Bush, anyone?

[Spiderman]

Making it a non-OPEC country would imply that the US will take it over, which is highly doubtful. Most likely some Iraqi "resistance" group or exile group will take charge, more or less what happened with Afghanistan.

And even then, the US gets most of its oil from South America, Canada, and the Alaskan pipeline. And between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the US pretty much as a "friendly" line into OPEC.

If Iraqi oil comes on the "open" market, all OPEC is going to do is lower production to keep barrels at around $20-$25. The average consumer will see a negligable change,

 

[Lotus Mox]

Originally posted by Spiderman
Making it a non-OPEC country would imply that the US will take it over, which is highly doubtful. Most likely some Iraqi "resistance" group or exile group will take charge, more or less what happened with Afghanistan.

The US doesn't have to take over, the Iraq "resistance" group just needs of be a puppet of the US regime.
Do you know what happened in Afghanistan? The "resistance" group is a farce, in the non-Kabul parts of Afghanistan the old warlords are still murdering and raping, in some areas it's even gotten worse than when the Taliban were there.

And even then, the US gets most of its oil from South America, Canada, and the Alaskan pipeline. And between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the US pretty much as a "friendly" line into OPEC.

That's certainly true for now, but Saudi Arabia is a somewhat unstable region, and the Canadian and Alaskan oil reserves aren't that great IIRC, so the Iraq Invasion is a great plan to secure the future of oil for the next century.

If Iraqi oil comes on the "open" market, all OPEC is going to do is lower production to keep barrels at around $20-$25. The average consumer will see a negligable change,

I never claimed that the average consumer will see a huge change, but the british and american oil companies which could get an estimated 2.8 trillion $ out of this whole deal will see one, I suppose. (same with the French and Russian companies who won't get them now )

 

[train]

Saddam began to show more cooperation with the weapon inspectors

saddam got more and more worried he'd find a patriot missile up his arse... diplomacy didn't ease this...

Actually he prefers diplomacy so he can jerk the rest of the UN around a while...

 

[EricBess]

Originally posted by Lotus Mox
This is not completely true, Saddam began to show more cooperation with the weapon inspectors, with more time, and maybe a bit more pressure to Saddam, this could've been solved in a more peaceful way.
But I guess in your screwed world image, diplomacy probably has no place.

Suppose you were a mugger and you were robbing someone who claimed to have no money. You are fairly certain they do, so you start twisting their arm behind them until finally, to get you to stop, they tell you they have a dollar in their left pocket. You check their left pocket and, sure enough, there is a dollar there.

Now, do you kindly thank them, take the dollar, and run away? Or do you check their right pocket to see if they have a twenty hidden there?

Saddam didn't cooperate until it was obvious that we were serious. Then, he showed just enough cooperation to say that he was cooperating.

The fact is, he claimed there were no weapons. When the pressure was turned up, he claimed there were a few weapons. Turn up the pressure a bit more and we find a few more. He's obviously trying to get away with as little as possible.

I don't really call that cooperation. I'm surprised that you do.

 

[Lotus Mox]

Originally posted by EricBess
I don't really call that cooperation. I'm surprised that you do.

I'm well aware that he didn't really cooperate that much, but what has this to do with diplomacy being not an option anymore, especially when you yourself admit that it has become better.

Of course you need some pressure for him to cooperate, I never said something else. But to me it seemed that it might be possible that the he would even tell about the 100 dollars he hid in his socks soon (or he even did already), to use your analogy. It's also quite interesting that you see Iraq as a victim in it.

 

[train]

It's also quite interesting that you see Iraq as a victim in it.

I would also think Iraq is a victim in this ordeal...
Saddam is the one we need to get rid of... if he's hurting both of us... which he is... And Iraq will come out of this much better than it ever was under his "tea-party" of a regime...

The only cooperation I want to see from Saddam now is his painting the bullseye on his arse for one of our laser guided-rockets!...

 

[Apollo]

More likely we'll go in, depose Saddam, and put in some puppet government. The people will hate it, because people hate any government that is forced on them. There will be riots, and factions, and rebellions, and killings. Then everything will settle down a bit and we'll pull out entirely and stop giving our puppet government money, and it won't be able to do anything. The economy will sag and start to collapse, the government will be powerless and people will starve by the thousands. In short, it won't be much of an improvement at all. We're already doing it in Afghanistan.

