- I support the US and other allies sending aid and or troops to stop the genocide in Africa- even if it requires a "puppet" democratic government to do so. The people of Congo will be far better off than they have ever been, and thank us for our intervention much the way Americans thanked the French for help during our Revolution (and paid them back twice...)

As far as Bush destroying the UN single handedly, you have to be joking. How could a simpleton, a cowboy, an un-elected moron pull off such a dastardly deed? All Bush did was call their bluff, and hold them to one of their own unanimous resolutions, and they went to pieces. The UN is a noble ideal, but has a fatal flaw built in- namely that membership is open to any despot or thug who can seize control of a piece of the map and sew a flag together. A decent, noble, viable UN will only offer membership to democratic countries, or those who are open and moving that direction. The UN died at the hands of its own bloated bureaucratic, anti-American impotence. Good riddence. I hope the "United Free Nations" will do a better job for humanity than the current club, (which has Libya on its Human Rights Commision..for instance)

FYI. Some think Abraham is jewich, but you look past the end of your nose, you'll undestand more.... Here's one reference "...Thus we see that according to all ancient history the Persians, the Jews, and the Arabians are descendants of Abraham."
http://www.viewzone.com/abraham.html

[I am no anthropologist or geneticist. I won't go beyond the Mesopotamia period and go all the way back digging into the origin of life on Earth. But you're interested, I can discuss what I know ....]

As you see, we're one big family. Let's learn to win peace.

Glad to hear you do not support the "Jews are children of monkeys and devils" theory.

For the last 10 years, every time I have to fill out a form (including the Census) that asks for my race, I check the box that says "other", and write in "Human".

I hope I will live to see the day when all people live in peace. I think one way to get there is by killing, or scaring into hiding the despots and tyrants who enslave so many of the world's people. The death of a tyrant is a holiday for freedom loving people.

Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

Wolf-wizz and the Guardian, nether have ever been a big fan of the truth!

We're all descended from Noah. Noah's ark landed in Armenia. So we're all Armenians.

jbusch, I would like you to contact your idol, BUSH, to continue with his liberation campaign eradicating all dictators from power. And make sure Bush puts his name last on the Do's list. Salute!

Sorry, Abraham, my personal "idol" is Winston Churchill (who beats out T.R. by a hair...) He knew evil when he saw it, and was unafraid to call it by name.
To Bush's credit, he has called the alliance of Wahabist Islam and terrorism an Evil, and the countries that harbor it as enemies. He has destroyed two regimes that brutalized and oppressed millions of people. I hope the next 5 years will see the fall of Iran's mullahs, and Kim Jong Il. I wish the French and Germans would look into their own past and see the truth about this war, and get off their pimpled buts and help.

>Winston Churchill

The Butcher of Gallipoli


> T.R.

The Butcher of the Phillipines

jbusch, some true liberatarian you are. NOT !

Protect the freedom of those who sit on a sea of oil. NOT ! Pillage those who sit on a sea of oil.

What about the freedom for the rest of the poor souls? "Wait until they discover something valuables we need, then we'll liberate them like we did to Iraq..." said pseudo-liberatarian jbusch. Or is it said by a hypocrite jbusch?

You don't read so good...I am not a psuedo-libertarian...I am an ex-libertarian.

Churchill's mistakes in the Gallipolli operation do not make him a butcher. T.R.'s operations against the Phillipine rebels do not make him a butcher.

Who would you list as a hero, Abraham? Himmler- he killed lots of Jews???

jbusch, you're a chameleon. "An ultra-conservative Republican in sheep's skin is still a wolf."

I don't really have an idol, idol. I respect others for their deeds and their contribution to better the human civilization. Gandi is one of them I respect. I think he's remarkable.

Churchill is a hero to many. In my view, he's a human being doing his job within the realm of a system. A good tactician. A smart politicain. Did he change the world in a way that no one else has done? No, but I respect what he'd done....

Are there anyone I despise? I didn't really have a whole lot of names before. Now, I do. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, and the rest of the unspeakables. I hate thugs!

Perhaps Jbusch will define for us what "butchers" really mean, and then give us some examples.

Butcher: n. 1. Person who deals in meat 2. slaughterer 3 brutal murderer 4 kill wantonly or cruelly

Examples: (in near order of rank)
Gengis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il........and on and on and on.

You forgot Ariel Sharon.

I lost my respect for Gandhi when I read his letter to Adolf Hitler, and realized that he held his dream of non-violence more highly than the lives of millions. He urged the Jews to resist Hilter non-violently- which some did, right up until the Zyclon B dropped from the shower ceiling.
I re-print the letter below. Anyone who can call Hitler "friend" is not a hero in my book.

Dear Friend,

That I address you as a friend is no formality. I own no foes. My business in life for the past 33 years has been to enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity by befriending mankind, irrespective of race, color or creed.

I hope you will have the time and desire to know how a good portion of humanity who have been living under the influence of that doctrine of universal friendship, view your actions . . . your humiliation of Czechoslovakia, the rape of Poland and the swallowing of Denmark. I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading to humanity. Hence we cannot possibly wish success to your arms.

