Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Real Reason for War...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Real Reason for War...

    I see everybody here arguing that YES, Saddam has WMD, or NO, we have no proof...But I have more and more the impression that we are arguing on the wrong issue. Can we talk a bit more on the strategic level and leave the media show of WMD and Security Council resolutions at rest for a while?

    First of all, let me explain that even if the inspectors don't find anything, I personally don't have any problems believing Saddam's Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. I don't need any flashy slides from Colin Powell or phone conversations to believe this. I mean, he has used such weapons in the past against his own population. So he certainly has them, and he does not have any intention of destroying all of them. To believe otherwise is to be of a depressing naivete.

    The problem I have is this one: as far as WMD are concerned, I do not consider Iraq as a grave threat to the national security of the U.S. that would require a full-blown invasion. From a WMD perspectice, Iraq can be successfully contained through systematic surveillance, embargo and a couple of air bombardments once in a while.

    Iraq, although headed by a despicable and bloody dictator, is no more of a danger today to the U.S. or the Western world than it was 2, 3 or 5 years ago. I don't think anybody can dispute that, unless somebody can come up with a chronological list of actions that Iraq has done since this time that systematically increased the danger of a new Iraqi agression in the region or on the globe... But there is no such list of actions. Iraq has been pretty quiet, and Saddam has been mostly busy in torturing his people and building even more presidential palaces during the last decade. Poor him, he was even overlooked by Al Qaeda and it seems he had never been involved at all in 911! He's definitely a has-been, a complete failure. He pretty much lost all ambitions of becoming a new Nasser for the Arab world because it does not have means to do this anymore. The straitjacket of embargo and electronic monitoring has severely reduced his power and margin of freedom.

    Iraq is an insignificant country from a military point of view. So insignificant in fact that Rumsfeld himself believes war will last only a few weeks, as he mentioned today.Such insignificant power is a good proof that containment has been mostly successful, isn't it ?

    So if the coming invasion isn't about WMD and military danger, what's it all about? Oil? Not really. Currently, 70% of the oil supply of the USA comes from its own sphere of influence, the Americas: from the U.S. itself, Mexico, Venezuela and Canada. Only 30% comes from the outside world, either Middle East or North Sea. So oil supply isn't a big deal, and with new technologies coming in, the level of oil consumption could probably decrease in the next 20 years. Europe should be more concerned with oil than the U.S. since the majority of Europe's oil supply is coming from the Middle East...

    The real reason for the next Iraq war is the redesign of the Middle East region. The White House suddenly woke up on September 12 realizing that the internal problems of the Arab regimes of the Middle East is now affecting the U.S. directly in its own soil. Because the Middle East terrorists and integrists have been unsuccesfull since 15 years in overthrowing their own governments, they have decided, in a last act of desperation, to attack the main supporter of these corrupt Arab governments: the United States of America. The White House is now fully aware of that, and a decision has been made to commit the full might of America in this region to restore order, peace and stability through regime change. It's about politics and strategic balance, not oil and WMD.

    Iraq is the best place to start with: the country is exhausted after a 8-year war with Iran, a complete military defeat in 1991, 12 years of severe embargos, and an unpopular dictator that will make liberation of the Iraqis easy. Iraq is the soft belly of the Middle East, and geographically the best place to establish a strategic beachead.

    Bagdad is only the beginning. Other regimes will fall: Saudia Arabia, Egypt and Syria should be next.

    You might say I am crazy to believe this, but I tell you this scenario is more realistic than to continue to believe Iraq is a "grave menace to Humankind and must be disarmed".

    Will this great scheme work? I don't know. Redesigning the Middle East region will be full of perils. But whether we agree with this or not, whether we think this is imperialism at its best or well-intentioned benevolence towards the Arabs, this is what the current U.S. Administration has decided, and this is what they will implement.

    It's only that, but it's all that. The coming years will be extremely interesting...
    Last edited by Tzar; 07 Feb 03, 15:45.

  • #2
    Re: The Real Reason for War...

    Originally posted by Tzar

    I see everybody here arguing that YES, Saddam has WMD, or NO, we have no proof...But I have more and more the impression that we are arguing on the wrong issue. Can we talk a bit more on the strategic level and leave the media show of WMD and Security Council resolutions at rest for a while?

    Good idea.

