JAD_333

[quote=nabilfannoush;388521

nabil:

I like you and I can see you are sincere; your English is fine, but I find you do not answer questions objectively and you take examples out of context.

For example, I asked you: "What happens to Iraq if we leave? What do you think?"

This is your answer: [I]Geez dude I've already yelled this in italics. didn't you read it?? I'll say it again: I NEVER SAID US FORCES SHOULD LEAVE, at least not right away and certainly not en masse.[/i]

You took my question wrongly and then didn't answer it.

Then there's this imaginary conversation which would have been around 2002 after 9/11 that I invented in response to you to illustrate that the US going into Iraq wasn't to create a democratic government there, but to protect US interests in the region:

"No. The conversation was more like this: "It's in our interest to see a stable ME. Where do we start? Iraq? Saddam is a proven threat to Middle East stability; he's unpredictable; he's liable to get into bed with AQ to further their terrorism activities as a way of getting to us. These bomb attacks on our embassies, ships and buildings are getting worse and have to stop. AQ's goal is to unite the ME into a single entity under strict Islamic law. They want to wipe out any vestigages of western influence and to use ME oil reserves to wreak havoc on the US economy. It won't stop even if we kill Bin Ladin. We have to act soon. Make plans for taking out Saddam and creating a stable Iraq.""

This is how your responded: I hope you are making that up, because if you're not, then the people you have in charge are uninformed to the point of being criminal or incompetent to the point teetering on disaster. Saddam and AQ?? you're still at that??? Are you people crazy???

Do you know the Arabic saying: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

AQ and Saddam? Maybe not then, but who knows; when a cat is cornered it becomes a tiger.

Here is what I said to illustrate the difference in Iraq and US political culture after you said it was food not democracy Iraqis want:

...the US grew out the basic sentiment expressed by the revolutionary patriot Thomas Paine, who said, "give me liberty or give me death." "

This is how you responded: yes, I am familiar with the saying. Again like I said, it is not the job of the US or anybody else to jam it down people's throats. Thomas Payne and his fellow patriots said it out of their own violition against their tyrant, it was not forced on them by a foreign power

There was absolutely nothing said about jamming it down anyone's throat. It was just an illustration anyone could have agreed to without conceding anything.

If I seem cold in my views, it is only because I try as best I can to see the situation from all sides, to understand all arguments and to accept reality. In my heart, I hope that the war will end very soon and that all Iraqis will come together to create a great nation safe for their children and at peace with the world.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Ray

Do reply.

It will help clearing the cobwebs!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

nabilfannoush

Yes I noticed some typos and composition errors that make some of my statements sound funny. It was a long post and I was getting tired. I didn't notice them until I already posted, but you get the idea.

Thanks. I'm very proud of my English. Oxford would not give me the degree without it.

Like I said, I've exhausted this matter. I have given my statements, my reasons for them, and the facts on the ground which support them, anything else I add would just be conjecture and guesswork. I will only repeat this one last time: Any instant, fast fix, wholesale troop withdrawal will cause a Godawful mess. The US administration made an awful series of bungles, but we need to get past that for the sake of everybody and get involved in a united effort to make things better.

That said, I will add nothing else, until developments give me a basis to look into it more

nabilfannoush

About the word 'genocide', it was the best word I have got to cover it. Nah it cant be fratricide, because you have foreigners indiscreminentaly dying too along with civilians not fighting, we mustn't forget them. But really Ray, does it matter? You can call a sewer 'chanel no5' and it will still stink like a sewer. the point is people are dying needlessly where it could have been easily avoided with so little return.

Rather than go on back and forth about issues of humane conditions and the like(just for the sake of argument), I always give a thought about the cold calculating military and strategic objectives and gains. I tend to avoid this type of discussion with parties involved in the particular conflict because you don't always get openly practical and unbiased views, and that's understandable. Soldiers are by definition usually biased towards their respective militaries eh?

Whenever I try to consider a strategic viewpoint or gain to be had in Iraq, I end up with the feeling that whoever drafted the plans was grossly uninformed, or as if who ever drew them up was muddled as to objectives that everything had to be 'changed' as time passed that now the whole thing just stopped making sense and it became a battle for its own sake.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the strategic viewpoint is using Iraq as a deterrent or a springboard for maybe possible miltary operations against Iran or even Syria(I think this would be another gross mistake, but thats not what this discussion is about), or anywhere in the middle east for that matter. In this case whoever cooked this up made a gross error: they did not allow for the fact that great resources in manpower and arsenal that will have to be tied down there indefinitely. With commitments elsewhere, the strain on the US war machine is just too great to be worth it, especially if you plan to bog yourself down even further in other countries. If they thought that they wouldn't be committed there to such an extent for any length of time then it leaves US strategic planning with a lot to be desired.

So much for that idea.

Another strategic 'consideration': I keep hearing a lot from a variety of people that occupying Iraq robs AQ of a possible 'base' and 'alliance' there. Given the background you already have on geopolitical situation there, I really don't think I need to tell you why this is just plain nonsensical. Anyway they are there AQ now as an AFTERMATH, so as strategies go, this one blows.