But ours is a unique position. We resist the British imperialism no less than Nazism. If there is a difference, it is in degree. One-fifth of the human race has been brought under the British heel by means that will not bear scrutiny. Our resistance to it does not mean harm to the British people. We seek to convert them, not to defeat them on the battlefield.

Ours is an unarmed revolt against British rule. But whether we convert them or not, we are determined to make their rule impossible by nonviolent noncooperation. It is a method in its nature undefeatable. It is based upon the knowledge that no spoliator can compass his end without a certain degree of cooperation, willing or compulsory, from the victim. Our rulers may have our land and bodies but not our souls. They can have the former only by complete destruction of every Indian -- man, woman or child.

That all may not rise to that degree of heroism and that a fair amount of frightfulness can bend the back of revolt is true; but the argument would be beside the point. For, if a fair number of men and women can be found in India who would be prepared, without any ill-will against the spoliators, to lay down their lives rather than bend the knee to them, they will have shown the way to freedom from the tyranny of violence. I ask you to believe me when I say that you will find an unexpected number of such men and women in India. They have been having that training for the past 20 years.

In nonviolent technique, as I have said, there is no such thing as defeat. It is all "do or die," without killing or hurting. It can be used practically without money and obviously without the aid of the science of destruction which you have brought to such perfection. It is a marvel to me that you do not see that is nobody's monopoly. If not the British, then some other power will certainly improve upon your method and beat you with your own weapon. You are leaving no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud, They cannot take pride in a recital of cruel deeds, however skilfully planned. I therefore appeal to you in the name of humanity to stop the war . . . .

-- Mohandas Gandhi, 1941. Open letter to Adolf Hitler.

I think Hitler and Bush are similar. I can see Bush could definitely be Adolf Hitler providing similar environment. The main hurdle from stopping Bush from becoming Hitler is our US Constitution, which another Unspeakable evil Ashcr*** is trying hard to demolish.

I don't think you can blame Gandi for the death of the Jews. He wrote the open letter to Hitler trying to convert him. Gandi's open letter became ineffective because many German either turn their blind eyes (like you, jbusch) or were afraid to speak out.

jbusch, I am glad you bring this out. Millions and millions of people have learned from our past history, and we want a better world for futures to come. We're not afraid to speak up and to speak out against the wrongs done by Bush and his thugs. Wake up, jbusch, listen to your conscience. Don't let the $$ blind your vision.

Beyond reasons

WASHINGTON The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.
.
Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
.
The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after the Sept. 11 attacks America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough. Because a terrorism bubble had built up over there - a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was all right, having Muslim preachers say it was all right was all right, having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was all right and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was all right. Not only was all this seen as all right, there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because the West had gone soft and Arab activists were ready to die.
.
The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that Americans are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent America's open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But America hit Saddam Hussein for one simple reason: because it could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government - and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen - got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.
.
The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten America were never Saddam's missiles. The real weapons are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states - young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten America.
.
The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.
.
But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the "stated reason": the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America.
.
I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the United States to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with this weapons of mass destruction argument for P.R. reasons.
.
Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent of Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Bush did not need to find any weapons of mass destruction to justify the war for me. I still feel that way. But I have to admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Bush took the country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage America and be a very serious matter.
.
But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is necessary to preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neoconservatives, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and the CIA. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one whit more secure if America finds Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, because I never felt he would use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if America fails to put Iraq onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Bush's credibility rides on finding weapons of mass destruction, but America's future, and the future of the Middle East, rides on America building a different Iraq. We must not forget that.

What a bunch of crap ! Thanks for posting this garbage here so I won't accidentally spend my money buying the wrong books.

"I have to mislead the people to invade Iraq because there're unspeakable reasons and they won't understand them..." I would agree when the flow of information and education is back to the stone age and people are so ignorant of Bush's repressive policies finally take its effects.

For now, HELL NO !

If Bush truly concerned his rat's ass about peace and human rights and preventing terrorism then the only logical and justifiable course of action would be to first stop underwriting Israel's oppression and murder of the Palestinians, which is THE crucial point of contention between the west and the Muslim world. And before anyone starts mouthing off about the suicide bombers, learn a bit about how and when the state Israel was created, then ask yourselves what other options are there for a people who have been robbed of their land and have spent the last fifty-odd years being sytematically murdered, starved, oppressed by a regime that is being propped up by the country with all the big guns and which gets away with the very crimes it accuses others of. Next he should have called for the removal of the sanctions on Iraq, which have caused the death of millions in the last decade. This would have sent a much stronger message to the people of Iraq that the US has only their "freedom" in mind. An apology on behalf of America for putting Saddam in power in the first place wouldn't hurt, either. While we're at it, the US owes a lot of apologies to the victims of dictators it has supported, doesn't it. I'm sure they're not holding their breath, though.

