Re: Correction: No he did not say that

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Maybe Wolfowitz does not blunder quite so much then. The importance of
Iraqi oil remains denied.

But the preceding paragraph on the Dept of Defense site

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


is also odd:-

>     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.


This implies that they are now prepared to negotiate with the regime
provided it adapts to their capitalist agenda. His comments about China
suggest he sees it as committed to peace as a result of its economic changes.

But this argument also suggests that any country of 20 million which the
USA thinks in in a state of potential collapse and anarchy can legitimately
be pressurised. Presumably up to and including invasion.

We have already heard hints, have we not, that Iraq deserved to be invaded
because it was an economic failure and unable to overcome sanctions
(despite having lots of oil and not being vulnerable to further economic
pressure. )

The particular arguments are so selective as to be arbitrary but the
imperialist ambitions are clear.

Chris Burford
London


At 2003-06-06 09:28 -0700, you wrote:
> Corrections and clarifications
>
> Thursday June 5, 2003
>
> A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the
> heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks
> made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making
> it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going
> to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the
> Department of Defence website, "The ... difference 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 sense was clearly that the US had no economic
> options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the
> economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared
> only on the website and has now been removed.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,971436,00.html