Iraq Issues

SurlyPIG · March 7, 2003

I bet $100 that Zamboe will call it US propaganda and a lie ;D

Gobalopper · March 7, 2003

U.S. intelligence: Iraq switched engines in missiles it destroyed

U.S. intelligence has concluded that Iraq deceived the United Nations by destroying stockpiled Al Samoud missiles with old engines.
U.S. officials said the regime of President Saddam Hussein has not destroyed any Al Samoud missile deployed in forward bases in southern Iraq.
Instead, they said, Iraq has brought out missiles from military warehouses and replaced the engines with those from the Soviet-origin SA-2 surface-to-air missile, developed in the 1950s.

U.S. ships unloaded in Turkey as buildup in northern Iraq resumes

ordos45 · March 8, 2003

Don't bother Acriku, I wrote an e-mail to the President once with the adress on the official White House site. You'll get an auto e-mail assuring you that a staff member will read your mail and give it full consideration. ;)

Gobalopper · March 8, 2003

Iraqi drone 'could drop chemicals on troops'

A report declassified by the UN yesterday contained the revelation that inspectors have recently discovered an undeclared Iraqi drone with a wingspan of 7.45m, the TIMES OF LONDON is reporting Saturday.
US officials are outraged that Hans Blix did not inform the Security Council about the remotely piloted vehicle in his oral presentation to Foreign Ministers and tried to bury it in a 173-page single-spaced report distributed later in the day.

SurlyPIG · March 8, 2003

Don't bother Acriku, I wrote an e-mail to the President once with the adress on the official White House site. You'll get an auto e-mail assuring you that a staff member will read your mail and give it full consideration. ;)

Well at least someone did read it...and at least they didn't kill you and your family as they would have done in Iraq.

Try joining a pressure group with whatever interest you were writing about, if one exists. If now, form your own. :)

TMA_1 · March 8, 2003

lol, that was a horrible retort ace.

Sneakgab · March 8, 2003

ah well... maybe the US might just be getting dressed up with nowhere to go:D (doubt it though)

SurlyPIG · March 9, 2003

That was not a retort, TMA. That was light-hearted commentary. Have you lost the ability to tell the difference?

Somehow I don't think the US will "undress" until they've had their fun, Sneakgab.

DjCiD · March 9, 2003

Somehow I don't think the US will "undress" until they've had their fun, Sneakgab.

What's that Asian quote? Something about Once the sword is drawn it cannot be sheathed till blood is spilled..... something like that.

Gobalopper · March 10, 2003

Blix 'hid smoking gun' from Britain and US

Diplomacy steps up before war vote at UN

The Israeli Wild Card

Can Iraq Hit America?

emprworm · March 10, 2003

That was not a retort, TMA. That was light-hearted commentary. Have you lost the ability to tell the difference?
Somehow I don't think the US will "undress" until they've had their fun, Sneakgab.

lol, TMA up to his "refereeing" as usual. oh well, its part of the forum i guess :P

ayer05 · March 10, 2003

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0308-09.htm

I feel like we're all in kindergarten class...

the teacher has gone to the loo...

whoever is left standing is going to have to sit in the corner and 'think really hard' about what they just did.

ayer05 · March 10, 2003

Something to chew over...

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr30.html

...just don't choke on the bones. ;)

zamboe · March 12, 2003

Resuming something started in other thread.

zamboe Saddam does control about 11% of the oil reserves but the biggest problem is also that he is within striking distance of a lot of other oil producing countries. Just read this article, having Saddam in control of oil is a bad thing. His weapons, which he is unwilling to disarm are a big factor. The problem is twofold, one Saddam controls or could control a large portion of the middle east oil and two he has shown in the past he is willing to attack other countries to do that. The UN resolutions are a way of limiting his power, if he doesn't comply something has to be done. More sanctions don't work, we've had 12 years to prove that.

Gob, I'll quote some point of that article, I find it interesting.