If Bush truly concerned his rat's ass about peace and human rights and preventing terrorism then the only logical and justifiable course of action would be to first stop underwriting Israel's oppression and murder of the Palestinians, which is THE crucial point of contention between the west and the Muslim world. And before anyone starts mouthing off about the suicide bombers, learn a bit about how and when the state Israel was created, then ask yourselves what other options are there for a people who have been robbed of their land and have spent the last fifty-odd years being sytematically murdered, starved, oppressed by a regime that is being propped up by the country with all the big guns and which gets away with the very crimes it accuses others of. Next he should have called for the removal of the sanctions on Iraq, which have caused the death of millions in the last decade. This would have sent a much stronger message to the people of Iraq that the US has only their "freedom" in mind. An apology on behalf of America for putting Saddam in power in the first place wouldn't hurt, either. While we're at it, the US owes a lot of apologies to the victims of dictators it has supported, doesn't it. I'm sure they're not holding their breath, though.

I appreciated your honest comments there, Stuart. "If it cared", being the operative words there. Obviously it does not.

I can't imagine why anyone would buy Friedman's books.

Thanks for posting this garbage here so I won't accidentally spend my money buying the wrong books
Abraham


from the poster boy of the Oakland school system?
well, well I guess in Oakland schools are for protests not learning......right?
WHAT AN ENLIGHTENED MIND..

"The world owes a massive effort of support to Africa, to heal the ravages left by colonialism and the genocides of war and starvation. "

- these do not belong together. colonialism tends to decrece the likelyhood of genocide war and starvation in africa. some day Ill do the fancy regression of how long the country was occupied by a foreign power against how poor it is and how much killing and starvation happens there.

sure colonialism was probably done for selfish reasons - and whether you think it was right or wrong - it just happens that it doesnt ravage countries it makes them richer and more stable.

LOL.. so now I am "blinded by the $$$" whatever that means.
My point is that Gandhi was so dedicated to his own religious view of conduct that he was literally willing to have millions of people die at the hands of their oppressors. Sorry, but that is no kind of morality that I want anything to do with. It is a suicide pact.

I prefer Churchill's speech to HIlter from about the same time- stirring the British to fight Hitler on the beaches with sticks and stones if that is what it took to defend Western Civilization and destroy Fascism. Gandhi's morality is de-humanizing. It posits brotherhood for those who are trying to kill you. It is noble in a theoretical way, but Hitler was not theoretical...he was real. Real morality comes from recognizing the difference between a friend and an enemy, a brother and an oppressor.

Gandhi is quite lucky that he opposed British oppressors, and not fascist ones. The British were ultimately convinced of the immorality of their position- Hitler would have obliged Gandhi in the slaughter of millions.

' Colonialism makes the occupied party richer...'

Take the dimond industry for instance:

This industry makes the diamond thiefs much richer at the expanse of the local child workforce who are being ruthlesly exploited in order to excavate all of Africas natural resources for the benefit of the clonizers.

Could it be that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney were so gung ho about a terrorist attack on Iraq because they sat out the Viet Nam war??

"Could it be that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney were so gung ho about a terrorist attack on Iraq because they sat out the Viet Nam war"

No they learned from the mistakes of the Vietnam war, unlike the anti-war movement, which remains content to accept 2 million Cambodian dead as "collateral damage" for inaction.

<No they learned from the mistakes of the Vietnam war, unlike the anti-war movement, which remains content to accept 2 million Cambodian dead as "collateral damage" for inaction.>

By the CIA's own estimates, the US' bombing of Cambodia in the early 70's killed 600,000. In the process it laid the basis for the emergence of the fanatically anti-Vietnamese Khmer Rouge. When the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia to destroy the KR, the US was only interested in sabotaging the effort. Once the KR was driven from power by Vietnam, the US assisted KR remnants through the Thai army while insisting that it retain its position as the sole representative of Cambodia in the UN.

To blame the carnage in Cambodia on the anti-war movement is utterly fraudulant.

The war is not about oil. The war is about Jesus. In the Gospel of Mark, it says, "And behold a savior with cluster bombs shall come to Mesopotamia and kick some serious Islamic butt." And then Jesus stepped forward with an AK-47 and proceeded to liberate the crowd of anti-war protesters by machine gunning it to shreds.

This has been a reading from the Gospel according to Mark. In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost. Amen."

I like it! I indeed like it. That explains everything, doesn't it? How come we didn't think of that?

PS Thanks for the chuckle here, Mike!

The basic flaw in your logic is the idea that some entity must be guilty and all others innocent in any particular situation.

Your logic appears to go. "was US involved" yes no"
YES - "it is the USA fault"
NO - "proceed to next question"

If the US was not involved and someone points out there was someone else involved like the KR you then turn on your logic again.

"did the US do anything prior to the event "yes no"
YES - "it is the USA fault"
NO - 1) "nothing to see here move along"
2) OR more likely - "it is the USA fault because of some nebulous effect of capitalism" etc.

