Thread: What are we doing in Iraq?

Originally Posted by Julie

Leave it to Dale to insert the foot.

I don't feel that way. Public forums invite public comment.

I, on the other hand, thought it an excellent article.

Of course you did - it's contrary to many facts.[/quote]

I had forgotten about Saddam demanding only Euros for oil contracts a few months prior to the invasion.

Which means exactly what in context? Did he do that before or after we started sending clear signals that his days of mucking around with the Resolutions were over?

-dale

Dalem,

Oil is just one part. And as I said not the only part.

Still read the NEP. It will indicate what Cheney had written and what he had advised.

The jigsaw will fall in place.

Originally Posted by dalem

Did he do that before or after we started sending clear signals that his days of mucking around with the Resolutions were over?

-dale

The amazing part is that according to extensive interviews with Saddam's aids and top generals, those signals never registered in his head until the US entered the "Red Zone".

Which is truly amazing in and of itself!

Dalem,

Some of the reference material used for the article:

Selection and Maintenance of Aim, Economy of Effort, Concentration of Force.
"The mission is to rout terrorists, to find them and bring them to justice," Bush said. "Or, as I explained to the prime minister in Western terms, to smoke them out of their caves, to get them running so we can get them." - Bush. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...5/211541.shtml
The 45-Minute Threat. DOWNING Street's September 24 dossier said: "We judge Iraq has military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons. Some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them." 30 Jun 2003 ‘Iraq: Why Blair is still on the rack’. Oonagh Blackman. Mirror.co.uk
Blix attacked a September dossier on Iraq issued by the British government, and particularly a claim inside the document stating that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) available for launch within 45 minutes. Blix Claims US-UK Spin on Iraq WMD By Mike Wendling. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...3/0918spin.htm

UNSCOM MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Achie...ievements.html
‘THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Reports by the US Senate's committee……”
“How did Iraq get its weapons? We sold them”. Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot. Sunday Herald 08 September 2002.
Why won't Washington allow the UN weapons inspectors into Iraq? wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/iraq-a26.shtml
Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Oct4.html

AQ Khan and Iran http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo.../khan-iran.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm
Telegraph 11 Feb 2005. North Korea declared today for the first time it possessed nuclear weapons and pulled out indefinitely from six-party talks on its atomic ambitions, saying it needed a defence against a hostile US.
World Missile Chart. Carnegie Non-Proliferation Project www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/

WMD India and Pakistan. Centre for Strategic and International Studies http://www.csis.org/burke/mb/IndPakWMD012302.pdf
Al-Sabaawi described himself as a former lieutenant colonel in Saddam's army. He said he was recruited at an Iraqi mosque in 2001 by an Iraqi man named Abu Bakr, whom he described as the al-Fateh Army's leader. "He offered to take us on a training trip to Islamabad,'' the Pakistani capital, al-Sabaawi said. "He told us that we could develop our skills, give us information about how to make car bombs and carry out kidnappings.'' Before returning to Iraq, al-Sabaawi said he spent 11 months in Pakistan. He did not say who trained him there. http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...91.htm&sc=1107
London Bombings Jul 2005
Unocal has pulled out of the Project, possibly since it has been realised that Afghanistan and Pakistan will not stabilise in the near future. However, the appointment of Dr A Kahlilzad, ex Unocal Consultant as the US Ambassador to Afghanistan raises the doubt if US interest in this Project has been totally abandoned. He now is the US Ambassador to Iraq.
US assets and personnel overseas are still being targeted at will and some criminally beheaded.
9/11 Commission.
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed - Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank. Washington Post Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01
February 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. Arming Iraq and the Path to War. http://deep_blade.tripod.com/news/Iraq_chron.htm
Bush’s ‘Christian’ evangelism was legend and his famous slip of waging a Crusade was fodder to the Islamists that the war was on Islam.
“Almost every prominent religious cleric of Uttar Pradesh hold the firm view that the 'Holy Quran' can not be amended or abridged even with regard to certain controversial sections which enjoins Muslims to launch a Holy War (Jehad) against the non-Muslims”. Quran can’t be amended even with regard to controversial sections - The Free Press Journal August 25, 2002. http://www.hvk.org/articles/0902/167.html

PARWEZI PROPAGANDA www.jamiat.org.za/isinfo/parwezi.htm. This condemns Al-Mashriqui, who started the Parwezi School of Thought and they initiated public denial of the Hadith as a legal Islamic Law and led the ANTI-HADITH movement in the Sub-continent. They formulated their own theories from the Quran and reinterpreted Quranic terminology according to their own understanding, which changed the meaning of the Quran explained by classical exegists (Mufassiroon) to a great extent.

