main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

War in Iraq?, version 4.0 (Official Iraq thread)

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Ender Sai, Mar 12, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DARTHPIGFEET

    DARTHPIGFEET Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 24, 2001
    Oh I left out one thing. I really think what happened was that The U.S. hit the Iraqi divisions and such who may have had access to some of these WOMD that they never got a chance to use them. It was non-stop to Baghdad both on land or air. When the land movement was slowed the air support came in and destroyed most of the Iraqi divisions. So in a way I think we caught Iraq with it's pants down because they were expecting 3 weeks of air bombings to soften them up and then draw in the U.S. forces and then unleashed chemical weapons. That didn't happen. The groud forces started from day one and moved quickly into Iraq. I really think that heavy resistance we were getting in the South with Bashara was meant to be the first big unleash of chemical weapons.

    I don't think SH and his generals thought the U.S. would target other key cities in Iraq. They only thought the focus would be on Baghdad. Therefore deploy your troops and your most loyal fighters down south, and wait. Well they didn't get a chance we were in Umm Cassar and Bashara within a day and half.

    So I think they were prepared for shock and awe from the air and didn't understand that we were going to unleash everything we had against them in a methodical way.
     
  2. MRHA

    MRHA Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Aug 23, 2000
    First Case: This is a spin on your part. If WMD's are found, and there is no proof that they are planted, you will doubt it anyway? Doesn't that sound a little close-minded? "I have no proof, but I can't be wrong". Silly.

    No, it was an hypothesis, not a point of view.

    Second Case: We can do that anyway by just accusing the regime of having the weapons, not of getting them from Iraq. I doubt it would happen though, it would mean the end of the Bush presidency, and he knows it.

    And it was an hypothesis too. if No WMD are found and if no accusation about WMD being send to others countries, i don't see how Bush can do for "keeping the face" (i dunno if it's a valid english expression, but hey i try lol)
     
  3. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Meschevious: Do not count that anybody was wrong about the scale of civilian casualties just yet. The official tally of civilian casualties in the Panamanian conflict was about 400. Estimates now are in excess of 4,000 and there are very credible allegations of US soldiers having dumped the bodies into mass graves that are now being uncovered (See the Oscar-winning documentry "The Panama Deception" for details on this). So the estimates in this situation could be well over what is being said.
     
  4. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    Still, much less than expected.

    ...and sorry to burst your conspiratory theorist bubble Gonk, there is no conspiracy here to cover up civ losses. The media were everywhere.
     
  5. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    The Panama deception?

    This would be the same documentary tha claime dthe whole thing was a ruse to keep America from hving to give up the Canal and keep our military bases there?

    And yet...

    I've seen accusations of mass graves, and yet none of who killed who.

    And frankly Oscar winning documentary doesn't mean ************** any more.
     
  6. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Still, much less than expected.

    ...and sorry to burst your conspiratory theorist bubble Gonk, there is no conspiracy here to cover up civ losses. The media were everywhere.


    Much less than expected where? In Panama or Iraq?

    And as to the media being 'everywhere', I think you're resting on something you don't know. Where are the media? Three places: holed up in the Palestine Hotel, North with the Kurds, and with US soldiers in the field. In Bagdhad they're confined to one hotel and have reported a fair amount. In the North there was very little to report until recently with stories coming out of the Kurds forcing Arabs from thier homes. And in the south this concept of 'embedded media' causes one to be more then skeptical. What units were these reporters with? How much was censored and how much was allowed out? What agreements did these men have to make?

    Yes the Panama deception does in fact make the allegation that the entire affair was about control of that canal. And hey, if there's any places that compare in importance for oil, its canals like the Suez and Panama: France and Brtain fought Egypt over the Suez as recently as less than 50 years ago, so it's a pretty doggoned important place. And I think the allegations are pretty much against the Americans. Or are you alledging Noreiga did these things? If this is so, there's certainly been no war crimes proceedings against him. Have you in fact seen this documentry, BTW? It's horribly melodramatic, but makes very convincing points.

    And as far as an Oscar not meaning anything -- you know I might be skeptical of Hollywood as much as anyone, but it IS the biggest award the American film industry has to offer.
     
  7. Madriver

    Madriver Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 7, 2003
    And it was an hypothesis too. if No WMD are found and if no accusation about WMD being send to others countries, i don't see how Bush can do for "keeping the face" (i dunno if it's a valid english expression, but hey i try lol)

    You almost had it right, it's just "saving face". :)

    If the democratic federation that is being anticipated for the new Iraq is a success, and the Iraqi people bounce back, that can be used to spin the war. But starting another war in the region with another country who does not have a background of aggressive activity would cost the administration many of their supporters, myself included.
     
  8. Red-Seven

    Red-Seven Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 21, 1999
    "And as far as an Oscar not meaning anything -- you know I might be skeptical of Hollywood as much as anyone, but it IS the biggest award the American film industry has to offer."