As a result all events becone the USA fault.

maybe you have issues with your own lack of morals and are trying to push blame upon someone else (the state).. for this to be true you must make pretty liberal use of logic (since only in a very convoluted way is the state responsible for your actions).

That way even if you act like the KR you can say.. oh it was the government's fault.

Hmm...maybe this is the US's fault too?
*******************
Another mass grave has been discovered in Iraq at Salman Pak, just south of Baghdad, in the grounds of what used to be a sprawling military complex.

Relatives of missing people have begun excavating the site and on Saturday morning they recovered at least five bodies.

Local residents say they helped bury more than 100 bodies at the military complex in April and they believe many more may be hidden underground.

They say the victims were young men killed in early April, after the American-led invasion had begun.

One body was dressed in pyjamas, another had been blindfolded, while a third had his hands tied and had been shot in the back of the head.

Many of those looking for relatives told Reuters news agency they had not heard of the grave until a Shia party, Daawa, which lost many of its members to Saddam Hussein's death squads, organised a trip to the site.

MASS GRAVES IN IRAQ

Kirkuk: Kurdish officials report discovery of 2,000 bodies
Muhammad Sakran: Reports say more than 1,000 bodies found
Babylon: Children's bones reportedly among remains found
Al-Mahawil: Up to 15,000 bodies feared buried
Najaf: 72 bodies found
Basra: Grave believed to contain about 150 Shia Muslims
Abul Khasib: 40 bodies reportedly found
Most Iraqis at the site are from Baghdad's Sadr City, a Shia slum formerly known as Saddam City.

Many arrived with white sacks filled with cloth to carry away the remains of the dead.

One of them, Kathim al-Darajee, says he spent 10 years at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and left with only one eye because the other was removed during torture.

"I am looking for my nephew. They showed him and others on television after they were tortured and said they were guilty of opposition to Saddam," he said.

Beyond these freshly-dug graves lie rows and rows of furrowed earth, where earlier victims of the regime may be buried, says the BBC's Chris Morris.

Forensic task

There is a huge forensic task to do here, but hardly anyone available to help, our correspondent says.

British forensic experts are investigating grave sites, but the identity of those buried will not be easy to establish because those searching for loved ones are unknowingly tampering with the evidence.

"Iraq is the land of mass graves and secret prisons," said one man.

Suspected mass grave sites have been identified right across the country.

Human rights groups believe that more than a quarter of a million people disappeared during the long rule of Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party.

When confronting arguments made by american jingoists who fail to EVER criticize US imperialist policies--and, indeed, tirelessly apologize for them--it is inevitable that the weight of my effort will be in criticizing said policies. Whereas scotty and "free thinker" (and others like them) can NEVER summon the energy to criticize the American state's policies--and only "care" about victims that superficially support the latest American actions--I will criticize any and all goverments without hesitation. In America today, there isn't a pressing need to establish that Stalinist regimes are despotic shit-holes, but i have gotten in heated arguments in the past with those (few) who argue that they are somehow progressive and to be lent support. If this forum were clogged up with people testifying to the greatness of Hussein (something i have yet to see) i would attack Hussein and the arguments made by his supporters vociferously.

In my above post I mentioned the US' support for the Khmer Rouge because the previous poster had intimated that the anti-war movement was somehow
to blame for the crimes of the KR. I've heard this garbage before, and for that reason, I responded, pointing out that the US government--not the anti-war movement--supported the KR in a myriad of ways. It is notable that scotty and "free thinker"--the great humanitarians who love the people so long as they can marshal that love to bomb some country that US rulers want to bomb--had no retort.

can NEVER summon the energy to criticize the American state's policies

- oh no I sure can. I dislike the tax cuts.
I think the UN and US should have taken action in rwanda
I think we should take a more foreceful approach regarding china and human rights.
Oh yes there is lots more.

aaron will criticize any and all goverments without hesitation.

- but why have i only seen you talking about the USA? even when the TOPIC is zimbabwae (and indonesia)
you have sucessfuly explained why I usually argue for the USA or israel (because you guys are so irattionaly against them) but you havent explained why in the same environment you are always against them.

I responded, pointing out that the US government--not the anti-war movement--supported the KR.

And as I pointed out just because the US might have done some things that could been seen as helping hte KR doesnt mean that the anti war movement was not also nievely helping them too. good intentions are not a vacine for bad outcomes.

It is notable that scotty and "free thinker"----had no retort.

you assume too much

Did you ever hear, "pride goeth before the fall"?

Aaron, you go far astray from the thread - which was an erroneous story in the Guardian that portrayed Wolfie in a bad light - later corrected. But you Aaron, go all over the board in order to try and prove your ultimate point - "US is very bad".

Do I feel that the US was right in all their actions in the past? No. I feel there have been mistakes made, and I certainly spoke up about them. And I feel you have the right to speak up about what you think are misadventures by the US government as well. Having said that, I also think if you speak up and complain, it is your obligation to speak intelligently about the matter, and look past your agendas and political afiliations to see the whole picture.