 

[Spiderman]

Originally posted by Lotus Mox
The US doesn't have to take over, the Iraq "resistance" group just needs of be a puppet of the US regime.
Do you know what happened in Afghanistan? The "resistance" group is a farce, in the non-Kabul parts of Afghanistan the old warlords are still murdering and raping, in some areas it's even gotten worse than when the Taliban were there.

That's not the fault of the US (unless you want them to micromanage, which is what I understand you to be against anyway). Karzai is having a hard time establishing his own authority, due to the tribal nature and society of Afghanistan. I'm sure if it was up to him, he's have a crack army already trained and loyal to the state and ready to bust the warlord's heads. As it is, some of the warlords are stronger than he is and he has to wait.

That's certainly true for now, but Saudi Arabia is a somewhat unstable region, and the Canadian and Alaskan oil reserves aren't that great IIRC, so the Iraq Invasion is a great plan to secure the future of oil for the next century.

Saudi Arabia is as stable as any other place. Look at the Argentine oil strikes and Russian turmoil. Speaking of which, if Russia and its spinoff countries ever got their act together, they could be producing more effectively also.

And if Alaska was ever opened up, there's be plenty of oil.

I never claimed that the average consumer will see a huge change, but the british and american oil companies which could get an estimated 2.8 trillion $ out of this whole deal will see one, I suppose. (same with the French and Russian companies who won't get them now )

You have to show a link between the oil companies and the war to make this relevant then.

Additionally, if the US government was "forced" to, they'd subsidize the hybrid and electric alternatives to make them more affordable to the consumer.

Apollo: See the first section on Afghanistan. We're not doing "anything" that is triggering your description in Afghanistan.

 

[Lotus Mox]

Originally posted by Spiderman
That's not the fault of the US

Of course not directly (at least it's not known to me )

(unless you want them to micromanage, which is what I understand you to be against anyway).

I'm not sure what exactly you mean with "micromanage", but I don't think I'm generally against it, although this could prove too costly for American and NATO troops, maybe that's the reason.

BTW, The US is starting the biggest attack in Afghanistan since 1 year or so now, maybe that helps a bit.

Karzai is having a hard time establishing his own authority, due to the tribal nature and society of Afghanistan. I'm sure if it was up to him, he's have a crack army already trained and loyal to the state and ready to bust the warlord's heads. As it is, some of the warlords are stronger than he is and he has to wait.

Maybe he's just so powerless because noone who has it in his might cares about him or the situation in Afghanistan.
A new government which is build after a war has to be enforced by the guys who won the war, if they don't, it's deemed to fail.

Saudi Arabia is as stable as any other place. Look at the Argentine oil strikes and Russian turmoil. Speaking of which, if Russia and its spinoff countries ever got their act together, they could be producing more effectively also.

well, Saudi-Arabia is far more important to El-Qaeda than Iraq ever was, of course the connection between the US and Saudi-Arabia is rather stable right now, but only because Saudi-Arabia is not a democracy.
You should think a bit more in the future, Saud-Arabia has tons of conflict potential, even if it is stable right now. About the other states: that might be true, but why take risks when you could control it yourself?

You have to show a link between the oil companies and the war to make this relevant then.

Who runs the war?
Who paid the people who run it?

I've read some US strategy papers about the Iraq war, and the geostrategic (i.e. oil) aspects are mentioned there.
It wasn't the main point, and it could very well be secondary to the whole world dominance (Project for a New American Century) part.

here's one, albeit german (sorry, maybe you could try babelfish), link about oil: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,239559,00.html

It basically says, that a regime change, and not much else, would give the american (and british, I guess) oil industry 2.8 trillion dollar.

Here's one link about PNAC, you might already know about this, though:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,238643,00.html

Additionally, if the US government was "forced" to, they'd subsidize the hybrid and electric alternatives to make them more affordable to the consumer.

Only when the hybrid/electric etc. car lobby has more influence to the US regime than the oil & military lobby

Apollo: See the first section on Afghanistan. We're not doing "anything" that is triggering your description in Afghanistan.

Yes, you're not triggering anything like he desribed, but you don't prevent it, which was, I suppose, his point.
Bombing Afghanistan in order to destroy the terror regime which helps an international terror base, but then not cleaning up the mess isn't really nice for a self proclaimed policeman. Which makes me think the term bully is more accurate to describe what the US is doing there.