    First of all, let me explain that even if the inspectors don't find anything, personally don't have any problems believing Saddam's Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. I don't need any flashy slides from Colin Powell or phone conversations to believe this. I mean, he has used such weapons in the past against his own population. So he certainly has them, and he does not have any intention of destroying all of them. To believe otherwise is to be of a depressing naivete.

    Yes, I have said this all along.


    The problem I have is this one: as far as WMD are concerned, I do not consider Iraq as a grave threat to the national security of the U.S. that would require a full-blown invasion. From a WMD perspectice, Iraq can be successfully contained through systematic surveillance, embargo and a couple of air bombardments once in a while.


    Well this point is debatable. Maybe the threat of Iraqi WMD can be contained in such a way and maybe it can't. After 9/11 the United States doesn't want to risk it.

    Iraq, although headed by a despicable and bloody dictator, is no more of a danger today to the U.S. or the Western world than it was 2, 3 or 5 years ago. I don't think anybody can dispute that, unless somebody can come up with a chronological list of actions that Iraq has done since this time that systematically increased the danger of a new Iraqi agression in the region or on the globe... But there is no such list of actions. Iraq has been pretty quiet, and Saddam has been mostly busy in torturing his people and building even more presidential palaces during the last decade. Poor him, he was even overlooked by Al Qaeda and it seems he had never been involved at all in 911! He's definitely a has-been, a complete failure. He pretty much lost all ambitions of becoming a new Nasser for the Arab world because it does not have means to do this anymore. The straitjacket of embargo and electronic monitoring has severely reduced his power and margin of freedom.

    Iraq has become more dangerous after the inspectors were kicked out in 1999. Also Iraq is now selling more oil than before which means plenty of money for Saddam to play with. The embargo has been weakening and many countries would like to see it removed completely. This will give Saddam better access to world weapon markets as well as world terrorist networks.

    Iraq is an insignificant country from a military point of view. So insignificant in fact that Rumsfeld himself believes war will last only a few weeks, as he mentioned today.Such insignificant power is a good proof that containment has been mostly successful, isn't it ?.

    I don't think anyone would argue that Iraq is a threat from a conventional war point of view. However with a rainbow of WMD Iraq would be very dangerous in an unconventional war.


    So if the coming invasion isn't about WMD and military danger, what's it all about? Oil? Not really. Currently, 70% of the oil supply of the USA comes from the Americas: from the U.S. itself, Mexico, Venezuela and Canada. Only 30% comes from the outside world, either Middle East or North Sea. So oil supply isn't a big deal, and with new technologies coming in, the level of oil consumption could probably decrease in the next 20 years. Europe should be more concerned with oil than the U.S. since the majority of Europe's oil supply is coming from the Middle East...


    For the United States it's not about oil but for countries like France and Russia it is.:flag:

    The real reason for the next Iraq war is the redesign of the Middle East region. The White House suddenly woke up on September 12 realizing that the internal problems of the Arab regimes of the Middle East is now affecting the U.S. directly in its own soil. Because the Middle East terrorists and integrists have been unsuccesfull since 15 years in overthrowing their own governments, they have decided, in a last act of desperation, to attack the main supporter of these corrupt Arab governments: the United States of America. The White House is now fully aware of that, and a decision has been made to commit the full might of America in this region to restore order, peace and stability through regime change. It's about politics and strategic balance, not oil and WMD.

    The United States does support corrupt Arab governments but there doesn't seem to be much choice. The main opposition is a form of radical islam that is actually worse than what it would replace. If the choice is between a corrupt government that is peaceful and a corrupt government that wants to fight a holy war, I'd pick the first one. Also, the 9/11 terrorist weren't interested in turning Saudi Arabia into a bastion of freedom and openness, I can tell you that.


    Iraq is the best place to start with: the country is exhausted after a 8-year war with Iran, a complete military defeat in 1991, 12 years of severe embargos, and an unpopular dictator that will make liberation of the Iraqis easy. Iraq is the soft belly of the Middle East, and geographically the best place to establish a strategic beachead.


    Yes, I agree Iraq is the easiest government to topple if that is the goal here.

    Bagdad is only the beginning. Other regimes will fall: Saudia Arabia, Egypt and Syria should be next.


    Unless these regimes are toppled by a revolt I don't see this happening. The United States will not use their military to force a change of regimes in these countries.