I hear all the whining about the US in Iraq - but all the Iraqis I have talked to agree that this is the best thing for their country. Come on Aaron, just the fact that the Iraqis can complain about issues in their county such as poorly functioning electricity and such - is light years beyond where they were 2 months ago. And their electricty and other utilities were barely functioning before the war - check it out.

Now Aaron, where is your outrage at what is happening in Zimbabwe? " I will criticize any and all goverments without hesitation" ...
Believe it or not, the US is concerned and as stated in this article:

Bush has proposed a number of ways of approaching the problem, including using foreign aid and international co-operation to address international security threats and failing states. He also suggested that the USA would support key African allies, including Kenya, Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria, and mooted the use of ad hoc, occasionally pre-emptive military action. He said: "Forming coalitions of the willing and co-operative security arrangements are key to confronting these emerging transnational threats."

While states in the region will not condone the use of force in Zimbabwe to effect regime change, Washington's tough talk, if it represents a credible threat to intervene, might pressure them into a more effective stance than they have yet displayed. A combination of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe, the threat of a spillover of refugees into South Africa, and the impact of the Iraq intervention may well serve to focus South African attention and spur President Mbeki to pre-empt US intervention by finding a diplomatic solution and crafting a plan for Mugabe's removal.


http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir030604_1_n.shtml

Now, is your silence because you support Mugabe, of the Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), who says he is being targeted by Western powers and their local proxies angry over his policy of seizing white-owned farms for redistribution to landless blacks? Hmmm?

For heaven's sakes, let Aaron take a break from this, will you? He may, like most of us, have a life apart from this board.

I eagerly await his response so I can learn something from someone with a brain.

All you late debate participants have switched the debate topic. Could I ask you to stay on the subject matter? Don't want let right wingers like jbusch get off so easily.

jbusch, back to you again if you're still there. You narrow mind miss my point again. I clearly stated that I have no idol. I respect Gandi because he thought outside of the box; not that I agree with his tactic at all time. However, his non-violence priniciple is the model for all people and all nation.

You're blinded by the potential trickle down profits $$ from the oil corporations and eventually a few pennies to the average American society. You do typify the greedy human nature personality. At least for once in a while, talk to your conscience and you'll understand.

or do you just react emotionally to each one? Aaron threw down a gaunlet, asking about our retorts - and we responded.

Hmmm - to be compared to God and considered brainless in the same post...interesting logic.

Doesn't surprise me, though.

It would appear that nothing surprises you, Free Thinker. Nothing at all.

or do you just react emotionally to them by author?

Aaron threw down the gaunlet wanting to know about our retorts, and we complied. What is that to you or Abe? As far as staying on thread, Abe - pray tell how does defending Gandhi relates to this thread? Hmm?

Geez, and being compared to God and called brainless in Angie's post really doesn't surprise me; another example of Angie's warped logic. Or is it a stunning example of your superior intellectual sarcasm Angie? If it is, you know, sarcasm usually works better if you are consistant - like play up either the "God" theme or the "brainless" theme - but not both in the same post. Just a little hint, little girl.

By the way, the whole thread is based on erroneous reporting of the Guardian, which was later retracted - for any of you who care about the truth.

Maybe Wolfowitz's comments got lost in the translation (she giggles).

Angie you need to seek harmony with in yourself, before you can successfuly bond with others. to be at peace within one's self is to be at peace with the world. lashing out at others is in its self a call for help

everyone should come togeather and offer Angie a cyber ((Hug))

Let me ask how many actual wolves are out there posting with different names?

What's with the emotional stuff? Do I sense the old guards for the old conservatives are playing a different tune? No more debate on issues but on personal attacks?

Thank you, Doctor, but I'll seek a second opinion.

Abraham you sound like a paranoid Jew.

if you do not believe in the relationship of peace and harmony in the individual can effect the interaction of the universe, then why do you seek to answer a question that you presume to have the answer for?
do you wish to quarrel? to seek aggression is the task of a spirit that is not at harmony with it's self

for one to be in harmony with the universe, is to be at the center of all things, to be all and to be nothing
before understanding you must let go with the inner self inorder to find the greater light from within.

There're no hawks arounds but some blood thirst profiteers. Bush and his administration definitely need some transcendental meditation sessions nowadays. They're about to get nailed and hopefully will get impeached for lying and misleading the American people.

Guardian had to pull the article because of legality. A lot of people can see the truth that Wolfolwitz had a Freudian slip. The US State Department's record states this Iraq was to eliminate WMD. We now know the intelligence on Iraq WMD was cooked up and clearly there ain't no WMD.

No matter how you look at this whole mess, the war has NO justification whatsoever.

While Morgan Tsvangirai was brought to Court (he's charged with two separate counts of treason) today and is still held behind bars, another top ranking member of the MDC was also arrested today and charged with treason. This is Secretary General, Welshman Ncube, a lawyer.

Meanwhile the crackdown continues, brutal beatings are being prepatrated upon arrested protesters, and the country is sliding into crisis.