 

[Apollo]

Apollo: See the first section on Afghanistan. We're not doing "anything" that is triggering your description in Afghanistan.

See what Lotus Mox just said. We bombed the heck out of El-Qaeda and then stuck Karzai in power--and now we're not supporting him. We weren't doing enough before, and now we took away the money we were giving him so we could attack Iraq. That's why he's having so many troubles with the warlords and such--we left him all on his own to deal with them, and without us he doesn't have enough power. As Lotus Mox said, we created a mess and then abandoned it to clean up itself.

 

[Spiderman]

Originally posted by Lotus Mox
Maybe he's just so powerless because noone who has it in his might cares about him or the situation in Afghanistan.
A new government which is build after a war has to be enforced by the guys who won the war, if they don't, it's deemed to fail.

I think it's harder to overcome tribal authority and replace it with central authority than you think, without further destabilizing the country.

well, Saudi-Arabia is far more important to El-Qaeda than Iraq ever was, of course the connection between the US and Saudi-Arabia is rather stable right now, but only because Saudi-Arabia is not a democracy.
You should think a bit more in the future, Saud-Arabia has tons of conflict potential, even if it is stable right now. About the other states: that might be true, but why take risks when you could control it yourself?

How is Saudi Arabia more important? Because the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? That's a pretty major hypothesis if that's your reasoning.

I still don't see that "we're going to control it ourselves". Perhaps the future will prove me wrong.

Who runs the war?
Who paid the people who run it?

Bush "runs" the war (or it was his decision) but I highly doubt "oil" is paying him to do it.

It basically says, that a regime change, and not much else, would give the american (and british, I guess) oil industry 2.8 trillion dollar.

Well, I can't argue with one side of presenting numbers and facts. Do these links show/tell in hard details that oil is the major force behind Bush?

Yes, you're not triggering anything like he desribed, but you don't prevent it, which was, I suppose, his point.
Bombing Afghanistan in order to destroy the terror regime which helps an international terror base, but then not cleaning up the mess isn't really nice for a self proclaimed policeman. Which makes me think the term bully is more accurate to describe what the US is doing there.

Preventing it would mean the US is the occupying power and that is the whole point to begin with, that it's not. It's up to Karzai to deal with the internal troubles - i.e. Afghan to Afghan, not Westerner to Afghan (which probably doesn't understand the intricate tribal loyalties anyway). The US is providing training and support for his army/infrastructure anyway, I believe.

Apollo: See above And I don't think that much money has been diverted, if any.

 

[Lotus Mox]

Originally posted by Spiderman
I think it's harder to overcome tribal authority and replace it with central authority than you think, without further destabilizing the country.

Yeah, I think you're right, I mainly brought up Afghanistan to show an example of a region where after the war nothing really works that well.
Even though Iraq is no Afghanistan, the road to Freedom and Democracy after a war in Iraq is certainly not as easy as some people believe or want to make you believe.

Preventing it would mean the US is the occupying power and that is the whole point to begin with, that it's not. It's up to Karzai to deal with the internal troubles - i.e. Afghan to Afghan, not Westerner to Afghan (which probably doesn't understand the intricate tribal loyalties anyway). The US is providing training and support for his army/infrastructure anyway, I believe..

Sure it's not occupied by the US, but when you install a pro-US puppet government, it needs a lot more support by the NATO (Germany and Netherlands play the major role in Afghanistan afaik) than what's currently present there.

How is Saudi Arabia more important? Because the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? That's a pretty major hypothesis if that's your reasoning.

From what I've read, there are very few if any links between Iraq (ruled by a dictator, who has treated islamists not very friendly in the past) and El-Qaeda, most links from El-Qaeda are to countries with strong islamistic tendencies in the population, especially Saudi Arabia.
I also suspect some of the old CIA links are still present in one form or another. But that's just speculation.

Most (if not all) of the "proofs" by the US, linking Saddam with El-Qeada have been revealed as wrong, BTW.

Bush "runs" the war (or it was his decision) but I highly doubt "oil" is paying him to do it.

Well, I can't argue with one side of presenting numbers and facts. Do these links show/tell in hard details that oil is the major force behind Bush?

I read somewhere that oil companies financed a lot of Bush's election (is that true?). I don't think they would give Bush money and don't request something in return.
According to the link I gave Bush was also an ex-top-manager in the oil industry.
It also claimed that Saddam's Dethroning was part of PNAC, which contains the whole world dominance thing, but part of it are also the oil-conquering plans, it was signed 1998 by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle among others.
I suppose they have some influence on Bush's decisions.