I know I know, but I had to get that one out of the way.

Now a common one and an anti-american favorite: This was all for Iraqi oil. Again for the sake of argument, let's say this is the case. I'm not an accountant, but it seems to me as if the expenditure and costs of military operations and maintaining a presence there are way too large to justify this, and every time the situation starts to increase in tension there OPEC and consequently others raise the price of oil and form reservations as to Iraqi oil, that is when export of oil is possible. Again my experience in this field is marginal at best, but as far as common sense goes this isn't right. It isn't like the US has run out of sources for oil. If it is the strategic reason then the world is in trouble.

Ok, let's then look at a more global strategic point of view,one favored by many of whom a friend of mine here referred to as 'computer warriors'(I secretly think he includes me he he ), that this will provide the US with a base to enable a better deployment for US forces to help perserve the peace in the region and aid her allies. WHAT???
Aside from the fact that US presence there has aggravated the relationship between the governments of its arab allies and the populace (Saudi Arabia and Egypt to name a few) and caused an influx of increased activities from radical groups like AQ in the area and like-minded political movements, what could Iraq provide exactly that they are lacking? If we look at a map, the US navy pretty much controls the persian gulf and the eastern mediterraenean off the peninsula making the need for Iraq as far as range radius is concerned pretty redundant, an almost landlocked sandbox, with airbases for strategic air operations already available in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and all over other gulf countries and in Turkey, why in hell would they launch this crackpate full-scale invasion just to get land for 'strategic reasons'? Please. Not unless you they want to do something that the countries hosting the bases won't let them do on their soil, a thought which makes me cringe.

So basically that's it. I can't see how the situation in Iraq is of any use in terms of military strategy either. seeing that alleged humane reasons tanked as well as far as I can see, I hope you'll pardon me for saying that the situation is there is an irresponsibly conducted mess and that current white house executives are full of....well, you know

Ray

Nabi.

Let's start look at some very general articles on US defence strategy:

Project for New American Century

1992 US Draft Defence Policy Guidance

Pentagon drop goal of blocking new superpowers

US and the Triumph of Unilateralism

Some links on DPG

Keypoints of the DPG

Many links to DPG and Articles

Bush Planned for Iraq from 1992

DPG

Now, if you can go through with the above, you will realise that there are good reasons why the US is doing what the US is doing.

Strategy is totally a clinical stuff and is beyond emotions and morals.

It is a statement of SURVIVAL of a NATION and its IDEAS.

Ray

Nabi,

Let us look at the Keypoints of the DPG

In another document that I have (which I somehow cannot fish out) it states that US has to have bases near areas of potential conflicts or where it has strategic resources so that it cuts down the cost of mobilisation as also the reaction is fast.

Now take the above.

Iraq fits in like a T!

How can anyone fault the logic of the approach to what is the US interests. It is a different matter that somewhere down the line, it has got messed up.

No, the US is not in Iraq merely for Oil, even though Iraq has the second largest oilfields in the world and more importantly, it is a low sulphur oil, wherein the refining costs become much lower than the normal! A plus point, if you will. You must read Cheney's National Resource Policy Paper along with the DPG. It all sort of falls in place.

It is essential for the US to be physically present in the Middle East. The ideal area is Iraq since it is in the centre of the whole area, so to say. Iraq is bordered by most Middle East countries and so to 'intervene' in case it is unavoidable, launching from Iraq would not require movement through other countries. Politically, nothing could be more ideal!

The US could not find a better excuse to establish itself in the Middle East than taking on Saddam, whose shenanigans are legend and who was not popular with the Moslem world since he snubbed them all, Shias and Sunnis alike. He also attempted to do something which was immensely detrimental to the US hegemony over oil - change the currency to Euro for oil transaction (as Iran has done). This was a serious matter for US economy!

The US industries were seriously being affected by the manipulation of the OPEC countries in controlling production as also the price. Therefore, the stranglehold of the OPEC had to be contested and broken. Iraq, with the second largest oilfields in the world, was ideal to have to ensure that the OPEC stranglehold is broken.

You maybe aware that the US Oil Consortium has plans to build pipeline from the Central Asian Republic oilfields to Europe skirting Russia. By positioning US troops in Iraq and more so, in northern Iraq or Kurdistan, it would be ideal to put a military presence in the vicinity. By influencing the CAR it would also keep the pressure on Russia from the South.

The so called Rainbow Revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and the failed ones in CAR are but in pursuance of the DPG. Lebanon, too, is a part of the proceedings.

Therefore, the US actions are no flashes in the pan.

They are well thought out and brilliant from the strategic point of view.

It is also in US interest to have the world following the US pattern so that it becomes easy for the US to deal with other nations.

As far as the Mess that has been created as a consequence, that is another story!

Ray

Another interesting aspect that is often bandied around about Iraq is that Saddam was connected with ObL and AQ.

One wonders if Saddam endeared himself to the AQ or his Moslem Arab brothers in the Middle East.