And, no, Mugabe has no plans to retire, resign, or anything else right now.

For your lame excuses for the Guardian. THEY were the ones who misquoted & misconstrued Wolfie's comments - and it was no Freudian slip! They were going for the jugular, and truth be damned; especially if it served their agenda & most importantly - it made money for them.

And Abe, I know you won't believe any other viewpoints that conflict with your agenda - but how about talking to some Iraqis and asking them how they felt about the war? You really have no clue, and it shows with this statement of yours: "No matter how you look at this whole mess, the war has NO justification whatsoever."

Tell that to these Iraqi families:

Experts: Mass grave in Iraq is recent
By Sharon Waxman, The Washington Post


U.S. and British forensic experts who examined an intelligence compound outside Baghdad today said the site was a mass grave that likely contained the remains of political prisoners and army deserters killed in the days or weeks before President Saddam Hussein fell from power.

"IT CERTAINLY is a grave site," said U.S. Army Col. Ed Burley, referring to the sandy trough inside a former Iraqi security forces compound near the village of Salman Pak where bodies were exhumed this weekend. "This is the first grave we've found of such recent vintage."
Burley, coordinator of the forensics team looking for mass graves in Iraq, said witnesses from Salman Pak told him that there had been more than 100 bodies in the grave, but it appeared that many of the bodies had been removed, in some cases by relatives. The forensic experts exhumed one body last week, buried about a foot deep in the earth, and determined that the victim had been recently executed. The experts said this discovery supported the witness accounts.

The experts' assessment also seemed to support reports that Hussein's government executed people just before losing its grip on power two months ago. Soldiers captured by U.S. forces told them that internal security forces had taken Iraqi army deserters and suspected political opponents of Hussein to unknown destinations.

Burley and a team of experts from the British-based Inforce Foundation, a nonprofit organization that investigates genocides and war crimes, visited the site today. An expert in geology, Roland Wessling, who is also an archeologist with Inforce, examined the dirt and surveyed the site, which is 20 miles south of Baghdad. Wessling said earth at the site appeared to have been disturbed recently.

Burley said he suspected that the victims were either "prisoners killed immediately before the war," or deserting soldiers killed just before the fall of Baghdad.

MOSTLY DESERTERS AND PRISONERS
Two witnesses from the village said in interviews Sunday that they had found 115 bodies stacked in a ditch inside the compound on April 10, a day after Baghdad fell to U.S. forces. They said most of the victims were army deserters and were dressed in pieces of uniforms; other victims wore the striped pajamas that prisoners wear. Some had long beards, they said, and had bags tied over their heads. All of the victims' hands were tied behind their backs, and all had been shot in the head, the witnesses said. The bodies had not yet decomposed, they said.

Volunteers from a volunteer group in Baghdad dug in the shallow ditch on Saturday and Sunday, and retrieved 10 bodies. It was unclear where the rest of the bodies seen by villagers had gone, but some had apparently been claimed by relatives of the victims. Forensic archeologist Ian Hanson of Inforce said there were probably more bodies buried beneath untouched earth.

The experts said the digging at the site by Iraqi volunteers would make more difficult the search for evidence that could eventually be used in a criminal investigation.

Most of the remains retrieved over the weekend were skeletal. Hanson said decomposition in this area is very rapid because of the intense heat. "If a body is left out in the open in this heat, it can decompose to the skeleton in a week," he said. "A body buried near the surface could be skeletized in a week, especially if there is any disease or injury."

The U.S. and British investigators have been traveling widely in Iraq to find mass graves, usually digging up only one or two bodies before doing so. Since the end of the war they have found more than 80 such sites, some containing thousands of corpses dug up by Iraqi volunteers.

Most of the bodies they have examined have been of people executed earlier in Hussein's reign, particularly in 1988, 1991 and 1998. The experts are compiling a list of sites so the graves can be fully exhumed with the help of international forensics experts.

MORE GRAVES TO BE FOUND?
But Hanson, a veteran forensic investigator of Bosnian war crimes, said he expected to find more graves containing bodies from recent executions. Hussein, he said, had "been doing this for 20 years. I don't think he suddenly stops. You might find it increases because he suddenly feels threatened. I'd imagine that's very likely."

Burley said most of the sites probably would not be further exhumed until a year from now because it will take that long to make plans for what needs to be done.

"The waiting is a big deal" to families with relatives who have been missing for years, he said. "But people are cooperating. Getting the body is a comfort, but what happens later is they can't get the evidence to find out who did this to their family."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2976616.stm


Videotapes showing people being tortured and executed by Saddam Hussein's regime are being bought on the streets of Baghdad by Iraqis anxious to trace missing relatives.

Saddam Hussein's regime filmed executions
Most of the tapes date from the Shia Muslim insurgency that erupted after the first President George Bush urged Iraqis to overthrow the former Iraqi leader in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War.

Many of the executions took place in Najaf and Karbala.

Some of the tapes show a man who appears to be Lieutenant General Ali Hassan al-Majid, a cousin of Saddam Hussein, better known as "Chemical Ali", killing people.