    You might say I am crazy to believe this, but I tell you this scenario is more realistic than to continue to believe Iraq is a "grave menace to Humankind and must be disarmed"


    You might be crazy but most of us are too so don't worry.
    "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

    Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

    Comment


    • #3
      You are not crazy because that is exactly the motivation.

      Comment


      • #4
        Tzar often brings order to chaos with common sense logic. Agree with him or not, one has to respect his abilities.

        The war is about protecting our vital interest in the region. No Saddam doesn't have weapons that can reach the US, but he can nonetheless cause serious problems, particularly with WMDs. I don't dismiss the Iraqi conventional Army. They have some good units. However, Saddam's conventional forces don't possess the hands-off capability WMDs do. If allowed, Saddam will only be encouraged by our lack of will, become more reckless and test boundaries. Saddam is like a man walking down a hotel corridor trying all the doors. If he finds one that is open, he'll take what he can. If not, Saddam will simply wait and try again later.

        Which brings me to my second point.

        The United States has turned it's attention to Asia. The past several years have seen a slow, but consistent expansion of American presence in the region. While we are pursuing the peaceful route of building strong friendly relations with nations in the region, military power is also considered necessary. The United States wants to confirm now to all those who might test us that we are more than willing to use military force to protect vital interest in the region. The hope is that we can scare most of our would-be foes into submission, leaving on the most powerful enemies to deal with.

        Europe won't be abandoned by the United States. However, the way we see it, the Europeans are more than capable of protecting themselves and addressing issues. The continent quite stable. No crisis could erupt that threatens US interest requiring an immediate response. The European nations can address the issue, and if required, the US can provide support.

        This is not the case in Asia. The region is quite unstable and this is expected to grow. China, North Korea, the Middle East, etc are all big problems which are quite volatile. In each case, our full attention and rapid response is required to ensure our vital interest is protected.

        Iraq is an old problem that needs to be resolved. Not only does Saddam's defiance threaten stability, but it also could create problems for the world economy. The Middle East supplies not only the US, but the world with oil. Instability in the region, particularly negative aggression toward the US by a government, is seen as a grave threat to the oil flow. It's been the long standing policy of the United States that it would do all it can to protect oil.

        Saddam has many options available to him. His defiance is seen as a strength, not a weakness by those who follow him. In the Middle East, power is achieved through force, not diplomacy. Saddam doesn't understand, or respect the UN, and he's shown that again and again. If this continues, the US argues, it will only lead to greater defiance and challenges in areas we won't be able to walk away from. Be it oil or an chemical attack on Israel, the US would be threatened and could not avoid intervention. It would be a mistake to just roll the dice on Saddam and hope we don't crap out. Eventually, luck will run out, and we'll be a dollar short, and a day late.

        Yes, this is about more than just Weapons of Mass Destruction. Yes, oil is partly the issue. However, the US is taking pounding from many world leaders not because it's wrong, but because people want us to focus our attention on other matters. Just because Europe can protect itself, doesn't mean they want to be 2nd to Asia. The last time that happened, WWII erupted. Leaders are hiding their concerns behind a veil of morality and we are paying for it.

        Secondly, as you stated Tzar, other governments like France want to be involved, but don't want to take the direct route of convincing their people. Instead, they are using back-channel diplomacy to single the US to their intent, while blasting us publically. America has perfected this technique, but we've never seen it used against to this level.

        For me, all I'm concerned with is Iraq's WMDs. I believe that Saddam is a man waiting to find an open door. I don't what the status of the world will be, but I do know the US is on the otherside of everydoor. If he catch us sleeping, they'll be hell to pay. So I want to remove his WMDs to limit his abilities of hurting me in the future. If he gave them up, I would certainly back down. However, he won't, so I can't.

        Niether the US, it's allies, or any within the UN are concerned with issues of morality. Government leaders are thinking about the future as they see it, not as others do. It just pisses me off to see officials, including Bush, hop on television and lie about the cause. Let's be honest. Saddam is threatening our vital interest in Asia. We want the WMDs. If he doesn't give them up, we're gonna blow his regime right off the planet. If others disagree, so be it. However, in the end few will care when they have a few more dollars in their pockets.

