Top 3 van de schurkenstaten!!!

[Vlaamse Leeuw]

Ik had er een lachend ventje achter moeten zetten, maar spijtig genoeg is het wel zo.

[TomB]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Tantist

Erg he, die Amerikahaters?

Wat doe je er aan, Tommeke? Lekker laten uitrazen tiens, ik vind het best wel vermakelijk.

Ik vind het vooral vermakelijk dat ze volop tieren tegen de amerikaanse propaganda terwijl ze zelf slachtoffer zijn van misinformatie. De underdog kiezen ligt moreel goed he. En de VS zijn groot en machtig, dus zullen de VS per definitie slecht zijn. Ooit worden die amerikahaters ook volwassen.

[Rudysfonduehuisje]

Moest het niet zo schrijnend zijn, dan was deze discussie best vermakelijk...

Inderdaad, de VS zijn geen Moeder Theresa's, inderdaad eigenbelang speelt een rol in hun buitenlandse politiek... MAAR noem mij een staat waarbij dat NIET zo is! Alle staten doen dat, het is als het ware een deel van hun bestaansreden. Natuurlijk, omdat Amerika een grootmacht is, zijn de effecten duidelijk zichtbaar.

Kijk naar onze eigen Belgenland. Michel kakt op Oostenrijk. Reden? Eigenbelang, intern politiek gebruik. Michel verkoopt wapens aan Nepal? Reden: eiegn economie.

Frankrijk, de vredesduif tegen de oorlog in Irak. Reden: 1) oliecontracten in Irak 2) groeiende frustratie omdat ze op wereldvlak NIETS meer voorstellen. Deze 2 redenen gelden ook voor Rusland.

Voor onze regio (laat ons zeggen de Benelux) is de balans wat de VS betreft overwegend positief. De bevrijding, met de NAVO hebben ze een beetje de rol overgenomen van het VK tegenover de Europese grootmachten Frankrijk en Duitsland (Ballance of Power), Marshall-plan: een moderne economie in Vlaanderen, ... Er zijn ook nadelen, uiteraard, zoals de sterk op consumptie gerichte samenleving en de verengelsing.


Er is soms een grote tegenspraak in de redenering van Amerika-haters. Bush valt Irak aan louter om de olie TEGENOVER Bush is een protestantse fundamentalist die gelooft dat hij een missie heeft om de wereld te verbeteren.

Wat WOII betreft. De Amerikanen zijn daar via de Jappen in tercht geraakt. Zonder de strijd om de hegemonie in de Pacific waren ze misschien niet tussengekomen. Ze hadden misschien handelscontracten met een Europa onder Duitse hegemonie kunnen afsluiten... Mede dankzij de Amerikanen is Engeland niet overrrompeld geweest, anders was een bevrijding nog meer problematisch geweest. Nu, toen zij besloten Europa te bevrijden, dan was dat in de eerste plaats geen economische overweging... Een dergelijke bloedige oorlog met zoveel eigen verliezen voer je niet enkel om economische redenen. Toen de oorlog voorbij was natuurlijk wou men een zo stabiel mogelijk Europa met een bloeiende economie en democratische regeringen, warmee men dan ook het best handel kan drijven. Tevens kwam het erop aan dat deze 'kapitalistische' staten de communistische landen succesvol zouden beconcurreren.

Nu, je kan best tegen Bush zijn , zonder een Amerikahater te zijn... maar bij sommigen op dit forum zit het veel dieper. Zij hebben een allergische reactie op alles wat Amerikaans is...

[Pelgrim]

"Nu, je kan best tegen Bush zijn , zonder een Amerikahater te zijn... maar bij sommigen op dit forum zit het veel dieper. Zij hebben een allergische reactie op alles wat Amerikaans is..."

Laat ik het zo stellen: al wie tegen Bush is wordt nu gebrandmerkt als tegen amerika (en daarom voor Saddam, Iran, Bin Laden, Noord korea en dergelijke). De haat bij de bush-fans ligt net heel diep: 'if you're not with us, you're against us'. Ik ben niet tegen amerika, wel tegen bepaalde machtsstructuren daar. Maar de propagandamachine van die zelfde machtsstructuur draait dit zo dat het lijkt alsof wij bush-haters ook amerika-haters, freedom-haters en democracy-haters zijn. Dezelfde propagandamachine die de amerikaanse bevolking ook al doet geloven dat Bush de Goede is en de rest van de wereld de Slechte.

