05-06-2003 01:46									#61
	Increase the size of your Attachments

and that Wolfowitz knows that Iraq floats on oil

but for Guardian this was clearly misleading... and it is on their main page

	05-06-2003 01:53									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Oh well, they won't be getting much oil out of there anytime soon. Looters are attacking the oil production sites now. The real failure of the Bush administration is governing Iraq.

	05-06-2003 01:55									#63
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler Well the quote was correct. The headline was almost Foxesque.

the actual quote said "no economic options" The guardian quote said "no choice" From the Guardian quote one coud infer that we had no choice, cause we needed the oil, and iraq had it. The actual quote makes clear that we had no economic option - ie no economic leverage, in contrast to Korea.

So not only does the headline state as fact the most one of the most controversial assertions about the whole war, entirely unsupported by the actual quote, but they did get the quote wrong, in a way that obscures how unsupported their headline is.

	05-06-2003 02:09									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Pravda's headline and accompanying picture was better.

	05-06-2003 02:14									#65
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave and that Wolfowitz knows that Iraq floats on oil but for Guardian this was clearly misleading... and it is on their main page

you seem surprised.

	05-06-2003 02:22									#66
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark calm down guys - it was taken out of context. He was asked why economic sanctions would work against North Korea, but not against Iraq - we didnt have economic options against Iraq, its swimming on a sea of oil. IE Iraq could smuggle out oil and defeat sanctions, while Nkor depends on imported oil. Which any fool could see.

If Iraq could smuggle oil, it would certainly be a lot easier for the DPRK to smuggle missiles and missile technology (less mass, less number of shipments needed).

The failure of sanctions against Iraq due to all that oil sure was evident by the way the Iraqis managed to rearm themselves so heavily during the period of sanctions.

quote: But this is a pleasant diversion from contemplating the mass grave of 200 Kurdish children that has just been discovered.

Actually, that's the diversion. How long has it been since there's been a debate on whether Saddam was a murdering *******? Oh, about the last time there was a debate on the color of the sky on a clear day.

	05-06-2003 02:22									#67
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Typical Guardian.



-Arrian

	05-06-2003 02:30									#68
	Increase Your PM Length

I tracked down the problem. The Guardian cites Die Welt as one of its sources. They simply took Wolfowitz quote, as translated into German back into English:

quote: "Betrachten wir es einmal ganz simpel. Der wichtigste Unterschied zwischen Nordkorea und dem Irak ist der, dass wir wirtschaftlich einfach keine Wahl im Irak hatten. Das Land schwimmt auf einem Meer von Öl."

Needless to say, the translation was different than the original. I think the Guardian was not trying to be misleading, it's just they carried a story that came from a foreign source and translated the quote.

	05-06-2003 02:31									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Actually, that's the diversion. How long has it been since there's been a debate on whether Saddam was a murdering *******? Oh, about the last time there was a debate on the color of the sky on a clear day.

Theres new evidence almost every day about the nature of the regime. Its a lot more newsworthy than the wolfie quote.

pre-war we were told that you cant go around attacking every murdering bastard. and how hypocritical we were cause of east timor, or gaza, or wherever you care to name. Therefore the EXTENT of the murderousness of this regime is relevant.

Not just killing. Mass killing. 200. Children. Not adults, children. And id bet money they werent killed while throwing stones.

	05-06-2003 02:33									#70
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I might believe that for another newspaper. But the Guardian? Based on their track record, I'd say they knew EXACTLY what they were doing. I've come to expect stuff like this of them.

-Arrian

	05-06-2003 02:35									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat If Iraq could smuggle oil, it would certainly be a lot easier for the DPRK to smuggle missiles and missile technology (less mass, less number of shipments needed). The failure of sanctions against Iraq due to all that oil sure was evident by the way the Iraqis managed to rearm themselves so heavily during the period of sanctions.

dont know if there is as deep a market for missiles as for oil. also Nkor has only 2 land borders - china and skor - neither as porous as Iraqs with Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and Iran.

Iraq managed to stay afloat, if not to rearm (conventionally at least) Nkor is on point of starvation now, even without sanctions.

	05-06-2003 02:36									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Victor Galis I tracked down the problem. The Guardian cites Die Welt as one of its sources. They simply took Wolfowitz quote, as translated into German back into English: Needless to say, the translation was different than the original. I think the Guardian was not trying to be misleading, it's just they carried a story that came from a foreign source and translated the quote.

they published a pretty inflamatory headline, to not check on the original.

	05-06-2003 02:37									#73
	Support Apolyton

Well this news finally puts an end to the question at least.

	05-06-2003 02:40									#74
	Tired of ads?

from the herald sun:


'A MASS grave containing the remains of 200 Kurdish children has been discovered in the northern Iraqi province of Kirkuk, the Kurdish newspaper Taakhi reported today.

