IRAQ war explained

[Red Baron]

Here's why Bush needs this war.

 

[low_psi]

we've got a winner!

 

[spoolinmp3]

(lol) (lol)

 

[70]

Interesting theory, but I don't think oil plays as big a part in this possible upcoming war than the last...

 

[Esteban Toledo]

Here's something to think about: http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/6438

 

[Kooldino]

Here's something to think about: http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/6438

Hmmmm...interesting.

 

[PR5hokie]

Don't really know if what Red Baron posted was meant to be a joke or not but I thought that I would pass on some info to shed some light on the Iraq subject.

According to the Census Bureau in 2001 we imported (regarding oil):
835,737,000 barrels TOTAL
37,215,000 barrels from Iraq

Simple math shows that Iraq oil production accounts for a measley 4.5% of all U.S. oil imports.

In fact oil imported from Iraq has always been low. I think that what's going on over there currently has more to do with other issues than with oil. Don't you think?

I'm trying to keep this light, don't want it to turn into something ugly. Isn't discussing controversial issues fun?

Matt

 

[prost]

Simple math shows that Iraq oil production accounts for a measley 4.5% of all U.S. oil imports.

Matt

I think it is the impact that a war would have with the etire region rather than the number of barrels we buy directly from Iraq that is the real issue. If the USA goes into amilitary action in Iraq without the support of the UN all of the OPEC countries could just cut off the US.

 

[Captain KRM P5]

Even before the Gulf War, oil from Iraq has never been plentiful or strategically important. In fact, the only country to go on record currently as interested in Iraq's oil fields is France. Yes, the pacifist French have said if the outcome of any conflict in Iraq swings in the Bush/Blair favor that they would like some control over the oil fields there. Basically they want to sit on the fence until their own interests are satisfied.

I am personally all for going after Iraq. The last time that Britain stood alone from Europe in appeasing or ignoring a dictator, millions of lives were lost in a brutal and sweeping war, not to mention the religious and social purges. Time and memories of Hitler's horrors have passed. Tell me how different al-Qaeda or the Taliban is any different from the Nazis? How different is Saddam from Hitler? Ideological and sociopolitical extremism, both of them, to the end. Look at the pictures of Kurds, pale dead newborns being clutched by their pale dead mothers thanks to Saddam's gas "testing" and tell me what makes this man worthy of being appeased or left alone. Trying to tell me that the war on terrorism is unjustified is like trying to tell me that all would have been well had we left Hitler to his own devices.

And yet, at the same time I feel a bit of anger...North Korea has admitted they have nukes - so what do we do about them if they choose not to comply with UN demands? China has long oppressed the Tibetans as well as anyone with religious tendencies - but they are now the most favored trade partner. Africa goes largely ignored by the world community as tribal warlords slay countless innocents in an anarchic frenzy.

My point is simple; democracy has no balls to be blunt about it, and hasn't had any balls since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. Democracy now fights only when slapped, beaten, pissed on, kicked and bashed into the proverbial wall - and even then democracies fight back slowly, reactionary. The extremists and terrorists of the world know this, and they are going to exploit our inaction, our mental paralysis, and our indifference to hurt us. People have said that freedom is what makes us great, and freedom was what allowed us to be attacked. I say that freedom is what makes us great, but it wasn't freedom that failed us - it was the inaction and ignorance of people to see a problem and do something about it.

 

[PR5hokie]

Well written, and while I agree with your points I think it's impossible to take care of all of the problems that face us. Therefore how do we determine what issues we get involved in?

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong but you make it sound like our country did nothing regarding terrorism prior to 9/11. The gov't has stated for over a decade that terrorism is the largest threat facing our country. Men & Women have spent countless hours tracking these organizations and are doing their best. Do things go wrong? Of course they do and I think everyone knows this. There are so many people that hate this country that it is impossible to keep tabs on everyone. Hell I think there is a large group of Americans and people living in our country that hate the U.S. What I say to them is get the hell out!