[TomB]

Eh, jullie zeggen allemaal dat jullie 'alleen maar tegen Bush zijn', maar als je door de threads leest zijn jullie negatief over alles wat maar remote met de verenigde staten te maken heeft:

1) Pelgrim: Gaat zover dat als een Belg een vertalingsfout maakt van het Engels naar het Nederlands, dat de fout is van de Amerikanen.
2) Vlaamse Leeuw: Is ervan overtuigd dat er in het Palestijnse conflict slechts twee naties bijdragen aan de miserie, mn VS en Israel, Palestina zijn de arme onderdrukten. Hij is er tevens van overtuigd dat de daling van de dollar een gevolg is van het Amerikaanse imperialisme.
3) Jorge: De redelijkste van de drie, maar toch bezoekt hij politiek gekleurde websites die vanalles en nog wat van de Amerikaanse maatschappij te grabbel gooien.

Als je alles mag geloven wat jullie en jullie consoorten hier rondspuien is de VS een allesverslindende kapitalistische machine die meedogenloos vrouwen en kinderen door de vleesmolen jaagt om de finale val van hun zwarte wereldheerschappij nog een paar jaar uit te stellen.

In de sixties waren er ook al mensen die dit verkondigden. Die gingen dan eens op reis naar het proletarische aards paradijs in Moskou en kwamen terug als neo liberalen

Maar kom, het staat wel cool zeker, om anti- te zijn in plaats van van het leven te genieten. Fashion victims you are.

[Pat]

Stel gewoon de vraag: "Waar zou u het liefst leven" of "Welke landen wilt u liever vermijden" en beantwoord deze naar eer en geweten. Dan zullen sommigen hun antwoord toch wel herzien.

[visjesman]

het gaat om individuen en niet om landen.

[TomB]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door visjesman

het gaat om individuen en niet om landen.

En ik die dacht dat het om het beleid in die landen ging. Jongens toch, ik moet Belgie als top schurkenstaat zetten, daar lopen het meeste individuen rond die ik niet graag heb.

[visjesman]

Het beleid wordt dan ook gevoerd door een aantal individuen maar sommige staren zich daar blind op en beschouwen een hele bevolking als slecht , gevaarlijk en idoot ofzo.

Niet iedereen in belgië is blij met de koers die we volgen qua buitenlandse politiek maar wanneer Amerika een aanval op ons zou lanceren zal iedereen zich waarschijnlijk toch bij elkaar hokken en gezamelijk 1 vijand aanpakken.

[maddox]

In zo'n geval ga ik politiekertjes jagen.

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door ferro

Volgens mijn bescheiden mening bestaat de top 3 van schurkenstaten uit de volgende landen; 1:ISRAEL
2:USA
3:GROOT BRITTANIE

Ik veronderstel dat iedereen hiermee akkoord kan gaan?

Israel heeft zich afzijdig gehouden in het laatste conflict, maar DIT maakt van de US en het UK wel de onbetwistbare N°1 & 2, imho:

Manchester Guardian 2003-06-04-4.30pm update

[size=6]WOLFOWITZ: IRAQ WAR WAS ABOUT OIL [/size]

George Wright
Wednesday June 4, 2003

Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.
The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.
The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbours - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.
His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."
Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war.
Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are both facing fierce criticism at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war.
Amid growing calls from all parties for a public inquiry, the foreign affairs select committee announced last night it would investigate claims that the UK government misled the country over its evidence of Iraq's WMD.
The move is a major setback for Tony Blair, who had hoped to contain any inquiry within the intelligence and security committee, which meets in secret and reports to the prime minister.
In the US, the failure to find solid proof of chemical, biological and nuclear arms in Iraq has raised similar concerns over Mr Bush's justification for the war and prompted calls for congressional investigations.
Mr Wolfowitz is viewed as one of the most hawkish members of the Bush administration. The 57-year old expert in international relations was a strong advocate of military action against Afghanistan and Iraq.
Following the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harbouring or sponsoring of militants.
Prior to his appointment to the Bush cabinet in February 2001, Mr Wolfowitz was dean and professor of international relations at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), of the Johns Hopkins University.

uit een US-bron:

ASIA-PACIFIC ALLIES FORCED TO DEFEND ROLE IN IRAQ WAR
By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, June 4, 2003; Page A14
TOKYO, June 3 -- The first question to the Pentagon's second-ranking official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, at a news conference in Tokyo today had none of the famous Japanese indirectness.
"How do you justify the Iraqi war," a Japanese reporter asked, "when you have found no weapons of mass destruction?"
Leaders of U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific region who supported the war are finding themselves nettled by that question in the aftermath of the fighting.
In Australia, Prime Minister John Howard, who sent troops to fight alongside Americans in Iraq, has beseeched the critics to put the question behind them, now that Baghdad has fallen and Australian troops are coming home.
In Japan, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, whose government focused on giving humanitarian aid, was challenged in the parliament to urge the Americans to step aside for more impartial international inspectors who would search for the weapons.
And in South Korea, support by President Roh Moo Hyun for the attack on Iraq has been one element in a steady decline in his popularity. So has the U.S. failure to find illegal weapons in Iraq. Many South Koreans feel that the main legacy of the war, to which South Korea contributed a military field hospital and engineering units, has been to aggravate the nuclear crisis with North Korea. North Korea has claimed that it needs nuclear weapons to protect itself from being attacked like Iraq.
"The United States is the problem," said Song Young Gil, a member of parliament from Roh's Millennium Democratic Party.
Japan, Australia and South Korea -- all key U.S. allies -- backed the invasion despite adverse public opinion polls in each country. The debate over whether that support was justified is not raging with the heat of the debate now occurring in Britain, but it remains a troubling tripwire for political leaders in the region.
"The public is skeptical because [weapons of mass destruction] have not been found, when the issue was said to be so serious at the very beginning," said Takashi Mikuriya, a professor of politics at Tokyo University. "It should really be debated to its limit." But he predicted that Koizumi -- like Bush, he said -- will successfully play down the question.
Critics are skeptical of the Bush administration's explanations that people loyal to deposed president Saddam Hussein may have destroyed the weapons before the war, or that two trailers that the CIA has said were probably intended for production of biological agents are proof of the existence of illegal weapons in Iraq.
"What was this war about?" Japan's Asahi Shimbun newspaper asked in an editorial last month. The weapons justification "turned out to be uncertain," the newspaper observed. "It is a weighty question which Japan, which supported the war, cannot avoid."
Wolfowitz, on a tour to meet allied officials in Asia, derided the question today. He asserted that the trailers seized in Iraq were "significant evidence" to prove that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had been truthful when he argued to the U.N. Security Council that Iraq had such weapons.
Wolfowitz also argued that the 11 weeks since troops entered Iraq "is a very short time."
"I wouldn't suggest we've got to the bottom of the whole story yet," he said. "Going to search door-to-door in a country the size of California is not the way to find these things. There should be no doubt that this regime was a threat to our security -- and a threat we could not live with."
In Australia, large and angry demonstrations preceded the war. Howard's popularity was buoyed when Australian troops returned without a single casualty, but critics have not heeded his call to close the books on the issue, John Warhurst, a political analyst at the Australian National University in Canberra, said in a recent interview.
"The Iraqi war is still quite divisive in the Australian community," he said. The quick victory "took the steam out of the opposition," he said. "But I don't think the Australian media or people will let him get away with it when Howard says, 'Let's not argue over whether they had WMDs.' "
Wolfowitz today offered alternative rationales for the war. He said mass graves found in Iraq prove that "Saddam Hussein was guilty of killing more Muslims than anyone in history. . . . There is no question the Iraqi people are far better off without that regime."
Special correspondent Akiko Yamamoto in Tokyo contributed to this report.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Subscribe to The Post





By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, June 4, 2003; Page A14


TOKYO, June 3 -- The first question to the Pentagon's second-ranking official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, at a news conference in Tokyo today had none of the famous Japanese indirectness.

"How do you justify the Iraqi war," a Japanese reporter asked, "when you have found no weapons of mass destruction?"

Leaders of U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific region who supported the war are finding themselves nettled by that question in the aftermath of the fighting.

In Australia, Prime Minister John Howard, who sent troops to fight alongside Americans in Iraq, has beseeched the critics to put the question behind them, now that Baghdad has fallen and Australian troops are coming home.

In Japan, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, whose government focused on giving humanitarian aid, was challenged in the parliament to urge the Americans to step aside for more impartial international inspectors who would search for the weapons.