It postulated that increased U.S. government borrowing, owing to soaring deficits will reduce America's output by 3.7 percent and global economic output by 4.2 percent in the next 15 years. This would leave a legacy of the largest deficits in U.S. history and global economic contraction. After the booming economy of the 1990s, and the cyclical nature of the world economy, it was inevitable that a contraction would take place, impacting a global contraction.
IMF REPORT ON U.S. BUDGET DEFICITS & THE WORLD ECONOMY. 14 April 2004
“We can either sustain the [armed] forces we require and remain in a position to help shape things for the better, or we can throw that advantage away. [But] that would only hasten the day when we face greater threats, at higher costs and further risk to American lives.” – Dick Cheney
which equals the current consumption of India/ China.
The ongoing Revolutions and the heavy US funding in the CAR to bolster the ‘democratic institutions’ does give the impression that the DPG and NEP are complementary in strategy.
This percentage fluctuates each month.
In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2000 was the year of global Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2020 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2020 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil-dependent economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode.

"We now find one barrel of oil for every four we consume. The general situation seems so oblivious.
...How can governments be oblivious of the realities of discovery and their implications...given the critical importance of oil to our entire economy”.
Dr. Colin Campbell, ASPO president, in his testimony to the British House of Commons.

November 2004 Import Highlights: Released on January 25, 2005
Monthly data on the origins of U.S. crude oil imports in November 2004 has been released and it shows that three countries each exported 1.5 million barrels per day or more of crude oil to the United States; in addition, one other country exported over 1.0 million barrels per day of crude oil to the United States (see table below). The top sources of U.S. crude oil imports in November 2004 were: Saudi Arabia (1.625 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.604 million barrels per day), Canada (1.557 million barrels per day), and Venezuela (1.237 million barrels per day). Rounding out the top ten sources, in order, were Nigeria (0.945 million barrels per day), Iraq (0.596 million barrels per day), Angola (0.402 million barrels per day), Russia (0.402 million barrels per day), Kuwait (0.324 million barrels per day), and Algeria (0.240 million barrels per day). Saudi Arabia replaced Mexico as the number one supplier of crude oil to the United States. Total crude oil imports averaged 10.108 million barrels per day in November, a decrease of 0.220 million barrels per day from October. The top four origins accounted for 60 percent of U.S. crude oil imports in November and the top ten sources accounted for 88 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports.
. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html
"The 1995 National Assessment of the United States Oil and Gas Resources," United States Geological Survey, Washington, DC, 1995.
“We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world”: George Bush: Second Inaugural Address
The dollar is the de facto world reserve currency: the US currency accounts for approximately two thirds of all official exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all world exports are denominated in dollars. In addition, all IMF loans are denominated in dollars. Cóilín Nunan: Oil, Currency and the War on Iraq http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm
in April last year (2002), Javad Yarjani, head of OPEC’s Petroleum Market Analysis Department, noted that while in most OPEC countries would continue, in the short-term, to demand payment in dollars, OPEC “will not discount entirely the possibility of adopting euro pricing and payments in the future.” Oil, Dollars, Euros And Dead Iraqi's By Nick Beams http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1554.htm
Economist commentator Sonja Ebron wrote, "An OPEC switch from the dollar to the euro would bring a quick and devastating dollar and Wall Street crash that would make 1929 look like a $50 casino bet." Dollar vs EURO -- Weapons of mass destruction, http://www.thinkandask.com/news/thedollar.html

". . . From the EU's point of view, it is clear that Europe would prefer to see payments for oil shift from the dollar to the euro, which effectively removed the currency risk. It would also increase demand for the euro and thus help raise its value. Moreover, since oil is such an important commodity in global trade, in term of value, if pricing were to shift to the euro, it could provide a boost to the global acceptability of the single currency. There is also very strong trade links between OPEC Member Countries (MCs) and the Euro-zone, with more than 45 percent of total merchandise imports of OPEC MCs coming from the countries of the Euro-zone, while OPEC MCs are main suppliers of oil and crude oil products to Europe…..
http://www.markswatson.com/reasoniraq.pdf
Global economies have, since WWII, captured dollars to service foreign debts, and accumulated dollar reserves sustain the exchange value of their own currency. The world's central banks hold dollar reserves equal to their currency in circulation. The more pressure to devalue a currency, the more dollar reserves are required. This makes each economy dependent upon the US dollar, or known as dollar hegemony, constructed mainly by oil -- in other words, oil producing nations historically only accepted dollars, until the EURO. But with this currency game, the US essentially owns the world oil trading market for free, and allows the US to build its debt based upon credit assets they don't physically own. With The United States in control of Iraq, oil trade reverts to dollars.