I'm definitely glad that you are in agreement of possible U.S. action and from your reading you seem to be a supporter of our country, for that I thank you. Again, well written and thanks for keeping it cool.

Matt

 

[prost]

.... I say that freedom is what makes us great, but it wasn't freedom that failed us - it was the inaction and ignorance of people to see a problem and do something about it.

Well put Captain. Complacency is a b**** aint it? I also agree with PR5hokie that there is a lot of work being done about this. Too bad all the effort has not been as effective as it could.

 

[Red Baron]

I don't think anyone dislikes your country (USA) or the people in general, I beleive hatred is directed towards U.S. policy, and hatred mixed with fanatism creates blindness. My .02.

And yes, my first post in this thread was meant to be a joke, hope you liked it

 

[Rogue_Biker]

Captain KRM P5, you've got my vote.

Those countries who are opposed to going after Saddam are all trumpetting their "reasons" why we shouldn't go. Except none of them (except maybe Germany) are really telling the truth. The truth is, all of those opposed are afraid that after toppling Iraq's regime, the US would have control over the entire region. Nobody will be able to oppose us. We will have control over Iraq's oil. We will have an overwhelming military presence there. And that scares the s*** out of France, Russia, China, and all the other Arab countries, especially Iran & Syria who believe they will be next. In addition, other European countries are afraid of the economic effects of a war with Iraq. Germany has repeatedly admitted that such a war would ruin their economic recovery.

The bottom line is everyone has their own agenda and whether they are opposed or not, they are looking purely at their country's interests (with the exception of the UK).

The US, and I really do believe that Bush aims to follow up on his promise that he will fight terrorism wherever they may be. And in the current administration's analysis, Iraq is the one country most likely to supply terrorists with nuclear/biological weapons to kill Americans. The question we all have to ask ourselves is: Do we take out Saddam now and deal with the consequences? Or do we wait until he goes nuclear and sends us a nuclear device via some anti-US terrorist organization? Some people including many Americans simply can't think that far to understand why Bush is pushing for this. They believe it's all about oil or Bush is trying to divert attention from the economy (which isn't bad but people are trying to make others believe it's really bad). Is it so impossible to believe that Bush really wants to do what's good for our country's national security? Have we forgotten what lengths terrorists will go to to kill Americans? Many have.

We should all respect the British, especially PM Tony Blaire for sticking his neck out to help the US prosecute Saddam. Blaire is risking his popularity in the UK and all he has to go by is his conscience: He knows and understands as Bush does; this is the right thing to do NOW. Not later. We all know who our REAL friends are in this world.

 

[blynzoo]

here's an interesting article on the start of Muslim Extremism, and why it persists today.

On another note, I am very impressed with the discussion on this board. Many important factors have been brought up, let's get them all down (and add some new ones):

1. Saddam's Genocide of his own people that must stop

2. Risk of alienation of other middle eastern countries should we invade.

3. Risk of alienation of pretty much everyone else, should we invade.

4. Taking an already negative image of America that is the root of the hatred towards us, and reinforcing it by invading.

5. The fact that Hussein's administration backs and harbors terrorists, and should be prevented from doing so.

6. The fact that the 10-year embargo on Iraq has killed several hundred thousand people, which saddam has successfully blamed (at least in the minds of some of the population) on the U.S. and its allies. The embargo has killed more civilians in these ten years than Saddam's own attacks.

7. Iraq continuously pursues routes to nuclear weapons. Note: we have several THOUSAND of our own, some of which are trained on his country.

8. The fact that we have nothing but a passing relationship with teh Middle East, and no efforts currently being undertaken by the U.S. are effective at changing the mindset of the region's people. We have continued broadcasting our own radio, tv, and satellite tv signals into the country, but using our networks, not their own. It serves as more proof for fundamentalists that we are in fact excessive, barbaric people, and not the good guys we're trying to be. We have not utilized al-Jezeerha or local media, which would have given us some credibility with the people (imagine if, instead of going on CNN and doing an interview, someone just broadcast a pirate signal; which would get a better response?).