        As for other governments falling, I don't know about that. Toppling regime after regime will not be supported in the US by any stretch of the imagination. Bush doesn't have that kind of time anyway. Besides, it would be stupid to risk replacing a bad regime with a worse one. Bush isn't too stupid. He knows the fight we'll be in should he tried a stunt like that. Saddam is the thorn in our side. He's not only corrupted, but also uncontrollable. The same is not so true about the other Middle East nations. The Saudi Regime is a bunch of backstabbing pricks, but that doesn't mean we don't have a level of control. Why risk a good thing in a hopeless quest for total domination. I can't imagine such a situation. I know I would never support it.
        "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

        Comment


        • #5
          Good post. I posted the following last week on another forum. You will find we interpret all details differently, but the big picture is very similar.

          Some keys factors in my view:

          1) the current scheme of sanctions and no-fly zones is not no longer maintainable since noone else besides Brits and US care. If the US don't act, Iraq will trade normally and do whatever it pleases in the northern and southern regions within very short time.

          2) if Iraq trades again, not with the US. Some analysis said France and Russia would profit the most (I didn't really pay attention why).

          3) Iraq under current rule is agressive and strong enough to take over neighbour states, Kuweit, Saudi-Arabia, the rest of Arabia. Afterwards it would be strong enough to take on Syria or Iran. Given all the oil in that region, it would raise to enourmous power. The compariosion to the Third Reich is not too far-fetched, except those had no oil.

          4) the US will be kicked out of Saudi-Arabia within this decade. The US need a new point of presense in the middle east (look at the oilfield reserves numbers in the other thread). Iraq would be an ideal point, it has large spaces in the heart of the middle east, mostly in suitable terrain, and access to the gulf.

          Getting into Iraq, and right now, is the only hope for the US to keep a strong foothold in a major country in the Middle East near the oilfields. Waiting even for a few more years would probably make the US lose the spare support they enjoy right now, barely sufficient for an invasion.

          The US is also not at all in the mood to play games with its oil supply right now since Venezuela is in trouble as well.

          If the US don't act, and right now, they can expect they will have to pay a major part of their income to whoever else sits on the Middle East oil in the next 50 years.

          In addition, there is the threat of terrorism, to which Iraq may decide to add in the future, with WMD. I think nobody here overlooked that Iraq did not in any way proove what happend to major supplies of biological and chemical weapons they admit to have possesed. While the inspectors could not find it, Iraq would have been required to give proove of the destruction of these supplies. They gave none. This may or may not conviced a "court" in the UN (in doubt for the accused), but for sure it leads to only one work hypophesis for a decision-maker ("yeah, right" - mode).

          Comment


          • #6
            I think we are getting to the right issues

            I had overlooked America's interests in Asia, thanks Deltapooh to remind me. This definitely need to be part of the overall strategic picture. I should come back to it at some point.

            I have only one thing to add regarding WMDs: notwithstanding the fact that Saddam's stock of chemical/biological weapons is probably very limited, I do recognize there is a certain level of risk that these WMDs could migrate in the hands of terrorists. That is the real danger posed by WMDs to the security of the U.S. How much of a risk that is, I don't know. But:

            A) Saddam has never been known to court assiduous ties with terrorists (contrary to General Khadafi of Libya for example).

            B) Saddam has had a lot of time since the last Gulf War to give a WMD or two to a terrorist group for a strike against the U.S. or its interests. He never did it.

            C) It seems that Saddam also never allowed to greet terrorists training camps in his country.

            So for all practical matters, yes, Iraq's WMDs pose a certain risk but I think it is limited. Well, I mean limited enough to make me doubt about a very costly full-blown invasion as an appropriate response. Regular and systematic surgical strikes, increased surveillance, commando operations and increased embargo would be responses more in synch with the perceived level of threat.

            But since the White House is determined to go with that full-blown invasion, there must be some other reason, as I see it. We should not forget that, ironically, the very imminent danger of Iraq being invaded by the U.S. has probably increased substantially the risk of Saddam giving WMD to terrorists! He has nothing to lose at that point, he knows he is about to be toasted. Put yourself in his shoes: wouldn't you be tempted now to disseminate WMD? I know I would. So Washington needs to hurry up since its own actions are aggravating this risk.

            Coming back to "my" redesign of the Middle East scenarios, when I am speaking about other Arab regimes falling off, I don't have in mind more invasions, wars and forced regime toppling. I don't think U.S. forces will need to forcefully invade any other Arab countries after Iraq.