During the First World War, in 1917, control of Iraqi oil reserves was considered a “first-class British war aim”. By 1925, the Iraqi government was forced to sign an agreement granting a concession to explore oil until 2000. http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php...owpage&pid=329

"the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power". If Clinton failed to act, “the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard”. The real Iraqi election prize
Andy Rowell, 9 December 2004 http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php...owpage&pid=329

Iraqi Oil, Today and Tomorrow By Robert E. Ebel, Director, Energy Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies. Submitted to Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. May 14, 2003. http://www.csis.org/features/ts030514ebel.pdf

United States Energy Information Administration http://www.converger.com/eiacab/caspian.htm
CASPIAN SEA REGION http://members.tripod.com/~KELSAGHIR/Caspian/index
Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project

The four strategic goals that define U.S. policies toward the Caspian Region:
(1) to support the independence and sovereignty of states in the region;
(2) to promote economic integration and interdependence among the Caspian states and also between them and Turkey;
(3) to secure reliable sources of energy and exports to the world market that are safe from disruption (i.e. not exclusively reliant on the Bosphorous Straits); and
(4) to support U.S. business interests and investment in the region.
a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies, including four American companies, Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Pennzoil.
Study on Energy Supply Security and Geopolitics. http://komsrvns.edis.sk/ekes/kneldok..._report_en.pdf
"Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario.
"The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar's role as reserve currency. This doesn't mean that the U.S. couldn't function otherwise, but that the transition would have to be gradual to avoid such dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would probably be the U.S. and the E.U. switching roles in the global economy)." http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

The Bush administration also dramatically broadened economic assistance to the region, nearly tripling aid to Uzbekistan alone (to some $300 million) since October 2001.[2] By the official end of combat operations in Afghanistan on May 1, 2003, the United States had established forward bases housing a combined total of close to 3,000 troops in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and had begun close cooperation on tactical and intelligence matters with all Central Asian states except Turkmenistan

This shift in focus has prompted a broad U.S. diplomatic and military initiative in Central Asia. In Uzbekistan, Washington's primary ally in Central Asia, a sweeping grant of authority for military operations has solidified the Pentagon's strategic presence, which now consists of an estimated 1,500 U.S. troops, cooperation with the Uzbek military on antiterrorism efforts and border security, and substantial joint initiatives on counterproliferation.

Washington also has opened discussions regarding more permanent basing arrangements and deeper military-to-military cooperation with Kyrgyzstan, where the Pentagon currently houses some 1,300 service members supporting ongoing operations in Afghanistan.[8] In addition, the United States committed millions of dollars for equipment purchases and training for Kazakhstan's military and, since the summer of 2003, has financed the construction of a cooperative military base in the Caspian port city of Atyrau.[9]

These efforts have been mirrored in the Caucasus. The United States has assumed a central military role in Georgia, launching the $64 million Georgia Train and Equip Program in May 2002 as a means to enhance the antiterrorism capabilities of Georgia's military and alleviate tensions between Moscow and Tbilisi over the sporadic Chechen presence in Georgia's Pankisi Gorge. Pentagon officials have also made overtures to Georgia's new president, Mikheil Saakashvili, related to his country's pro-Western political direction, a move that has already spurred the start of significant military reforms in Tbilisi.

Similarly, Washington has pledged some $10 million to Azerbaijan to strengthen its border security, improve its communications infrastructure, and help its government carry out security operations aimed at countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction.[10] The Bush administration also initiated a series of joint military exercises in the Caspian Sea designed to train Azerbaijan's naval fleet to protect the oil-rich nation's offshore drilling platforms.[11] At the same time, Pentagon planners have opened talks with Baku about establishing a major, cooperative military-training program and raised the possibility of basing U.S. forces in the country.[12]

The United States has even made inroads with Russia's closest partner in the Caucasus-Armenia. In April 2004, the Bush administration codified an agreement on enhanced military cooperation with Yerevan, and U.S. government officials subsequently opened preliminary discussions about joint military exercises between the United States and Armenia, to be held in the near future.[13]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The amazing part is that according to extensive interviews with Saddam's aids and top generals, those signals never registered in his head until the US entered the "Red Zone".

Which is truly amazing in and of itself!

I agree. One of the biggest wild cards in the whole game was Saddam himself. Was he crazy? Was he clever? Was he bold? Was he stupid? Was he all of them (my personal opinion)?

Imagine if, on the eve of invasion, Saddam throws the gates wide and says "Aw gee, I was kidding! Come on in and look everywhere. Here's a receipt and a map for where I dumped all my extra chem warheads years ago and here's GPS coordinates of where to send the U2 overflights! I was kidding!"