*" The situation with Iraqi oil imports into the US is different. It is Iraq that refuses, in theory, to sell oil to the US, except to one Houston trader that it considers friendly"

That goes for acelethal that says that Iraq begs to sell it's oil to the US. This says it's not that way.

*"Part of the reason for this contortion is that Iraqi oil is popular with US refiners on grounds of quality and price. The US, which is both the world's largest consumer and importer of oil, has an interest in high quality and low price. "

Then, US wants the best, then goes to Iraq to take it.

*"Removal of sanctions would lead to a scramble by foreign oil companies for licences to start developing new fields. In theory, the companies (notably Lukoil of Russia and China National Petroleum Corporation) that have signed, although not implemented, contracts, and the companies (notably TotalFinaElf of France) that have just conducted preliminary negotiations, would be in pole position to get such licences. But the Iraqi opposition has said that it may nullify all contracts made with the Saddam regime. "

That's precisely what the next pro-US puppet gov of Iraq will do, they will not consider the former contracts. US and UK need to get in to too.

*"BP, for instance, is now the largest oil and gas producer in the US, and its CE, John Browne, has made clear his company should be included in any distribution of Iraqi spoils. Underlining, again, that the US game is as much political as it is commercial. "

I couldn't have said it better myself. No comments.

Gob, when you say "but the biggest problem is also that he is within striking distance of a lot of other oil producing countries.", it really doesn't make much sense given that all (but Kuwait) arab countries have expressed their opposition to a war against Iraq in two summits that took place recently. If they were under such a threat they would support it, but they don't.

Another point is that how the markets react to this whole possible war, you notice that the oil prices are very high and will increase more depending how war develops, this is an indicator that war is the concern. Take another commodities for example, such as cooper or soybeans, those are traded within normal parameters because the war does not implicate them. This is a war for oil and the markets react to it.

"That interest means that it wants to reduce the power of Opec, the Middle East- dominated producers' cartel that has Iraq as one of its 11 members." In my opinion the US is would want to lessen the power of the middle east oil, if they can get a democractic Iraq then it will weaken the power of OPEC.

Actually I don't think there is a relation between democracy and OPEC, take Venezuela for example, it's a democracy and the current presidente of PDVSA was recently the CEO of the OPEC, Mr. Rodriguez was leading the Opec coalition to reduce each countries quota in order to keep prices higher than 28 US$ per barrel brent.

Besides you mention something interesting, "if the US can get a democratic Iraq", well that's something they want but that is/was not even considered in resolution 1441, that's one of the changes the US is seeking for their own benefit (not cause the people), democracy in Iraq is not the issue.

There will be a new regime so of course they are going to rethink their contracts. You would hope that no matter the result of the war that the Iraqi people would choose the best company be it one of their own or an outside country. As too who gets it that is only speculation at this point.

The Iraqi people will choose nothing. It's the government the US and UK put that will decide based on the obvious influence and pressure of the people "who liberate them", that invasion is not cost free. Thinking that after war the new Iraqi government will have free will to determine which companies will explote it's oil is just being very ingenuous.

I'm not saying this war doesn't involve the US wanting to protect its oil interests, I am just refuting your claim that the war is just about oil. But this is getting offtopic for this thread, so I will stop arguing the point here.

Sure, oil is not the "only" reason.

Another off-the-record reason is Israel, as long as US strategy to control arab governments in middle east it will reduce the negotiation power and support of the palestinian people and therefore in the middle and long run, Israel will be able to imposse it's position.

Gobalopper · March 12, 2003

zamboe is the above the same post from that thread or a new one?

zamboe · March 12, 2003

zamboe is the above the same post from that thread or a new one?

I copied from the "alternatives to war" and included my answers, so is the same post plus a new answers.