    Please, keep the Oscar/Moore debate out of the Iraq thread.

    // runs away covering ears
     
  9. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Hey, I said nothing about Michael Moore.
     
  10. Luscious

    Luscious Jedi Master star 1

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 2001
  11. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Actually, the Oslo accords gave amnesty to any Palestinian terrorist/freedom fighting actions prior to 1995. What you're looking for here are really terrorists not part of or not motivated by the Palestinian cause, like Al-Qaida or Islamic Jihad.
     
  12. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    The U.S. has said in briefings time and time again that the Iraqi military, including the ?elite? Republican Guard, didn?t make even one cohesive military maneuver. That?s evidenced by the fact that coalition forces were able overthrown the regime in about three weeks.

    This is false. The Iraqi regime was able to coordinate movements during the beginning of the war, proof of that need only be found of the incident when the Iraqi column left Basra simultaniously with a republican guard push toards American positions duriung the sandstorm where the apache helecopters could not fly. The fatal error there, of course was stooping short of positions and thinking the Americans would be unable to bomb them frrom higher altitudes, which is what happened.

    Regardless, the regime was capable of coordinating movement at least for the first week or so of the war.
     
  13. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Ah, talk of the Republican Guard. Reminds me of the late Bill Hicks, and it's still relevant!!!

    "It went from the Elite Republican Guard, to the Republican Guard - not so elite as we may have lead you to believe, to the Republicans made all this **** up about their being a Guard!" ;)

    E_S

    //waits for some obtuse fellow to take that seriously and try and debunk it... [face_plain]
     
  14. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    I'll try once again to make sense of the "oil" argument as the leading cause for this war for everybody who still doesn't quite get it. I'll make a distinction between facts and my personal opinions, just in case anyone doesn't understand that everything I write has an implied IMHO attached to it.

    FACT: Before 1991 Saddam Hussein was deeply frustrated by Saudi Arabia's hold over OPEC and its ability to frustrate all Iraqi efforts to manipulate world oil prices. Saddam invaded Kuwait primarily with the hope of becoming a real contender with Saudi Arabia in terms of oil reserves and production capacity. It was a war of conquest to obtain Kuwaiti oil.

    OPINION: Were it not for our fears of Saddam Hussein's oil dominance, Bush senior would never have bothered liberating Kuwait. Our primary interests in the region were maintainin the status quo by limiting Saddam Hussein's power and influence. The first Gulf War was an oil war fought in the interest of everyone.

    FACT: Iraq is believed to have the world's second largest oil reserves, even without annexing Kuwait.

    FACT: These oil reserves are largely untapped. UN sanctions slowed oil production dramatically and despite some cheating vis a vis channels such as the Syrian pipeline, Iraqi oil production was slowed to nearly a halt for an entire decade - in essence preserving much of the value of Iraqi oil for future exploration.

    FACT: The United States is the world's biggest oil consumer - to the tune of more than 10 million barrels a day (if this number is wrong, please correct me - it's a dated number)

    FACTS:

    1997 - Iraq begins exporting oil through UN program

    1997 - OPEC raises production ceiling by 2.5 million barrels per day. The world oil supply increases by 2.25 million barrels a day - the biggest increase in a decade.

    1997 - this oversupply plus weak demand caused by the Asian economic crisis makes oil prices plummet

    1999 OPEC cuts production quota by 4.3 million barrels/day. Oil prices skyrocket. Clinton releases 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

    2000 U.S. recession again creates weak demand - oil prices fall again.

    2001 Significant increase in in oil prices following unrest in Venezuela and OPEC production cuts.

    2002 General strike in Venezuela. Oil production grinds to a halt.

    OPINION: This may not look dramatic as a chronology, but if you chart out oil prices, the picture is frightening.

    FACT: As the biggest oil consumer, the U.S. economy is at the mercy of world oil prices. The oil price swings of the last 5 years have really, really driven this home to policy makers as prices have been at their most volatile in decades.

    OPINION: Wouldn't it be great it the U.S. were less at the mercy of volatile swings in world oil prices?

    CONJECTURE: If the U.S. could bring Iraq back online, increase its production to as near as full capacity as possible, OPEC would not be able to make money by cutting production as long as IRAQ were out of the picture. OPEC would be forced to match Iraqi production to minimize Iraqi influence on oil prices.

    OPINION: Combine these facts with the obvious fact that Saddam Hussein was such an easy target, and the calculus for war is almost inevitable.

    1) Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator
    2) Saddam thwarted UN inspections
    3) The recent volatility of the oil market is bad for the U.S.
    4) What's good for the U.S. in the short term (ignoring the idea as the Bush administration does that betting heavily on the future of oil is bad for the U.S. in the long run) is steady, heavy production that keeps oil prices trading within a reasonable range.
    5) Saddam Hussein was sitting on the world's second largest oil reserves

    OPINION: oil is the key to this war. Anyone who understands world oil markets believes this to be true.