9. The U.S. is eternally tied to Israel as an ally (which we are). No matter how much we sympathize with Palestinians, we will still be seen as allies of Israel (read the article as to why that is a bad thing).

10. Back to Iraq, Saddam did not use his chemical weapons on forces last time, partly because our attack was so swift, and he preferred to hold them in reserve for later conflicts (which did not occur). This time, he will have no problem using them. Our environmental suits can be used for about 6 hours. Some chemicals can stay in the area for over a day. They can also be blown anywhere, affecting innocent people.

11. War is the ultimate omelette: The old "break a few eggs" argument is used in war. Allied forces in Desert Storm killed thousands upon thousands of civilians, bombing major cities and towns with overwhelming civilian populations.

12. President Bush's largest field contributor is Oil, (although law/real estate/accounting is the largest hard money contributor, as it usually is for both parties), and also in the top 5 is Defense. Bush has signed a bursting defense budget, with pretty much everything he wanted going through. This has to be justified somewhere. As well, while American military movement increases overseas, the battle over the anti-missile defense platform is sent to the back page, enabling the project to get off the ground, which encourages more spending. The defense industry went overwhelmingly to the Republicans in the last presidential election. In fact, as I write this, President Bush is stumping (campaigning) for a Congressman in northern indiana, where he will mention the defense system again. To return the back scratch, the congressman mentioned in an interview what a high priority he thought that defense spending and the missile defense package was one of the most important issues we are facing today.

13. Related again to Oil, Iraq's oil to America is ZERO gallons, as we have an embargo in place. We may buy from subsidiaries or holding companies, and thus barrels are counted, but we buy no oil from Iraq the country. Also, Iraq's oil production is (like Nigeria and other countries) run by a corporation that is run by the state. BP, Shell, etc have not gotten their foot in the door of Iraq to set up shop. Exxon, etc would love to start drilling and refining there, and made that known through their campaign contributions, long before 9/11 even occurred. Most political analysts agreed that even had 9/11 not transpired, GW would have looked for another opportunity to open up middle eastern oil fields to western oil companies. This is a true impetus in this administrations move to invade Iraq. Even Republican Congressman and state party heads will tell you this.


I tried to intermix reasons for going and reasons for staying, as I myself am still on the fence on this one. The Ideal solution, I think we would all agree, would be to remove saddam from power AND stop the flow of moneys to terrorists. However, Saddam IS Iraq (much as Castro IS Cuba), and just removing him could bring someone even worse to power, like his younger son. And the gevernment itself is set up to be run by a single individual, and also to be exploitative, that is to draw resources from the country to central sources (e.g. Saddam's pockets). As well, Iraq is an extremely wealthy country that can buy influence in the region as well as we buy influence in Europe and the Americas.
Additionally, the destabilization of the region would lead to governmental upheaval. And with the U.S. movement in Afghanistan, ultra-fundamentalist (read: Bin Laden-like) reform movements have sprung up in Pakistan, Palestine, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. While many of the current leaders at least pay lip service to the U.S. (and in some cases truly do help and side with us), an attack on Iraq would give those reform movements all the ammo they needed to overthrow, through election or war, the current regimes. That would mean we would have 10 afghanistans instead of one. Ten more places to house and train terrorists, ten more repressive governments limiting the freedoms of its citizens (which it must be admitted, takes place to some degreee already).

This is a very complex issue, and many worry that policymakers are not looking far enough down the road at the repercussions.

Could we win a war with Iraq? Most definitely, we could utterly destroy the country if we liked. But would we then become the Hitler, the destabilizing power that rises in a region and brings a whole continent to war? Not that we would be commiting crimes as hitler did, but the potential to spread to widespread conflict is there.