Gobalopper · March 13, 2003

Gob, when you say "but the biggest problem is also that he is within striking distance of a lot of other oil producing countries.", it really doesn't make much sense given that all (but Kuwait) arab countries have expressed their opposition to a war against Iraq in two summits that took place recently. If they were under such a threat they would support it, but they don't.
Another point is that how the markets react to this whole possible war, you notice that the oil prices are very high and will increase more depending how war develops, this is an indicator that war is the concern. Take another commodities for example, such as cooper or soybeans, those are traded within normal parameters because the war does not implicate them. This is a war for oil and the markets react to it.

Countries like Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are all allowing US troops within their borders to prepare for war. They may not publically make a big deal about this but it is happening. One of the biggest reasons they are wary to support it is because of the huge numbers of Islamic radicals in their countries. They don't want to be seen siding with the US because the US is considered the great evil by the most of Islam.

Oil has gone a lot higher because there are huge amounts of uncertainty over what is going to happen and it also has started out higher because of the Venezuela problems. The same thing happened before the first Gulf War and they came back down shortly after it. There is still a lot of uncertainty over what is going to happen because of all the problems Saddam created when he blew up the oilfields last time. Oil is going up because no one knows what is going to happen next, not because its a "war for oil". How do you come to that conclusion? Oil is going up != war for oil last time I checked.

Besides you mention something interesting, "if the US can get a democratic Iraq", well that's something they want but that is/was not even considered in resolution 1441, that's one of the changes the US is seeking for their own benefit (not cause the people), democracy in Iraq is not the issue.

I'm confused here. Of course 1441 doesn't say anything about what type of gov't Iraq would have after Saddam is removed because that is not the point. 1441 states that Saddam had to disarm or face the consequences. Facing the consequences could mean a lot of things, if Saddam is removed which is the most likely outcome of "facing the consequences" then someone has to take charge. I doubt anyone wants to see another dictator so democracy is the logical choice.

The Iraqi people will choose nothing. It's the government the US and UK put that will decide based on the obvious influence and pressure of the people "who liberate them", that invasion is not cost free. Thinking that after war the new Iraqi government will have free will to determine which companies will explote it's oil is just being very ingenuous.

Bush has stated that the Iraq people will choose the gov't just like they have in Afghanistan. As for who gets control we will see what happens after the war. I'm not going to argue over that because we obviously have very different views on how the US/UK will handle a postwar Iraq.

Sure, oil is not the "only" reason.
Another off-the-record reason is Israel, as long as US strategy to control arab governments in middle east it will reduce the negotiation power and support of the palestinian people and therefore in the middle and long run, Israel will be able to imposse it's position.

Israel and other US allies are threatened by Iraq, correct. The point of having allies is that you will work together to protect eachother. Not much to argue about here.

Gobalopper · March 13, 2003

U.S.: Iraq May Try to Jam Satellite Feeds

Iraqi 'secret surrender' negotiations under way

Al Qaeda plans oil field attacks

EU unlikely to pay to rebuild Iraq, says Patten

U.S. Seeks U.N. Vote on Iraq on Friday

Rich flee from capital as panic grips city's poor

Allied Troops Prepare for Gulf Heat

No turning back for Britain or Blair

Baghdad Training Suicide Squad

Plan 7-day war in Iraq

Britain Sets Out Proposed Tests for Iraq in New Resolution

Rumsfeld Won't Count Out Solo Mission

Springtime for Saddam

US opposes giving Iraq 45 days

US to finance early postwar Iraqi regime, officials say

This Just In?

September 11 and Iraq

The Iraqi connection

Defectors Cite Iraqi Training for Terrorism

Sabah Khodada Interview

Iraq's Tie to Al-Qaeda Terrorists, Airline Hijackings

Gobalopper · March 14, 2003

Todays installment...

The French Connection (cue bom-bom-bom music)

The French Connection by William Safire

Blix's French Connection Benefits Saddam

Gobalopper · March 14, 2003

The Myth That We're Going It Alone

emprworm you posted an image from StratFor once, do you have a subscription there? That article is about one they recently wrote but its subscribers only.