"Citizens discovered on May 30 a communal grave close to Debs, in Kirkuk. But this is different from other mass graves discovered since the fall of Saddam Hussein's terrorist regime because it contains the remains of 200 child victims of the repression of the Kurdish uprising" in 1991, the paper said.
"Even dolls were buried with the children," it said.

Dozens of mass graves have been uncovered all over Iraq since Saddam's ouster by invading US-led forces on April 9. '

	05-06-2003 02:41									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by monkspider Well this news finally puts an end to the question at least.

puts an end to what question?

	05-06-2003 02:46									#76
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark dont know if there is as deep a market for missiles as for oil. also Nkor has only 2 land borders - china and skor - neither as porous as Iraqs with Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and Iran. Iraq managed to stay afloat, if not to rearm (conventionally at least) Nkor is on point of starvation now, even without sanctions.

There's two markets for missiles. One is to sell them to smugglers, one is to offer express delivery to Tokyo and Seoul if sanctions are put in place.

And if a bunch of North Korean peasants starve, they're that many less mouths to feed. Do you think Dear Leader Kim is really that concerned?

	05-06-2003 02:50									#77
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat The failure of sanctions against Iraq due to all that oil sure was evident by the way the Iraqis managed to rearm themselves so heavily during the period of sanctions.

And the interpretation being spun on this thread forgets that Iraq's oil exports were limited by the UN resolutions and presumably could have been limited further by subsequent resolutions - smuggling aside that is.

	05-06-2003 02:52									#78
	Remove this text

I am highly amused by all the knee-jerk, automatic responses in this thread - on both sides.

All those who went "ah-hah, as I've known all along!" were pretty funny. 'Cause that just ain't what he said.

But Imran takes the cake. He defended this as if the Guardian's mischaracterization of this was correct, and fought the good fight, trying to downplay Wolfowitz's influence and whatnot.

This thread is great.

-Arrian

	05-06-2003 02:55									#79
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Arrian I am highly amused by all the knee-jerk, automatic responses in this thread - on both sides.

I'm highly amused by PW's incompetence. Not the sort of man that should be put in front of a microphone. It's a stock rule that one must be hyper careful about one's choice of words.

	05-06-2003 03:09									#80
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I view this as a verbal equivalent of Wolfy unzipping, grabbing his dick and masturbating furiously.

	05-06-2003 03:34									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Theres new evidence almost every day about the nature of the regime. Its a lot more newsworthy than the wolfie quote.

It's only newsworthy when we get to it being worse than we thought. The Iran-Iraq war casualties should be filtered out, because the Iranians were at fault, but even with that out, the estimates of people killed by the regime is somewhere between 600,000 and 1.2 million.

So a couple hundred doesn't impress me, sorry.

quote: pre-war we were told that you cant go around attacking every murdering bastard. and how hypocritical we were cause of east timor, or gaza, or wherever you care to name. Therefore the EXTENT of the murderousness of this regime is relevant.

Told by gutless weenies. Personally, I don't have a problem with attacking every murdering bastard, so inventing a one-off excuse that we attacked this one because he killed 1,191,603 people (and had oil ), but we couldn't attack this other one because he only killed 1,091,603 people (and didn't have oil ) is IMO just transparent nonsense. What the US is aiming for is an excuse to invent a unique set of factors, for each regime so this invasion, and each subsequent invasion or refusal to act can be "justified" on a one-off basis. That way, you get to avoid having a consistent doctrine, without admitting the callously cynical truth that you act as you want when you perceive it to be in your interests, and don't act when you don't perceive it to be in your interests. That's the truth of it, but the US has some psychological need to paint itself as more noble than the rest of the world, so there's all this effort at self-justification (as long as it doesn't commit you to consistent behavior).

quote: Not just killing. Mass killing. 200. Children. Not adults, children. And id bet money they werent killed while throwing stones.

Cry me a river. Neither manipulated famines and disasters, nor genocide, is anything new.

Arrian - really, so what if it's about oil? Oil runs the economies of the developed world, so really, what the big deal if it's about oil? To me the only funny thing is how much the right insists it's about anything other than oil, so Big Bad Wolfowitz even mentioning the Big O in relation to Iraq is funny, no matter what the context.

	05-06-2003 03:38									#82
	Got spare money?

quote: He defended this as if the Guardian's mischaracterization of this was correct, and fought the good fight, trying to downplay Wolfowitz's influence and whatnot.

But his influence in NOT that great. People on this thread thinks he runs the White House... he does nothing of the sort... not even close.

	05-06-2003 09:46									#83
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark the actual quote said "no economic options" The guardian quote said "no choice" From the Guardian quote one coud infer that we had no choice, cause we needed the oil, and iraq had it.

You could do that. Of course you could also infer something else.