            What I think is that with the arrival of such a large U.S. military presence in the region, and the image of the American flag flying over Bagdad, all of this will send a deep political shockwave through the Arab world. Most long-standing regimes, such as the Assad family in Syria, the Wahnnabite dynasty in Saudi Arabia, and the Moubarak regime in Egypt, could simply implode internally from such a shock, and be overthrown more or less peacefully.

            And I don't believe integrists groups will take power in these countries. Overall, in spite of what the average citizen might think, extreme islamism is a declining force in Middle East and they won't have the power and the required popular depth to take power. Other forces of opposition, more democratic and in touch with the population, will take power.

            Although not immediately sympathetic to U.S. interests at first, the huge U.S. military presence in the region achieved trough the Iraq invasion will insure these new governments rapidly understand the new strategic context. As long as America will then be ready to make gestures of good will towards them and emphasize that the era of Washington supporting corrupt and undemocratic regimes is over, these new governments should slowly but surely tilt towards a true friendship with the U.S. Moreover, if the U.S. successfully helps Iraq to reconstruct, this can only accelerate a complete mindset change in the Arab world, and reverse the anti-americanism wave.

            Democracy, social justice and human rights is the agenda that the U.S. will need to follow to restore order, stability and development in the Middle East. I know this is the weakest part of "my" scenario since unfortunately, the official American policy of promoting freedom, democracy, human rights and justice all around the world has not always been matched with actions in that sense.

            In any case, promoting such values will be the best way to insure complete victory over terrorism, simply by killing the root cause of terrorism: corrupt and inefficient Arab regimes that have been abusing their populations since 50 years. That is the real and deep cause which led us to the tragedy of September 11 on American soil.

            Now, I admit that what I am suggesting is a darn tall order for America to accomplish and requires some stretch of the imagination, but if America can't do it, nobody else can.
            Last edited by Tzar; 07 Feb 03, 22:07.

            Comment


            • #7
              It would be a huge miscalculationon the US part to try and establish a new foothold in Iraq. The country will be unstable for some years to come. There is already a conflict of interest with the oil reserviors. Many Middle Eastern nations would oppose such an effort, resulting in an escalation of the deterioration of the Middle East-US relationship. Nothing, NOTHING would come out of it.

              The US needs to de-escalate it's military presence in the region. With Saddam removed, this is very possible. Operation Northern and Southern Watch will finally conclude. The pilots will be able to pretty much return home after a twenty year mission. (USAF first deployed to support tanker protection operations in the Gulf during the Iran-Iraq War.) Instead, we can once again rely more on CVBGs, and pre-positioning, coupled with training excercises, and a small troop presence, to aid in protecting our vital interest. I believe the US withdrawal of such a large military presence could help re-establish peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. I can go on and on about the benefits of NOT establishing a new foothold on the Middle East. The hands-off approach can finally come into play.

              Saudi Arabia and the United States has a long history, dating back to WWII. While our relationship is anything, but sweet, our individual necessaities continue to maintain somekind of bond. Saudi Arabia will ALWAYS provide the US with oil and the US will ALWAYS protect the Saudi regime.

              Now if the monarchy collapses after the death of King Faad, then it's a whole new ball game. Any new regime would have to be careful. Islamic Extremists siezing control would certainly threaten not only the US, but the world. So they would likely find themselves in direct conflict with the west.

              I know this option is not popular. However, I believe the Saudi Oil Fields are so important to the World economy, I would support a military operation to seize them should something like the Taliban come into power in that country. I know, it's wrong. However, depressions could breed far worse scenarios.

              I believe the US wants to make a statement with Iraq. We're serious! Unfortunately, North Korea has thrown a real wrench in that effort. However, their motives appear more domestically driven than diplomatic. If we allow Saddam to continue to defy the world, particularly make a mockery out of the US and UN, chances are he will go further and our position will be weaker when that happens.
              "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tzar
                A) Saddam has never been known to court assiduous ties with terrorists (contrary to General Khadafi of Libya for example).
                I don't say it plays any significant role, but this is strictly speaking not true. He gave shelter to some of 70ties German left-wing terrorists ("RAF"), especially around the time of the Schleyer kidnapping and the Landshut hijacking (to Mogadishu).

                If I remember correctly, he was actually the one offering the RAF the choice of a plane hijacking or a embassy raid to support their Schleyer kidnapping and getting the Palenstinans on it.