A BBC correspondent who has seen some of the recordings says they are evidence of the atrocities of the former regime.

On Monday, a mass funeral took place in Iraq for unidentified victims of the 1991 Shia uprising.

A communal grave containing the remains of hundreds of people was discovered three weeks ago in Makhazan, near Najaf, which is the Shia branch of Islam's holiest city.

After a funeral procession through the city, the remains were reburied near the grave of the Shia Imam, Mohammad Baqer al-Sadr, known as the White Lion, who was executed in 1980

-------------

Woder if Saddam and his sons enjoyed the tapes of women and children being executed?

Woder if we should have left them alone? What would the people trying to use these tapes to identify loved ones say?

free thinker and But we shouldn't interfere, Your argument about Saddam's atrocities against his people is NOT a justification for this unilateral preemptive war. Again, no one defends Saddam for his crimes. Saddam is no different from any other dictators U.S. government condoned and/or supported.

Why would you only blame Saddam? If I provide you with means to kill someone else, I am just as guilty as you. U.S. government is one of the few big players in the power politics in the middle-east. Why no one raise a voice saying "Shame on the CIA and the US officials who supported Saddam"? Did you see the photo when Rumsfeld visiting and shaking Saddam's hand in Iraq? From early on when he took over by coup (I believe), Saddam has shown himself as a ruthless leader. He held public meetings with other politicians, names were called. Those who were called up in the meetings were never seen again.

Did Rumsfeld and CIA know about these? Yes. Did we continue to support Saddam...? Yes.

All in all, don't give me these Saddam killed people stuff.

"free thinker and But we shouldn't interfere, Your argument about Saddam's atrocities against his people is NOT a justification for this unilateral preemptive war. Again, no one defends Saddam for his crimes. Saddam is no different from any other dictators U.S. government condoned and/or supported."

So he shouldn't have been touched. I get it. You're not defending him, you're just saying we should have left him alone.

And that no atrocity he may have committed against his own people should be stopped, because nobody had the right to interfere?

Especially the US shouldn't have done anything, because a past administration may have helped put him in office. (Like he couldn't find enough willing helpers at home, I guess.)

So none of the other dictators should be stopped either, when they become too big a threat?

Ummm.

Sorry, I don't get your reasoning there.

Ummmmm, if you understand comments, then you have a problem.

I just read an interesting comment by the billionaire philanthropist George Soros. Please read.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2978238.stm


Here's an excerpt:

'Dangerous' state
"The struggle for a global open society must be fought primarily in the United States because the United States has clearly become the dominant power in the world.
"I feel that the current US administration is abusing its power by trying to increase that power instead of using it to try and create a more peaceful and equitable world."

"Ummmmm, if you understand comments, then you have a problem. "

He, and a lot of others, see through your bull. "I'm not supporting Saddam" vs. "He shouldn't have been touched" is kind of contradictory.

And what does SOROS have to do with this? Money-grubbing capitalist who plays at socialism...

ummm and ., I can now better undertsand why Bush's rating is still high (as of the last poll taken). There're some ignorant people like you out there. Sad.

It must be nice to be so much smarter than the rest of America. Congratulations on your amazing insight. How about travelling the country educating people, or do you prefer insulated smug self-satisfaction without putting your view to the test?

You know Abe, I'm really surprised that a good anarchist like yourself would be quoting George Soros.

After reading this article, I think his comments might be attributed to the fact the present US Administration is taking action that is costing him money - like closing some loopholes on off-shore bamking and corporate headquarters! By the way, he's great friends with Marc Rich - the one who bought his pardon from Clinton (remember the flurry of pardons on his last day?)

Here's some excerpts from the website I'm listing:
The Secret Financial Network Behind "Wizard" George Soros

by William Engdahl

EIR Investigation
Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), November 1, 1996

The dossier that follows is based upon a report released on Oct. 1 by EIR's bureau in Wiesbaden, Germany, titled "A Profile of Mega-Speculator George
Soros." Research was contributed by Mark Burdman, Elisabeth Hellenbroich, Paolo Raimondi, and Scott Thompson.

Time magazine has characterized financier George Soros as a "modern-day Robin Hood," who robs from the rich to give to the poor countries of eastern
Europe and Russia. It claimed that Soros makes huge financial gains by speculating against western central banks, in order to use his profits to help the emerging post-communist economies of eastern Europe and former Soviet Union, to assist them to create what he calls an "Open Society." The Time statement is entirely accurate in the first part, and entirely inaccurate in the second. He robs from rich western countries, and uses his profits to rob even more savagely from the East, under the cloak of "philanthropy." His goal is to loot wherever and however he can. Soros has
been called the master manipulator of "hit-and-run capitalism."


As we shall see, what Soros means by "open," is a society that allows him and his financial predator friends to loot the resources and precious assets
of former Warsaw Pact economies. By bringing people like Jeffrey Sachs or Sweden's Anders Aslund and their economic shock therapy into these economies, Soros lays the groundwork for buying up the assets of whole regions of the world at dirt-cheap prices.