We'd have had a cartload of egg on our faces for sure.

-dale

Imagine if, on the eve of invasion, Saddam throws the gates wide and says "Aw gee, I was kidding! Come on in and look everywhere. Here's a receipt and a map for where I dumped all my extra chem warheads years ago and here's GPS coordinates of where to send the U2 overflights! I was kidding!"

We'd have had a cartload of egg on our faces for sure.

a cartload of egg on our faces, but probably some sordid end for saddam. a strongman like that would have a hard time keeping his street cred after bending over so badly for uncle sam.

Originally Posted by astralis

a cartload of egg on our faces, but probably some sordid end for saddam. a strongman like that would have a hard time keeping his street cred after bending over so badly for uncle sam.

Nahh, he was a survivor - he'd just kill all of his inner circle again and start a new one. Stalinists like him know how to play power circles well.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

Nahh, he was a survivor - he'd just kill all of his inner circle again and start a new one. Stalinists like him know how to play power circles well.

-dale

Which is EXACTLY why the 'Go down with our pride intact, even though we could get out of this scrape at the last minute by proving that we ain't got nothing' meme is such total crap.

If he TRULY had nothing, WHY, on the eve of his destruction, when he knows without a doubt that were FINALLY getting off our butts and coming for his, WHY does he not just PROVE it, and live through another crisis? Because he could have done that, he would have survived it, and instead he chooses death?

Unlikely. It makes no sense, and to this day, that is a wholly unsatisfactory explanation of the WMD question.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Which is EXACTLY why the 'Go down with our pride intact, even though we could get out of this scrape at the last minute by proving that we ain't got nothing' meme is such total crap.

If he TRULY had nothing, WHY, on the eve of his destruction, when he knows without a doubt that were FINALLY getting off our butts and coming for his, WHY does he not just PROVE it, and live through another crisis? Because he could have done that, he would have survived it, and instead he chooses death?

Unlikely. It makes no sense, and to this day, that is a wholly unsatisfactory explanation of the WMD question.

Aw shucks, B-man, what do I know? I'm just a, what did Gio call me, an extremist repeating right-wing talking points? Something like that.

-dale

Originally Posted by Ray

Dale,

Do you think that the Balochistan insurrection is India inspired?

Ray-

I'm at work right now so I have to do you the temporary disservice of leaving my simple assessment until I can really dig into the meat.

-dale

Originally Posted by Bluesman

WHY, on the eve of his destruction, when he knows without a doubt that were FINALLY getting off our butts and coming for his, WHY does he not just PROVE it, and live through another crisis? Because he could have done that, he would have survived it, and instead he chooses death?

Apparently he simply never believed that until US forces were a mere handful of miles from Baghdad.

Seriously.

One of the dumbest assclowns in the history of mankind that fellow is.

He got his though...

"President Bush sends his regards"
~US Soldier while butt-stroking Saddam in the face during capture

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"President Bush sends his regards"
~US Soldier while butt-stroking Saddam in the face during capture

Was that for real or just another urban legend?

Originally Posted by Gio

But with all due respect, that can be said for countless regimes in this world.

First off, so what? Second, that's a false statement. How many are out there that have broken a cease-fire with the US? How many tried to kill a president? How many are shooting at our aircraft?

Originally Posted by Gio

It can be argued that so called allies like Saudi Arabia support terrorism more than Saddam's Iraq did.

No broken cease-fire, no direct hostilities, no WMD.

Originally Posted by Gio

That being said, President Bush himself has said Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 thus Al-Queda.

Cheney, Condi, Powel, and Rummy have said that too. And?

Originally Posted by Gio

With that, why the hell are we not in Darfur, right now? Genocide is occuring as I type this, why is our government not intervening for the greater good of the world order?

Because helping others isn't enough. I'm saddened by the vast numbers of people who don't care and won't pick a side. With everything against Iraq, caught red handed no less, and it still is apparently not enough by your standards, why would you expect me to believe you would support an action in Darfur?

Originally Posted by Gio

Because it's all relative, politics. How would that help us politically? Economically?

We elect our leaders here. It's all about popular support. I support the liberation of everyone tyrannized. Sadly most of the time I feel like I'm all alone in that...

Originally Posted by FFE

Who's argument? YOURS? I was asking a question, not posing an argument. If you feel that a question threatens your beliefs...

Thanks for the link to the old article, though.

True enough, you did only ask a question. Consider my post a pre-emptive strike on the bogus implicit argument that stems from the question.

As far as how those with children serving/or have served in Iraq who voted on the AUMF Against Iraq Resolution, the roll call shows 4-0.