 

[Captain KRM P5]

PR5Hokie, I would not claim that the US did nothing in regards to terrorism prior to September 11th, but I would say that there were and still are glaring gaps in our internal security and anti-terrorism measures. There is well-documented evidence showing that the CIA and FBI showed either an inability to and/or lackadaisical attitude towards hiring persons with the expertise necessary to handle the flow of intel from the Arab world. Even in the instances where such intel was processed, numerous internal investigations show that the Cold War hierarchy that still runs our agencies disregarded such info discriminatorily, and also disregarded any policy or strategy alterations in light of the 21st century - in short, the CIA and the FBI were still looking for a Soviet Union to fight. Like any bloated and ineffectual corporation, people who assume power view change to thier organization as a threat to thier power and block changes accordingly. This is why the CIA and the FBI continue, even post 9/11, to work poorly together, refuse any kind of centralized government oversight over the two agencies and ignore information being given to them by the new school of thought - they prefer Cold War era tactics.

The problem with our agencies unwillingness to change is that Osama Bin Laden, the Iraqis and many other paramilitary organizations in the world know these tactics because we, in essence, trained them at some point or another. Yes, the previous president fired more cruise missiles into Afghanistan than what Hitler dropped into Britain during WW2, but these kinds of tactics failed because al-Qaeda is a mobile, decentralized force that isn't as easy a target as say, a nation or a fortified base.

Blynzoo, you raise a very good set of points. One of the things that I find distasteful about previous works of American foreign policy is a flat out refusal to finish the job. By that I mean the reference you make to the void that would need to be filled in Saddam's absence. Often times, allied forces move in, fight the good fight and then leave quickly to watch the region revert to its chaotic state. In Afghanistan we have done a good job of setting up a new government and protecting that government. Some argue that using American troops to prop up a regime is wrong, but that argument lacks any credence when you look at the possible aftereffects if we had not done so - Karzai would most likely be dead, the Taliban would have returned to power and we would be back at square one. We would have to pursue the same policy initiative in Iraq, that of leaving a detachment of allied forces there to ensure the safety and legitimacy of any new government. The Iraqi National Congress, a worldwide group that supports the overthrow of Saddam and the installation of a coalition democratic government, would be the most likely candidate.

al-Jazeera cannot be utilized any more than CNN can be utilized, this must be remembered. al-Jazeera has always pledged to be as independent a news agency as say, CNN, and has in fact in the past aired many anti-Arab and pro-US stories. This is unique considering the home area of this news network. Neither the US nor the Arab world is particularly fond of al-Jazeera, something which the CEO of that network is especially proud of. He is quoted to have said that if he angers both sides then he must be doing something right. I won't be naive and say that there is ZERO bias in either news agency, and I certainly agree that the US needs to do more in terms of ramping up media efforts ( dare I say, propaganda? ) in the Middle East. I saw a recent commercial showing numerous pst presidents shaking hands with Saudi leaders, "a show of friendship paid for by the people of Saudi Arabia." We need to do the same thing.

What happens in Israel will be interesting to see unfold. The Palestinians are likely to elect new and possibly more extreme leaders in thier elections, and today it was reported that the Israeli government is close to a vote of no-confidence against the Sharon coalition. For those unaware, a parliamentary democracy calls new elections at times like this, when the ruling "coalition" or group of parties loses power or breaks ups, or a motion by the prime minister is vetoed by his legislature. It will be interesting to see which group of political parties take power and who they choose as thier leader, if not Sharon. My personal opinion is that there is nothing that the UN, the United States or Europe can truly do to satisfy all parties involved - compromise is a joke to both the Israelis and the PLO. This conflict is centuries old and is something that will unfortunately see more blood spilled before any peace is achieved.