                On the other hand, the RAF member said they were disappointed in the actual support. They could sit in Bagdad and watch events on TV once they started, but they didn't get any kind of further support out of Saddam.

                An interview about this has just been on spiegel.de in December or so (in German).

                But as I said, this is pretty "minor". It was pretty directly serving his purposes, he got the RAF people to do favours to him (that only white European-style people could do). It is an entirely different thing from -say- poisioning the New York subway. Saddam is apparently not interested in Terror just for the sake of Terror.

                What I think is that with the arrival of such a large U.S. military presence in the region, and the image of the American flag flying over Bagdad, all of this will send a deep political shockwave through the Arab world. Most long-standing regimes, such as the Assad family in Syria, the Wahnnabite dynasty in Saudi Arabia, and the Moubarak regime in Egypt, could simply implode internally from such a shock, and be overthrown more or less peacefully.
                I once thought that, too. But nowadays I am convinced that this will not happen.

                People everywhere and not the least Arabs are opportunistic. The US sitting in Iraq will **** many Arabs off, but the majorities of people in these countries are more likely to arrange themself to the new situation and deal (as in trade) with the Americans.

                The only way that could the businessmen (and amoung them cooperating gouvernment staff) from doing so would be an unsually numerically strong and ruthless terrorist group. I would rate the Algerian muslim terrorists as of this category. They are pretty hardcore even for terrorists, and they are many, in fact I rate them as the most abhorrently non-small group on the planet these days.

                But I don't see a movement this strong and determined in any of the states around Iraq or in Egypt.
                Last edited by Redwolf; 07 Feb 03, 22:16.

                Comment


                • #9
                  [double post, sorry]

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    great posts , good arguments from all of you, this really reflects my point of view, too!

                    just one thing:

                    It would be a huge miscalculationon the US part to try and establish a new foothold in Iraq. The country will be unstable for some years to come. There is already a conflict of interest with the oil reserviors. Many Middle Eastern nations would oppose such an effort, resulting in an escalation of the deterioration of the Middle East-US relationship. Nothing, NOTHING would come out of it.
                    The occupation of Iraq after GW II is already planed, the US expects that occupation forces are needed in the Iraq for at least 18 month with probably a US general or some US selected individuals forming the government.
                    And I don't think that the US will just pack their things and leave after these 18 month.
                    "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

                    Henry Alfred Kissinger

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Deltapooh
                      It would be a huge miscalculationon the US part to try and establish a new foothold in Iraq. The country will be unstable for some years to come. There is already a conflict of interest with the oil reserviors. Many Middle Eastern nations would oppose such an effort, resulting in an escalation of the deterioration of the Middle East-US relationship. Nothing, NOTHING would come out of it.
                      This is where we see things differently. Going into Iraq at great cost to immediately leave and pack home after would be a mistake, and would defeat the whole purpose of going there in the first place.

                      How can you achieve a permanent and durable influence in Middle East if you don't exploit the opportunity created by an invasion of Iraq?

                      Don't forget that these other regimes (Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia) WILL fall, one way or the other. And you want to have a significant military presence near their borders when it will happen. From a strategical point of view, this increase your chances that these governments will be friendly to you. Call it a sort of Pax America. The sight of strong American forces in the region will make these governments think twice before declaring themselves hostile to America and whip up their population. And if America is friendly towards them, this can lead to a whole new ball game, as along as of course the "occupation" of Iraq is done peacefully and enables the Iraqi people to recover from 25 years of war and embargo.

                      If you de-escalate your military presence to levels even inferior to what they are today, the U.S. will be in dire straits when Saudi Arabia will fall and boot the few US soldiers out of there. If you de-escalate the military presence in the Gulf, you are encouraging the emergence of anti-american regimes. The level of influence of America will be near zero, and mounting a new invasion force to seize back the Saudi oil fields will be much difficult. But if you maintain a substantial military presence in Iraq, you won't even have to invade Saudi Arabia.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It is no question that the US will hang out in Iraq for some time, from a few years to indefinetly.

                        It is strictly neccessary and it has been openly announced.

                        If they don't, the scavengers from West, North and East will come, try to grab the resources and then go into war with each other.

                        This is amoung less good reasons one reason why Germany is against the whole thing. They know the US will hang out there and they fear a serious instablization of the whole middle east. One that the US will not be able or willing to get back under control. I think most here would agree that the US probably wouldn't stay in the middle of a multi-nation war in the middle east.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It seems everybody believe the occupation of Iraq will be violent and that there will be lots of guerilla and resistance.

