http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html
He said it. Not me.
Paul Wolfowitz - this man is the driving force behind the Bush administration’s foreign policy, I mentioned him several times during the Iraq debates.
Some of us have been saying it wasn’t about weapons of mass destruction right from the beginning.
To quote a Sinistralism, “Haw.”
I knew it. 
A few politicians were saying similar things before the war, didn’t stop Bush and Blair then.
At least a few agencies are starting to make inquiries about whether the war in Iraq was justified or not, now. That might help to stop Bush and Blair if they try to attack another middle-eastern country “swimming in oil”.
Oh my, what a shock. I would not have thought that was a motive at all. Especially the way they set guards in the oilfields, and yet let a museum be raped and stripped of priceless historical relics. Nope. No clue whatsoever.
Trillian, show me the next Scroll-ar powered vehicle that rolls by…get it? Scroll-ar?..I’ll shut up now.
… Ah, Scroll-ar! I get it, LOL!
Ah, of course. The infamous oil motive.
I hope this gets Blair and Bush the boot they deserve, along with the other schemers >_< At least somebody said the truth and was heard, at long last.
It seems like they have moved the article: Or, OMR! They’ve suffered a Stupid White Men ( Reference: Stupid White Men, by Michael Moore ) attack.
I assume the article is about Paul Wolfowitz saying that they chose to use weapons of mass destructions as the excuse to attack for practical reasons? Of course. Using: We wanted some oil, or the President wanted revenge for his dad; would be a bit silly.
More petrol for more sport-utility vehicles. Disgusting.
:enguard:
i didn’t ge to read it! ;_;… but from what you guys are saying sounds like something is gonna happen soon.
It said that this page is unavaible… :fungah:
Personally, I hope Bush or Cheney (because I have a hunch Bush is just a pawn) gets tried for War-crimes, and he is solely held responsible, without punishing the rest of America.
Originally posted by PC Glenton
Personally, I hope Bush or Cheney (because I have a hunch Bush is just a pawn) gets tried for War-crimes, and he is solely held responsible, without punishing the rest of America.
While we’re at it lets try Blair for war-crimes too. Afterall he and Bush did everything in thier power to minimalize civilian casualties.
Lets not stop there though. Lets toss Franklin D. Roosevelt on the list of war criminals. Afterall he was president when the US carpet bombed Dresden, More civilains died there than in the Iraq war! Strip down all of his memorials!
Winston Churchill was FDR’s buddy and pal, he had lots of bombing runs on Civilains as well. Dang, time to tear down more memorials as we add him to the list of war ciminals.
And good lord! Many civilains died in the first gulf war, I forgot to add George Bush senior to the list! Never mind the fact that Iraq had initiated the war, and did thier best to put batteries and weapons in the middle of crowds of civilians. Oh well.
Clinton too! He bombed Iraq! Dang that man is bad news. A coupla civilians died under his watch. Justice will not be served until that man twiddles his thumbs in jail!
Hell, we are all a part of a country that has been in countless wars!(Unless you live in Switzerland) We as a whole have killed millions of civilians! Lets do the wolrd a favor and hang ourselves.
“trying” to avoid civilian casualties when starting an unprovoked war which causes deaths of innocents is not a valid excuse, esp when bombing cities and using the bombs that let out all those little bomblets that litter Iraq like landmines.
Look at it this way, during the war, less civilians were killed by the conflict per day than by Saddam per day. Overall (assuming that the Saddam-related deaths cease) less innocent blood is shed.
My point being Bush is not a war criminal, and the notion that he be tried as one is idiotic. If Bush is a war criminal, then so is Clinton, Reagan, Truman, Churchill, Washington and just about every other foreign leader that was in charge during a war/conflict.
Can someone tell me the article of the title so I can find and read it? The link doesn’t work for me.
The original article was called ‘Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil’
However, the article was taken down.
Here’s why: http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,971436,00.html
Yes, he did not “say that”.
Riiiiiiight.
Originally posted by Thomas Paxton
Look at it this way, during the war, less civilians were killed by the conflict per day than by Saddam per day.
That’s a pretty cynical excuse. Claiming “oh yeah, well, we weren’t any more cruel than the other guy!” is still not an excuse for starting an unprovoked, unjustified war, killing many people, and destabilizing the society to the point of near-anarchy. It’s only an excuse for not caring about what happens to the country, what consequences happen to us, and how irresponsible or deceitful those in charge act.
If some country was facing civil war, or widespread starvation, or some other crisis, you, by simple extension of your logic, should see nothing wrong with attacking that country for no reason, then occupying it. You would, following the reasoning of your statement, claim “Well, so what? They were all going to starve to death anyway. Who cares whether they starved to death or died from a cluster bomb? In fact, we probably killed less of them per day than would have starved.” It’s no different from what you’re saying now, because we attacked Iraq for no good reason (aside from ideology, oil, and other such unsavoury motivations).
And this war was nothing like World War II. In World War II, we were defending ourselves after an unprovoked attack by Japan. Thus, going to war was justified. There was an aggressive attack from a credible threat. Iraq was no threat and had an impoverished military which barely put up a fight.