It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I agree Mr. Wolfowitz..

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 08:33 PM
"Administration officials continue to claim that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to send U.S. forces to Baghdad. That is wrong. As has been said repeatedly in letters and testimony to the President and the Congress by myself and other former defense officials, including two former secretaries of defense, and a former director of central intelligence, the key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad, but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam."

-Paul Wolfowitz to the House National Security Committee in 1998

okay this is what i've been saying on this board forever and a day. why is the policy regime change when we could so easily support a coup?

here's the link to his entire statement:


posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 08:42 PM
All other reasons are disrespectful and ludirous.

posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 09:27 PM
God damn, fools. People say "No war, it will kill civilians."

A coup in Iraq means 5 million dead Iraqis.

The last thing that shall EVER be allowed to happen, is a Civil war in a nation with as much military strength as Iraq.

This isn't a war of Ak-47s and RPGs, it's a war of tanks chemicals, and millions of men.

Yes, coup indeed.

Wolfowitz is a retard. But then, most anti-war people are.

"Let's not kill anyone ourselves, we don't care how many die though, just as long as it isn't us doing the killing."

We can save lives, with a surgical attack which is what we are planning to do. But you know, let them have their coup, and 12 years from now when 10 million are dead or horribly wounded by WMDs, will you then finally shove your peace crap, and wake up to the real world?

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 03:10 AM
I see F-M is reverting to type.Ahh sorry Hammerite.

You are lambasting everyone else here as being either politically Naive or ignorant and the you come out with a statement like this:

"Wolfowitz is a retard. But then, most anti-war people are"

Wolfowitz is an arch hawk and Rumsfelds deputy in this US Administration.I don't agree with him but I have enough respect for him not to think he is a retard.

Almost as good as another comment you've made today on a different thread that right or wrong you will support your government.I can tell you it was not a good defence in the Nuremburg trials.

give us a break F-M

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 06:48 AM
I'm glad someone noticed the switch, JB. Now, the Defence Department claims regime change is the only answer when just a few years ago by Paul's own admission in this statement; he and others were advocates of supporting a coup and bashing the Clinton Adminstration for thinking of regime change when it wasn't necessary.

check the link--he gives some strategy to go about this as well. i'm not a fan of his either, but to say he is retarded is misinformed. is he evil? hmmmmm, that jury is still out. but, he's one of the most respected minds in this country when you are talking about military/defence strategy.

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 08:14 AM
A Civil War in Iraq would lead to far more civilian deaths, than the surgical strike and regime change that the US is pursuing. However you feel about the war, this point is rather indisputable...not to mention, it would take much longer to come about, thus ensuring a longer period of instability in the region...

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 12:26 PM
Truly Gazrok, the price of revolution is high. If the Iraqi's aren't willing to pay that price and instead wish to be lead by a dictator then that is their choice to make. when given that choice before they rose up against Saddam only to be left to fend for themselves. we should give them that choice again. we know full well no matter the damage and loss of life an Iraqi lead revolution would be accepted by the arab street. while an american occupation will only cause more terror. if the choice is between Iraqis fighting for a free Iraq and an american occupation of Iraq, i choose the first. either way innocent folk are going to die and it's not too much to ask that Iraqis participate in their own liberation.

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 12:53 PM
and one I agree with...

I just don't think it will happen, so I'll back plan B.

However, I was simply reinforcing the point that if one is against the war, and citing the reason as being concerned for the loss of innocents, one cannot support the idea of Iraqi civil war without being a hippocrit, as it would lead to even more loss of innocent lives.

[Edited on 14-3-2003 by Gazrok]

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 01:15 PM
yeah, i know it won't happen but, plan B is so messy. terrorism and occupation and dealing with the UN; all of this could have been avoided if the USG could have admitted they failed to secure Iraq and sanctions were not having the desired effect.

Now, Dubya has pushed back the vote on the second UN resolution. It looks bad. I can't imagine what will happen next.