I'm not sure that alienation is going to be as large a problem as most people assume it will. The Russians have eased off thier support for Iraq, and will likely continue to do so for a private and/or under the table OK to continue their own war in Chechnya. The French have been noticably quieter since one of thier own tankers was bombed and support from the British government has remained staunch. Italy, Australia, Kuwait, Israel of course all support action against Iraq, and more than a few heads were turned when the president and the british prime minster gave thier cases to the UN. Even the strongest opponents admit that terrorism is not a solely US issue - plots to bomb prominent European cities and landmarks are continually uncovered, the recent bombings in the Indonesian region, the aforementioned bombing of a french oil tanker and the nuclear smuggling attempt in Turkey show al-Qaeda branching out to attack foreigners of all nationalities.

I'm not going to pretend that I have all the answers here, and blynzoo, you raise questions that have your position as "on the fence" as a well justified one, even if it is one that I don't entirely share.

My final opinion on the Middle East is that conflict is unavoidable sooner or later. The region is a powder-keg waiting to explode, and I think that the longer we wait - on any front, not merely Iraq - is the more time we give terrorists and rogue states to arm, plot, prepare and eventually wage more malicious attacks on the world as a whole. War is a bloody business, and yes in my mind there is the distinct possibility of getting caught up in some of the risks that blynzoo described. Back to the Hitler/appeasement analogy though, the peace that the allies bought was only temporary. Our leaders didn't have the foresight to see that, and instead worried about the costs of confronting him directly. History is careful not to use hindsight to judge these leaders as foolish, and history will someday be faced the hindsight to judge our leaders the same way.

Success is sometimes based on the Nike philosophy, "just do it". A good strategy is no strategy at all if nothing is done. This is why I feel that risks, the possible losses and the gambles involved are worth it, because in the end we are only rewinding a ticking clock. Whatever the choices that our leaders make, I pray for it to be an educated one in all respects, and I hope that the world emerges from the firestorm better for it.

 

[big_ben]

The reason other countries doen't want the U.S. to have even more power than we already do in the world, is because the U.S. is already, BY FAR, the most powerful and influential country in the world.

It even scares me to think that the U.S. could possibly become stronger than it already is. There is no other country in the world that can stand against the U.S. The U.S. gets whatever it asks for. Look at the whole Iraq war. Everyone was against it at first. We start making it known that will will kick their ass on our own if we have to, then these other whiny ass countries start getting behind us.
Even if every middle eastern country were to wait until we got over there to start fighting against us, we would still kick their asses. That is how powerful the U.S. is. We don't have the military numbers right now, but if they were needed, the population of the of the U.S. military could be increased two fold within 10 months.

So I say if they want a piece of the U.S. we should give it to them, then watch them choke on it.

 

[PR5hokie]

I'm curious how we could increase two fold in 10 months.

This thread is great....what a lot of good points.

 

[big_ben]

There are more reserve and National Guard troops than there are active duty. When you enlist, you have an 8 year obligation. If you only serve 2 active, you still have another 6 inactive.

 

[twizyours]

Well I dont believe there is a 2 active and 6 inactive, but I will agree that there is more us reserve and national guard troops, but also are army doesnt count the marines, the airforce, the navy that does change our number of armed forces. Number of people doesnt just mean strength training and skill plays one of the biggest parts.

I have heard many aspects of this possible war but the best I heard was this, one of the reasons to go in is not just to get Sadam but to change the goverment there and to try and form a democracy to help fight terroism. Hmmm how? well what was said is if we could form some kind of democracy and life got better for them, that they had choices it would play a big difference in terrorism.Something to live for instead of die for.

 

[big_ben]

Well I dont believe there is a 2 active and 6 inactive

I know this for a fact because I was in the army. Everyone who enlists has an 8 year obligation. Some people only serve for 2 active, some serve for 3, some for 4 some for 6. But whatever isn't served active, has to be served inactive. Inactive just means they can call you back in without enacting the draft. You aren't in the reserves or anything.