And in South Korea, support by President Roh Moo Hyun for the attack on Iraq has been one element in a steady decline in his popularity. So has the U.S. failure to find illegal weapons in Iraq. Many South Koreans feel that the main legacy of the war, to which South Korea contributed a military field hospital and engineering units, has been to aggravate the nuclear crisis with North Korea. North Korea has claimed that it needs nuclear weapons to protect itself from being attacked like Iraq.

"The United States is the problem," said Song Young Gil, a member of parliament from Roh's Millennium Democratic Party.

Japan, Australia and South Korea -- all key U.S. allies -- backed the invasion despite adverse public opinion polls in each country. The debate over whether that support was justified is not raging with the heat of the debate now occurring in Britain, but it remains a troubling tripwire for political leaders in the region.

"The public is skeptical because [weapons of mass destruction] have not been found, when the issue was said to be so serious at the very beginning," said Takashi Mikuriya, a professor of politics at Tokyo University. "It should really be debated to its limit." But he predicted that Koizumi -- like Bush, he said -- will successfully play down the question.

Critics are skeptical of the Bush administration's explanations that people loyal to deposed president Saddam Hussein may have destroyed the weapons before the war, or that two trailers that the CIA has said were probably intended for production of biological agents are proof of the existence of illegal weapons in Iraq.

"What was this war about?" Japan's Asahi Shimbun newspaper asked in an editorial last month. The weapons justification "turned out to be uncertain," the newspaper observed. "It is a weighty question which Japan, which supported the war, cannot avoid."

Wolfowitz, on a tour to meet allied officials in Asia, derided the question today. He asserted that the trailers seized in Iraq were "significant evidence" to prove that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had been truthful when he argued to the U.N. Security Council that Iraq had such weapons.

Wolfowitz also argued that the 11 weeks since troops entered Iraq "is a very short time."

"I wouldn't suggest we've got to the bottom of the whole story yet," he said. "Going to search door-to-door in a country the size of California is not the way to find these things. There should be no doubt that this regime was a threat to our security -- and a threat we could not live with."

In Australia, large and angry demonstrations preceded the war. Howard's popularity was buoyed when Australian troops returned without a single casualty, but critics have not heeded his call to close the books on the issue, John Warhurst, a political analyst at the Australian National University in Canberra, said in a recent interview.

"The Iraqi war is still quite divisive in the Australian community," he said. The quick victory "took the steam out of the opposition," he said. "But I don't think the Australian media or people will let him get away with it when Howard says, 'Let's not argue over whether they had WMDs.' "

Wolfowitz today offered alternative rationales for the war. He said mass graves found in Iraq prove that "Saddam Hussein was guilty of killing more Muslims than anyone in history. . . . There is no question the Iraqi people are far better off without that regime."

Special correspondent Akiko Yamamoto in Tokyo contributed to this report.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[TomB]

"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."

Ik kan me moeilijk voorstellen dat Wolfowitz zo dom zou zijn.

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TomB

"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."

Ik kan me moeilijk voorstellen dat Wolfowitz zo dom zou zijn.

Niet dom, gewoon een kwestie van prioriteiten:

NORTH KOREA NEXT
Pyongyang feels the grave digger's breath
Leader
Saturday April 19, 2003
The Guardian
The crisis over North Korea's nuclear plans is an object lesson in the counter-productive effect of announced policies of regime change. Once a government thinks it is in a superpower's sights, it becomes harder to negotiate a compromise and, if the target state has the means to develop weapons of mass destruction, to persuade it not to do so. Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall led to expectations that Korea, like Germany, would soon be unified on terms set by the capitalist half of the country, Pyongyang has felt the grave digger's breath on its neck.
North Korea's consequent behaviour has had a paranoid character. But its sense that it was under threat or, at least, that it had enemies who devoutly wished it to expire, had some basis in fact. This was reinforced by the Clinton administration's dilatory attitude to commitments made at the time of North Korea's agreement to forego nuclear weapons related work and some forms of nuclear energy production in 1994. Pyongyang probably began violating those agreements five or six years ago. But the Bush administration compounded existing problems by taking a brusque and unyielding line as soon as it was in office. Then President Bush went a rhetorical step further by naming North Korea in his "axis of evil"speech. The new doctrine of pre-emptive military action did not help. The response went beyond rhetoric when North Korea revealed it was pursuing two different methods of producing nuclear bomb fuel, expelled international inspectors, and withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
During the fighting in Iraq the North Korean foreign ministry ominously pronounced that the conflict suggests that "disarmament through inspection does not help avert a war but rather sparks it" and that "even the signing of a non-aggression treaty with the US" would not prevent such a war. So the news that talks between the US, North Korea and China are due to begin next week is especially welcome.
It is possible these may now be postponed, since the three had hoped to conduct the first sessions in privacy. But that the parties have got this far sustains that, in spite of all the hard talk, Washington and Pyongyang are still several steps back from the brink. North Korea has not moved to re-start its plutonium enrichment plant, nor has it tested a ballistic missile, and it has dropped its insistence on one-to-one talks. The US, which had wanted all the main regional actors involved, has agreed for the moment to be content with a triangular forum. America has hard choices here. North Korea in the past has reneged on agreements, accepted inducements to restore them, then reneged once more. That could happen again, with North Korea signing up to dismantle its nuclear weapons projects, picking up aid and loans, making gains like the normalisation of relations with Japan, and getting security guarantees, but secretly intending to keep a nuclear weapons capacity.
Yet military action is not a serious option, even for those who think that a former US military commander's estimate of a million dead in a war is wide of the mark. The sanctions route, cutting off this impoverished country from trade and aid, would impose additional suffering on ordinary people and risk the catastrophic collapse of North Korean society. Letting things stay as they are, with North Korea advancing to the point of regular production of nuclear weapons and their possible sale to others, is not a solution either. That leaves negotiations. They should be pursued with the utmost seriousness.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[TomB]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door filosoof

Niet dom, gewoon een kwestie van prioriteiten:

NORTH KOREA NEXT
Pyongyang feels the grave digger's breath
Leader
Saturday April 19, 2003
The Guardian
The crisis over North Korea's nuclear plans is an object lesson in the counter-productive effect of announced policies of regime change. Once a government thinks it is in a superpower's sights, it becomes harder to negotiate a compromise and, if the target state has the means to develop weapons of mass destruction, to persuade it not to do so. Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall led to expectations that Korea, like Germany, would soon be unified on terms set by the capitalist half of the country, Pyongyang has felt the grave digger's breath on its neck.
North Korea's consequent behaviour has had a paranoid character. But its sense that it was under threat or, at least, that it had enemies who devoutly wished it to expire, had some basis in fact. This was reinforced by the Clinton administration's dilatory attitude to commitments made at the time of North Korea's agreement to forego nuclear weapons related work and some forms of nuclear energy production in 1994. Pyongyang probably began violating those agreements five or six years ago. But the Bush administration compounded existing problems by taking a brusque and unyielding line as soon as it was in office. Then President Bush went a rhetorical step further by naming North Korea in his "axis of evil"speech. The new doctrine of pre-emptive military action did not help. The response went beyond rhetoric when North Korea revealed it was pursuing two different methods of producing nuclear bomb fuel, expelled international inspectors, and withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
During the fighting in Iraq the North Korean foreign ministry ominously pronounced that the conflict suggests that "disarmament through inspection does not help avert a war but rather sparks it" and that "even the signing of a non-aggression treaty with the US" would not prevent such a war. So the news that talks between the US, North Korea and China are due to begin next week is especially welcome.
It is possible these may now be postponed, since the three had hoped to conduct the first sessions in privacy. But that the parties have got this far sustains that, in spite of all the hard talk, Washington and Pyongyang are still several steps back from the brink. North Korea has not moved to re-start its plutonium enrichment plant, nor has it tested a ballistic missile, and it has dropped its insistence on one-to-one talks. The US, which had wanted all the main regional actors involved, has agreed for the moment to be content with a triangular forum. America has hard choices here. North Korea in the past has reneged on agreements, accepted inducements to restore them, then reneged once more. That could happen again, with North Korea signing up to dismantle its nuclear weapons projects, picking up aid and loans, making gains like the normalisation of relations with Japan, and getting security guarantees, but secretly intending to keep a nuclear weapons capacity.
Yet military action is not a serious option, even for those who think that a former US military commander's estimate of a million dead in a war is wide of the mark. The sanctions route, cutting off this impoverished country from trade and aid, would impose additional suffering on ordinary people and risk the catastrophic collapse of North Korean society. Letting things stay as they are, with North Korea advancing to the point of regular production of nuclear weapons and their possible sale to others, is not a solution either. That leaves negotiations. They should be pursued with the utmost seriousness.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

Aaah, maar nu komt de aap uit de mouw. Met enkel het eerste artikel zat je buiten context. Als je inderdaad moet kiezen tussen N Korea en Irak, zou het strategisch dom zijn om eerst N Korea aan te vallen omwille van de olie. Dat maakt daarom van olie niet het hoofddoel van de oorlog zoals in de titel wordt gezegd. Dat is gewoon sensatiejournalistiek.