 

[Spiderman]

Yeah, I think you're right, I mainly brought up Afghanistan to show an example of a region where after the war nothing really works that well.
Even though Iraq is no Afghanistan, the road to Freedom and Democracy after a war in Iraq is certainly not as easy as some people believe or want to make you believe.

I think Afghanistan is a bad example, as it's only been a year to year and a half really since the ouster of the Taliban. Probably a better example is what was Yugoslavia or something.

I do agree that trying to install democracy in Iraq will be a tough thing and I don't think I said otherwise.

Sure it's not occupied by the US, but when you install a pro-US puppet government, it needs a lot more support by the NATO (Germany and Netherlands play the major role in Afghanistan afaik) than what's currently present there.

Really? Unfortunately, Afghanistan has receded a bit from US news and I was not aware that Germany and the Netherlands have the lead there.

From what I've read, there are very few if any links between Iraq (ruled by a dictator, who has treated islamists not very friendly in the past) and El-Qaeda, most links from El-Qaeda are to countries with strong islamistic tendencies in the population, especially Saudi Arabia.
I also suspect some of the old CIA links are still present in one form or another. But that's just speculation.

I agree with this but will add "with strong Islamic fundamentalists". Which is pretty much any Islamic country that is not ruled by Islamic law or a religious head (like Egypt, along with Saudi Arabia).

Most (if not all) of the "proofs" by the US, linking Saddam with El-Qeada have been revealed as wrong, BTW.

I have read this and agree also.

I read somewhere that oil companies financed a lot of Bush's election (is that true?). I don't think they would give Bush money and don't request something in return.
According to the link I gave Bush was also an ex-top-manager in the oil industry.
It also claimed that Saddam's Dethroning was part of PNAC, which contains the whole world dominance thing, but part of it are also the oil-conquering plans, it was signed 1998 by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle among others.
I suppose they have some influence on Bush's decisions.

Well, I don't know about oil giving alot of money to Bush's campaign - I suppose it could be true. Depends on how much other interests gave... if oil was the majority, I could see that Bush might feel beholden to them. If it wasn't , then it's probably taken out of context.

I had no knowledge of this PNAC thing, interesting. What were the participants doing in 1998 when this was written? Obviously Clinton was in charge then; were they just planning for the future or something?

 

[Lotus Mox]

The 1998 PNAC paper was directed at Clinton and suggested removing Hussein from power for various reasons, one of it was the need to control the energy resouces (OIL) in the Gulf region, at least that's how I understand it

Here's an english link about PNAC (it's from a biased site, I know) : http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Pitt_PNAC-Empire.htm

And here's the official PNAC propaganda site: www.newamericancentury.org

 

[Spiderman]

Republicans directing what Clinton should do? Strange...

I guess we'll have to see if Bush gets re-elected (or a like-minded Republican/Democrat) in 2004 to see if the policy continues to be carried out or reversed/slowed down.

 

[train]

Oh... He'll be re-elected...

His daddy was a skull...

 

[Zhaneel]

please, God, no re-election...

 

[Lotus Mox]

Originally posted by train
Oh... He'll be re-elected...

His daddy was a skull...

Did you know that the Nazi SS used Skulls and Bones (Totenschädel und Knochenkreuz) as a symbol because they had some connections to the Skulls and Bones in the USA?
Prescott Bush also supported Hitler with 1 Billion $ (nowaday value). His offspring isn't much better

I really wish America could rid at least the White House from the Bush clan Bloodsuckers.

 

[Ferret]

Personaly, I'd love to see someone in the White House that isn't a Democrat or a Repbublican, but still isn't afraid to fight for the freedom of opressed peoples of the world.

I don't care about what Bush's parents or grandparents did. I only care about what he's doing now. He's standing up for people that can't stand up for themselves. Even if we get some free oil out of this, we'll be helping some people along the way.

Everybody wins!

-Ferret

"If diplomacy worked, no war would ever need to be fought"
(Mrs. Ferret)

 

[Zhaneel]

Why does he care all of the sudden? He doesn't care about the poor of America, so I don't imagine he's crying over the poor in Iraq. And didn't this start out as 'he's a threat to the US'? Geez, pick a reason and stick with it.