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 02:38 PM
A civil war would be a bloodbath.Imo.It could go on for years,resulting resulting with millions of dead Iraqis.In the end the U.S. would end up getting involved anyways.
The only other option that might work besides war is to put a bounty on Saddams head.We might beable to get someone close to Saddam to take him out.But I can't imagine too many countries supporting a bounty on Saddam.
I think I have thought through every scenerio for removing Saddam.The only one that is going to work is the use of force.Or we can try the UN's way and wait for him to die of old age.......

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 03:03 PM
Hasn't worked with Castro.....YET, hehe...

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 03:17 PM
Castro is a fine example that containment works. I'm sure you fellas don't see it that way.

Nyeff: i would suggest you read the link. We already control the north and the south. We could support a coup and let the Iraqis recapture the center. It wouldn't take as long as destroying the infrastructure and rebuilding it in an atmosphere of occupation and folk would die--but it wouldn't be the blood bath you expect...if the iraqis truly want freedom.

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 03:20 PM
are apples and oranges...what works in one case, is not always effective in another...

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 03:27 PM
true, containment hasn't worked with Saddam because of all that black stuff bubbling up from the ground--Iraq is far richer in "resources" than Cuba.

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 03:37 PM
There are many reasons containment won't work with Saddam. However, I won't argue that oil doesn't play into it at all...because it does, but likely not how most think...see All Seeing Eye's post more on that, as I believe he might have hit the nail on the head....

[Edited on 14-3-2003 by Gazrok]

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 05:05 PM
Aiding the Iraqis in revolting will only result in Saddam Hussein Corralling them into one location and using Chemical weapons to wipe them out. That makes taking such action irresponsible.

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 07:06 PM
Why should I --Hammerite thank you very much-- give Mr. Wolfowitz a break?

I'm not sure what's worse. Mr. Wolfowitz condoning a massive Civil war ending in Millions dead.

Or the fact there are people who actually think it is a good idea. Perhaps Mr. JohnBull1 you'll realize there is a time that deserves such anger and outrage.

I don't see what I feel about Wolfowitz (whoever doesn't want us to go in there ourselves, is not a "hawk"), matters a penny to you.

I just think you have nothing better to say, and disagree with my outburst, but this outburst is well directed.

And anyone who realizes there is over 1million people who WILL die for Saddam's regiem, because they'll die without him, will realize a Civil War//Coup is the LAST thing that country needs.

--think before you post--

Saphroina, Castro is on an Island I find it hardly a comparison to Saddam Hussein.

Also Castro does not attempt nor does he have WMDs.

Finally, Castro has exhibited no urge to expand his borders, since his attempts at causing communist revolutions in ?Bolivia? and some african nations.

Saphroina I suggest you look at the political hierarchy of Iraq. I love Dune man that's a great book everyone should read it, it's basically a futuristic knock-off of Lawrence of Arabia. With Spice being of course, the Oil.

In dune the "emperor" has these dudes called "Sardukaur" and they are feircely loyal and they can careless if they are stepping on baby heads or fighting soldiers.

They are fiercely loyal to the Emperor for the same reason Saddam's Republican Gaurd is feircely loyal. They are put up in big rich houses, with beautiful women, and live the life of Reilly.

If there were an "uprising" the Republican Gaurd would be exectuted by the new government, they would lose not only their big houses, and families, but lives.

They, along with others who live such lives all thanks to Saddam, at about 1million people.

Now do you really think you can just "tip" over this regiem, with a bunch of armed peasants and guerrila rebels?

Hardly, the "Republican Gaurd" would smash them, and then step on their baby's head.

Your idealistic attitude towards this, is alright, but thank god idealists don't run the country. It's one thing to want to "go to the moon." It's another thing to play foriegn politics.

Iraqis want freedom, Saddam and his 1million+ cronies don't want to lose it. Tell me again how this would NOT be a blood bath?

posted on Mar, 15 2003 @ 08:11 AM
Hammerite: it's obvious that you don't know Paul Wolfowitz from Paul McCartney. why are you still posting on a topic you know so little about? you call a man who has spent his career writing and promoting military defence policy and strategy "anti-war"--the longer your post are the more incoherent you become.

surely you realize that you have not posted one fact only your opinion which is unorganized and hard to follow. then you wanna state "think before you post".

top topics


log in