    And I'm not making a moral judgment about it. A naked oil grab is no worse a justification in my view than a "preemptive strike." In the short term the U.S. is powerful enough to deal with the consequences of openly using military means to
     
  15. Madriver

    Madriver Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 7, 2003
    And I'm not making a moral judgment about it. A naked oil grab is no worse a justification in my view than a "preemptive strike." In the short term the U.S. is powerful enough to deal with the consequences of openly using military means to pursue its economic objectives. I worry about the long run a lot more of course, and what it means for the U.S. my children will inherit.

    You could be right, and it does make sense. But on the flip side, getting Iraq up to a level of production to give OPEC pause will also allow the US to pressure Saudi Arabia to stop supporting terrorism and stop supporting wahabism. At the moment, any pressure on Saudi Arabia will put the largest oil reserves in the world in jeopardy, which is bad for not just the Us, but the entire world. So, it is possible that the war has a lot to do with oil (and probably probable), but there are many other factors involved besides "The US wants Iraq oil fields".

    If the motivation for supporting a non-OPEC regime is to provide the means for a better fight against terrorism, then I'm all for it. :)

    Good summary by the way.
     
  16. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    Thanks,

    Some people think that Gore might have had a clear (if narrow) victory were it not for the gas price surge in 99-2000. This violent upswing in prices, and public reaction to Clinton's token response of releasing oil from the SPR was certainly a lesson that the Bush campaign understood and internalized. From January, 1999 to September 2000, oil prices tripled.

    For the average guy who did not own internet stock, high pump prices were the symbol of the recession.

    But this is a lesson of American politics that has been known for decades: fail to protect consumers from severe gas pump price increases, and you will be punished.
     
  17. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Anyone think we'll see a 'free' Iraq wanting to join OPEC anytme soon?

    No, I didn't think so... :)
     
  18. JediSmuggler

    JediSmuggler Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 5, 1999
    Gonk:

    A problem with that amnesty argument: The U.S. did not sign the Oslo accords, and Klinghoffer was an American citizen. I think we have some sort of jurisdiction. If not, something can be arranged for Mr. Abbas.
     
  19. Madriver

    Madriver Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 7, 2003
    A problem with that amnesty argument: The U.S. did not sign the Oslo accords, and Klinghoffer was an American citizen. I think we have some sort of jurisdiction. If not, something can be arranged for Mr. Abbas.

    But we did sign the Paletinian-Israeli interim agreement of 1995, which requires us not to detain or put on trial any members of the PLO for their actions before the Oslo accords (1993, September).

    Italy has tried him is absentia and sentenced him to life in prison, maybe we'll give him to them.
     
  20. JediSmuggler

    JediSmuggler Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 5, 1999
    Madriver:

    Only as a witness.

    In any case, Italy already let Abbas walk once. I'm not inclined to take a chance on that happening again.

    Although, the PLO's claiming this guy as one of them is an admission of involvement in what would be called in diplo-speak, "unfriendly acts." That could change the equation.
     
  21. DarthKarde

    DarthKarde Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Jabbadabbado

    That's the best 'this war is about oil' arguement that I have seen anywhere. My opinion is that oil was only one of many factors behind the war.

    Just a bit of trivia here.

    Does anyone know where in the Western world you would find the President Saddam Hussein Mosque. (there is only one that I know of)
     
  22. Binary_Sunset

    Binary_Sunset Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2000
    The troops entered Baghdad amid loud celebrations. Thousands of prisoners were taken. Solemn words were spoken:

    "People of Baghdad, remember for 26 generations you have suffered under strange tyrants who have ever endeavoured to set one Arab house against another in order that they might profit by your dissensions. This policy is abhorrent to Great Britain and her Allies for there can be neither peace nor prosperity where there is enmity or misgovernment. Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators."

    This proclamation was issued by British General Stanley Maude, on the 11th of March, 1917.


    Here's the whole article detailing the murderous behavior of the "liberators".

    Note the article was written by a Swiss. Switzerland is a wonderful country. If only the US would learn from the Swiss and mind its own business.

     
  23. Genghis12

    Genghis12 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 18, 1999
    I can only hope the name of the Mosque was meant as a wacky example of British humor that only West Midlanders could appreciate.

    But, then again, money talks. And the Mosque administrators weren't going to argue with a 2M pound donation.
     
  24. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    JediSmuggler:

    It's common knowledge the PLO engaged in "unfriendly acts" towards all sorts of nations prior to 1991. That's why the amnesty was given in the first place.
     
  25. DarthKarde

    DarthKarde Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2002
    I can only hope the name of the Mosque was meant as a wacky example of British humor that only West Midlanders could appreciate.

    But, then again, money talks. And the Mosque administrators weren't going to argue with a 2M pound donation.


    Very good Genghis12 but no it wasn't a joke in any way. For those who didn't know The President Saddam Hussein Mosque is here in Birmingham, England.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.