[alpina]

Aaah, maar nu komt de aap uit de mouw. Met enkel het eerste artikel zat je buiten context. Als je inderdaad moet kiezen tussen N Korea en Irak, zou het strategisch dom zijn om eerst N Korea aan te vallen omwille van de olie. Dat maakt daarom van olie niet het hoofddoel van de oorlog zoals in de titel wordt gezegd. Dat is gewoon sensatiejournalistiek.

Je moet niet schijnheilig blijven doen he TomB, eigenlijk was het hoofddoel wel degelijk olie, Wolfowitz spreekt immers van geen enkel ander doel. Hij meldt terloops wel even dat het heel goed is dat Saddam verwijderd is maar dat is dan ook maar een gelukkig gevolg voor hem.

Maar met NoordKorea zal het wel iets spannender worden vrees ik...

[filosoof]

Tomb,
De Manchester Guardian en sensatiejournalistiek? D�*t laat ik aan jouw verantwoordelijkheid over. De sensatie zit niet in de journalistiek, maar in het ongebreidelde cynisme van de "neo-cons" (ik hou niet van dat woord) in Washington

You're shooting at the messenger!

[TomB]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door alpina

Je moet niet schijnheilig blijven doen he TomB, eigenlijk was het hoofddoel wel degelijk olie, Wolfowitz spreekt immers van geen enkel ander doel. Hij meldt terloops wel even dat het heel goed is dat Saddam verwijderd is maar dat is dan ook maar een gelukkig gevolg voor hem.

Maar met NoordKorea zal het wel iets spannender worden vrees ik...

Och komaan, de vraagstelling druipt duidelijk van de twee artikels af: U moet kiezen tussen twee staten die beiden aan de criteria van Irak voldoen, 1 met olie en 1 zonder, dewelke kiest u? Wel Alpina, ik zou OOK eerst die met de olie nemen.

Voor de mens die het tweede artikel niet leest kan het inderdaad wel misleidend zijn. Ik vind vooral de conclusie dat de oorlog enkel om olie draaide verkeerd.

[TomB]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door filosoof

Tomb,
De Manchester Guardian en sensatiejournalistiek? D�*t laat ik aan jouw verantwoordelijkheid over. De sensatie zit niet in de journalistiek, maar in het ongebreidelde cynisme van de "neo-cons" (ik hou niet van dat woord) in Washington

You're shooting at the messenger!

Neen, de sensatie zit in de conclusie getrokken uit het gesprek.

[alpina]

Feit is dat we uit het artikel de conclusie kunnen trekken dat het Wolfowitz enkel om de olie te doen was, de vraag is nu wel wat die kranten allemaal hebben weggelaten uit het artikel. Als ik de artikels zo lees heb ik helemaal niet het gevoel dat er gevraagd werd welke staat hij zou kiezen moest er aangevallen worden. Het is ook vrij twijfelachtig dat dee man enkel over olie sprak, het zou alvast heel onverstandig zijn.

[TomB]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door alpina

Feit is dat we uit het artikel de conclusie kunnen trekken dat het Wolfowitz enkel om de olie te doen was, de vraag is nu wel wat die kranten allemaal hebben weggelaten uit het artikel. Als ik de artikels zo lees heb ik helemaal niet het gevoel dat er gevraagd werd welke staat hij zou kiezen moest er aangevallen worden. Het is ook vrij twijfelachtig dat dee man enkel over olie sprak, het zou alvast heel onverstandig zijn.

Het volledig gesprek zou klaarheid kunnen brengen. Ik heb al gezocht op de site van de PNAC, maar daar staat het niet. Zoals reeds gezegd, zou het onverstandig zijn om enkel over de olie te praten, zelfs als hij zo zou denken en zijn portefeuille uitpuilt van de Exxonjetons.