The man who broke the Bank of England?
Following the crisis of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism of September 1992, when the Bank of England was forced to abandon efforts to stabilize
the pound sterling, a little-known financial figure emerged from the shadows, to boast that he had personally made over $1 billion in speculation
against the British pound. The speculator was the Hungarian-born George Soros, who spent the war in Hungary under false papers working for the Nazi
government, identifying and expropriating the property of wealthy fellow Jews. Soros left Hungary after the war, and established American citizenship after some years in London. Today, Soros is based in New York, but that tells little, if anything, of who and what he is.

In order to avoid U.S. government supervision of his financial activities, something normal U.S.-based investment funds must by law agree to in order
to operate, Soros moved his legal headquarters to the Caribbean tax haven of Curacao. The Netherlands Antilles has repeatedly been cited by the Task
Force on Money Laundering of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as one of the world's most important centers for
laundering illegal proceeds of the Latin American cocaine and other drug traffic. It is a possession of the Netherlands.

Soros has taken care that the none of the 99 individual investors who participate in his various funds is an American national. By U.S. securities law, a hedge fund is limited to no more than 99 highly wealthy individuals, so-called "sophisticated investors." By structuring his investment company as an offshore hedge fund, Soros avoids public scrutiny.

Soros savages eastern Europe

Soros has established no fewer than 19 "charitable" foundations across eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. He has sponsored "peace" concerts in former Yugoslavia with such performers as Joan Baez. He is helping send young east Europeans to Oxford University. A model citizen, is the image he broadcasts.

The reality is something else. Soros has been personally responsible for introducing shock therapy into the emerging economies of eastern Europe
since 1989. He has deliberately fostered on fragile new governments in the east the most draconian economic madness, policies which have allowed Soros and his financial predator friends, such as Marc Rich and Shaul Eisenberg, to loot the resources of large parts of eastern Europe at dirt-cheap prices.
Here are illustrative case histories of Soros's eastern "charity":

Poland: In late 1989, Soros organized a secret meeting between the "reform" communist government of Prime Minister Mieczyslaw Rakowski and the leaders of the then-illegal Solidarnosc trade union organization. According to well-informed Polish sources, at that 1989 meeting, Soros unveiled his
"plan" for Poland: The communists must let Solidarnosc take over the government, so as to gain the confidence of the population. Then, said Soros, the state must act to bankrupt its own industrial and agricultural enterprises, using astronomical interest rates, withholding state credits, and burdening firms with unpayable debt. Once thie were done, Soros promised that he would encourage his wealthy international business friends to come into Poland, as prospective buyers of the privatized state enterprises. A
recent example of this privatization plan is the case of the large steel facility Huta Warsawa. According to steel experts, this modern complex would
cost $3-4 billion for a western company to build new. Several months ago, the Polish government agreed to assume the debts of Huta Warsawa, and to sell the debt-free enterprise to a Milan company, Lucchini, for $30 million!.

Soros recruited his friend, Harvard University economist Jeffery Sachs, who had previously advised the Bolivian government in economic policy, leading
to the takeover of that nation's economy by the cocaine trade. To further his plan in Poland, Soros set up one of his numerous foundations, the Stefan Batory Foundation, the official sponsor of Sach's work in Poland in 1989-90.

Soros boasts, "I established close personal contact with Walesa's chief adviser, Bronislaw Geremek. I was also received by [President Gen Wojciech]
Jaruzelski, the head of State, to obtain his blessing for my foundation." He worked closely with the eminence gris of Polish shock therapy, Witold Trzeciakowski, a shadow adviser to Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Soros also cultivated relations with Balcerowicz, the man who would first impose Sach's shock therapy on Poland. Soros says when Walesa was elected President, that "largely because of western pressure, Walesa retained Balcerowicz as minister." Balcerowicz imposed a freeze on wages while industry was to be bankrupted by a cutoff of state credits. Industrial output fell by more than 30% over two years.

Soros admits he knew in advance that his shock therapy would cause huge unemployment, closing of factories, and social unrest. For this reason, he insisted that Solidarnosc be brought into the government, to help deal with the unrest. Through the Batory Foundation, Soros coopted key media opinion
makers such as Adam Michnik, and through cooperation with the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, imposed a media censorship favorable to Soros's shock therapy, and hostile to all critics.

When did I earn such a title? I learned the concept of laissez-faire in government and I always believed it has its merit. I admit I have always had my reservation of how far can it can go without any form of government regulation or supervision.

I have no idol. To me, George Soros, is a businessman and qualifies to be considered a philanthropist. I don't expect anyone to be perfect. I quoted him because he's gutsy enough to openly speak out against Bush adminstration. I don't believe his position against Bush has to do with money. A man of his stature can make money in virtually any political climate, at least that's my opinion. With such a rational said, I draw my conclusion that he's speaking from the bottom of his heart striving for a peaceful and equitable world.