                          I don't believe so. Iraq is no Vietnam. The ground is different, the culture is different. Countries who had a totalitarian regime in place before being occupied are not violent because the regime has already killed, psychologically and socially, all will of resistance. Germany after 1945 have been peacefully occupied, as well as Japan. In Iraq, people are just fed up and done with war, misery and pain. They are developed and educated and they aspire to peace. No Afghan war lords here, don't confuse two very different societies.

                          Granted, the situation in Iraq after Saddam will be at times tricky, and definitely complex politically. But if the U.S. do their job well, and help the Iraqi opposition to organize properly and support them in running a new government, I don't believe the occupation of Iraq will be violent.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Tzar
                            It seems everybody believe the occupation of Iraq will be violent and that there will be lots of guerilla and resistance.
                            I don't, I agree with you on that point as well.

                            However, it will trigger isolated resistance (read: terrorist acts). I don't see a reason why it should be any lighter than in Isreal during the last time. Not sure the Americans can stand that.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Bad news.....

                              Hello,

                              It seems incredible to go far as accusing my beloved country, America, of dangling in the politics of Middle East. I don't believe that crap. We are going after Saddam simply because he has WMDs, nothing more or less than that. If anything else, I will have Bush's head on silver splatter plate. Let me repeat this: as an American, I do not want a single American soldier left after the occupation of Iraq is over.

                              God knows I've witnessed enough mess to last my life in Middle East, it's SO violate to think even for a minute suggesting that America is getting involved because of oil or the politics of Middle East. It's absurd.

                              Let me say this again: if I were President, I would never bother to send a single soldier to oust Saddam if I thought there would be a margin of profit to be made by making a deal with him.

                              In this modern world, the power is in economic terms, not land or military power. During the ancient times, the city-states fought each other simply because land equalled to money and prestige. It was only until after WWII, the reality of world can be seen in economic terms, it was no longer possible to use land as a way to make money. Actually, the one could argue the power of land was forever destroyed by Napoleonic Wars, but that's another story.

                              Back to Saddam thing, if for a minute, let's assume I'm Bush Jr., wouldn't it be better if I made a deal with Saddam, and leading UN to lift off economic sanctions on Iraq, so it could make huge money and possibly knock OPEC out of its game? It's so much better than risking a single soldier's life.

                              Wars are unpredictable, that's precisely why not many politicians are eager to use such wars as tools of their foreign policy, it's just unrealistic. Nobody can readily know the benefits of aftermath in wars. Only people with immediate benefits are arms dealers, that's it. You guys can't possibly suggest that Bush Jr. would risk his political career in doing something so incredibly stupid as to sending some soldiers in pursuit of economic happiness.

                              If a single American knew of this, then Bush Jr. would be finished and killed off faster than one can say, "F**k." There is no way, it's too politically unstable.

                              The politics may be about ambigiousity, gray areas, lack of morality, and other things, but I don't think Bush Jr. is a cold-hearted person who only thinks in the terms of economic power and wanting to expand American presence in Middle East. Bush Jr. is an emotional man, so I can't imagine him holding a cigar in a smoke-filled room with full of black suits sitting around debating how to form a sinister conspiracy to dominate the world.

                              For once, have some decency, and at least give Bush Jr. some breathing room. Not everything has to be about politics. The life isn't about politics, it's about finding peace within one and having the right to pursuit whatever it is one wants to do within reasonable parameters.

                              I was not born on this world so I could participate in some perverted "X-File" sinister conspiracy, I was born to enjoy the fruits of this world, and I'm quite sure Bush Jr. certainly did not want to dominate the world, there's no need to do that.

                              If you guys want to laugh off your ass, fine with me, I'm not naive or stupid, but if you're suggesting this is the way for America to dominate the world, then it's absurd. There are better ways to do this than creating wars.

                              Haven't you thought for a minute if America really wanted to dominate the world, would it be prudent for America to get coddly with UN and the rest of world? Wouldn't America want to get into bed with the rest of Middle East comfortably, hell, even get into bed with PLO and Palestinian terrorists? No?

                              No? No? Then your theory of a sinister conspiracy just went into tiolet.

                              Dan
                              Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                              "Aim small, miss small."

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X