In fact, Saddam committed blasphemy - he abolished the Sharia! No good and pious Moslem will ever dare declare the law given by Allah as invalid!

“Saddam .. created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims.”
...am hussein: Web Search Results from Answers.com

Second, Saddam was a dictator of an authoritarian regime. He was not a Cleric of a theocracy. If you recall Saddam’s secular regime went to war against Iran’s sharia dominated theocracy. For Saddam Hussein to promote Sharia, one would have to accept the argument that he would be willing to be subservient to the rule of clerics, which authoritarians, by the very definition of the word, can not be.

Third, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein weren’t friends by any definition of that word. Prior to the war in which Iraq invaded Kuwait, Osama, who was Saudi, was concerned that Saddam would invade Saudi Arabia and was actively addressing this in Saudi Arabia. Osama even “sent several letters to King Faisal instructing him how to protect the kingdom and offered to help fight the invaders” against Hussein.
Site Map of The Crime Library

But then as I said in Strategy and Politics, there is no morality. Goebbels proved the point!

JAD_333

Here is a bare bones, dispassionate look at US strategy; the piece is from March 2003, but is current as that is when the strategy took flight.

more...

PINR - U.S. Government Objectives in Iraq

nabilfannoush

Nothing new here. Like I said, I've nothing to add til something new happens. sorry

Ray

Even on the Saddam - Abu Nidal connection, there is this interesting news from JANES:

The waters that has been bandied so far gets murkier.

A Yiddish proverb goes like this - “A half-truth is a whole lie”

It is easier to believe a lie that one has heard a thousand times than to believe a fact that no one has heard before.

One has stopped believing in anything that is connected with the Iraq War. A sad and unfortunate commentary since the cobweb of half truths leaves much to be desired!

The pillar of Faith has crumbled.

A single lie destroys a whole reputation for integrity. A whole array of half truths, crumbles the edifice of faith!

nabilfannoush

Yeah, haven't they? It's amazing. You know for once I'd like when somebody makes statements like that, they'd let out whatever facts they have to base on them so us regular guys can decide for ourselves. At the office when that statement came out, we can't find anything that upholds or definitely negates it. It COULD have happened, but it can't be positively substantiated and frankly there isn't any relevance to what's going on there anyway, other than just prove that hussien's regime gets nervous about runaway radical movements that are of extreme islamic persuasion whatever their stated goals, if indeed this assassination happened in the first place.

Thanks for the shortcuts you gave me earlier by the way Ray...I didn't get back on the forum yesterday because it was my birthday and had the whole day planned for me . Yes I am familiar with the texts. We have an extensive archive of documents and releases of this sort, and some embassies give them to us as well. One of my colleagues made us laugh a while back by showing us how they are all alike by compiling them together and come up with a template of a form one can fill out to 'establish the strategic goals to acheive in order to protect long term interests'. In the documentation you sent, all one has to do is replace 'us', with 'republic of Iraq', modify a few geographic and political refrences, change the letterhead and add a few Baathist slogans and it would look like something Saddam Insane cooked up. In fact he did, which is why he invaded Iran using some rushed slap-stick excuse, and after a failed 8-year bog of blood and mayhem, went after a conveniently weaker neighbor-kuwait- and earned himself an even more spectacular failure when virtually the whole world turned on him.
Such studies make for interesting reading, but quite a few of them fail because- largely due to political reasons- whoever wrote the silly thing simply ignores or is ignorant of the considerations of geopolitical situations and how targets would react to implementing these 'strategies'. You have examples of this throughout the last century, and some spectacular ones in THIS one, without getting into long details or repeating myself; I attended an interesting PhD dissertation on this. The irony is that if only the people drawing up such plans DO consider these matters, they can attain the desired goals with fair chances of success without substantial loss or even firing a single shot. In modern american history, no one understood this like Dwight Eisenhower; and today no one manipulates it successfully like China.

By the way, did you catch the news about the 'mysterious beast' spreading panic in Basra? It's a friggin Honey Badger. What's wrong with everybody?

JAD_333

Happy Birthday, Nabil.

S-2

"...the 'mysterious beast' spreading panic in Basra? It's a friggin Honey Badger!"

As a graduate of the Univ. of Wisconsin, I'm proud to say that Badgers are notorious for their ferocious demeanor.

Ask any respectable wolverine or gopher, please. They'll affirm and attest, particularly on Saturday afternoons in the fall. That a badger may enjoy an occasional shia meal is only natural, under the circumstances.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

nabilfannoush

Thanks Big J. Make sure you let me know when your B-day is so I can return the favor, assuming you can get away long enough at the time to read my congratulations: I'm told that birthday parties in the American Navy are wild to the extreme

nabilfannoush

Sure, no joke! You have every right to be proud, and also the Honey Badger is the official Badass of the respectable warrior caste of the Badger species. It's just I was friggin shocked so few people recognized it there. There aren't many in Iraq, but they exist in the middle east. There was actually a hack 'scientist' on one of the channels talking about 'Hybrids' and the 'effect of pollution and radiation in developing new species'. I just laughed