Given that the W administration was determined to topple Saddam Hussein, with the economic options removed, what choice was left?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark So not only does the headline state as fact the most one of the most controversial assertions about the whole war, entirely unsupported by the actual quote, but they did get the quote wrong, in a way that obscures how unsupported their headline is.

Why? Wolfie did indeed say if Iraq didn't have oil, sanctions might have worked. So what's wrong with the headline?

Of course, sanctions have never worked, but I digress.

	05-06-2003 11:22									#84
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark they published a pretty inflamatory headline, to not check on the original.

-But they obviously checked the original. The Guardian quote is an exact translation of the quote in German, and if you think about it, the oil is the reason that sanctions would not work as well (if that's what your claiming he said), which means oil was the reason for the war. I see nothing wrong with the headline. You will note that the word economically does not dissappear from the quote.

	05-06-2003 11:34									#85
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

"But Imran takes the cake. He defended this as if the Guardian's mischaracterization of this was correct, and fought the good fight, trying to downplay Wolfowitz's influence and whatnot. "

ya got that one Arrian...Imran will defend the Republican Party at all costs. What do you want to bet that if it had been Rumsfeld, or someone else, we'd be hearing how THAT person only has 'peripheral' influence?

	05-06-2003 12:52									#86
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Oh well.

Guess that would be too much to ask:

A honest politician.

quote: Did you believe it one second?

Didn't really matter. It's a tough call for the liberation of any country as a justification for war. There are a great deal of non-democratic nations in the world, do we invade them all?

Still, I'll hold them to their words. The US better fix up Iraq if they want any credibility. The clock ticks.

	05-06-2003 12:58									#87
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 Didn't really matter. It's a tough call for the liberation of any country as a justification for war. There are a great deal of non-democratic nations in the world, do we invade them all?

In a semi-ideal world, yes.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have any to invade.

In the world we're stuck in, sometimes (other people's)democracy is in our interests, sometimes it definitely isn't, although giving them the illusion of it might be.

	05-06-2003 15:03									#88
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Told by gutless weenies. Personally, I don't have a problem with attacking every murdering bastard,

Are you sure that you don't mean any murdering bastard? It seems as though attacking every murdering bastard is beyond the capabilities of even the U.S., in effect a suicidal policy. Attacking every murdering bastard seems to only come up as a policy option only when there is a republican president, and the democrats suggest that it's either that or attack no one except the Nazis in WW2.

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat ...so inventing a one-off excuse that we attacked this one because he killed 1,191,603 people (and had oil ), but we couldn't attack this other one because he only killed 1,091,603 people (and didn't have oil ) is IMO just transparent nonsense. What the US is aiming for is an excuse to invent a unique set of factors, for each regime so this invasion, and each subsequent invasion or refusal to act can be "justified" on a one-off basis. That way, you get to avoid having a consistent doctrine, without admitting the callously cynical truth that you act as you want when you perceive it to be in your interests, and don't act when you don't perceive it to be in your interests. That's the truth of it, but the US has some psychological need to paint itself as more noble than the rest of the world, so there's all this effort at self-justification (as long as it doesn't commit you to consistent behavior).

I don't have any problem whatsoever in having a foreign policy that is anchored to the idea of self-interest (preferably enlightened), and being honest about it. But look at the sh!tstorm a little lefty propoganda caused in this thread. Perhaps a majority of Americans desperately need to be able to pretend that we are doing God's work, but the look at the foreign response. They are even more adamant that we do nothing, ever. Of course it's hard to blame them, it isn't often that they get a chance to see just how full of sh!t their news sources are. BBC are little better, and god knows what goes on in all the non-English language rags.

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Arrian - really, so what if it's about oil? Oil runs the economies of the developed world, so really, what the big deal if it's about oil? To me the only funny thing is how much the right insists it's about anything other than oil, so Big Bad Wolfowitz even mentioning the Big O in relation to Iraq is funny, no matter what the context.

It's about not letting anyone grab control of the majority of the world's oil, aka The Carter Doctrine. Where I object to the characterization that "it's about oil" is the majority of the time that I hear that we are there to steal the oil or some other similar non-sense. It's a lot cheaper to buy it, and even if we were going to steal it there are cheaper countries to steal it from.

	05-06-2003 15:20									#89
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Oh, come on, people, did you really believe he'd say something like this clearcut? It was clear that this was a "out of context" joke!

	05-06-2003 15:23									#90
	Increase Your PM Length

Sikander:

"They are even more adamant that we do nothing, ever."

That's not the problem. The problem is we don't trust your government's motives and abilities. And that view is confirmed on a regular basis.

"it isn't often that they get a chance to see just how full of sh!t their news sources are."

As I said, the guardian has been spinning this headline heavily. The average newspaper, not to mention TV news, is miles better than the US media.

"It's about not letting anyone grab control of the majority of the world's oil, aka The Carter Doctrine"

And whenever I said that, the righwing clowns were going apoplexic.