Guest #126 January 27, 2003 Things to come: Harju's predictions, from the James F. Dunnigan school of strategic analysis (Remember, you read it here first). There are only two possible outcomes at this point, as the campaign season in SWA is now open. The first is that the saber-rattling continues, but nothing changes on the ground in Iraq. This will result in an utter loss of credibility for Bush and his administration. This will clear the way for another Democrat in the White House (can ya say "Saint Hillary"?), as Bush squanders the political capital he gained in the wake of 9/11. The other is that faced with the prospect of humilitation / loss of face due to Hussein's defiance, Bush initiates the war. Look for US losses to be light in the open battle itself, but get ugly when it gets into the major towns and cities. The Republican Guard are no slouches, and it's their home turf. Defenders always have the advantage in such situations. Assuming that urban warfare takes place, and succeeds after significant losses, look for Swiss-style defiance from the populace. Yes, they'll wave American flags and welcome us as "liberators", but that's the ocean. It will be full of guerrilla fish. Attempts to install a parliamentary democracy using the Iraqi exiles will have initial success, but will immediately come under attack from within the country, and from outside. Also look for Ragheads to show up in order to "Die for Allah"; despite the fact that they hate Hussein too, the old "enemy of my enemy" will play a crucial role. Finally, look for opportunistic news media to show graphic photos / videos of civilian suffering, and video of dead Americans being dragged through the streets ala Mogadishu. I don't think the Iraqis would be so disrespectful of the dead, but the media will take advantage of every opportunity to demoralize the American public, and will stage such events as a way of counter-propagandizing. Such efforts were largely stymied by the military in GWI, and subsequent graphic photo collections of dismembered Iraqi soldiers from 1991 ("Mile O' Death, etc.) were largely ignored. Look for really in-your-face, full-color graphics as the media dons take the gloves off in an effort to rub America's nose in it."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #127 January 27, 2003 QuoteIn reality, we killed a bunch of them, installed a Unocal oil consultant as leader, and changed very little about how they lived. We _should_ have gotten Bin Laden and gotten out of the country as quickly as possible, since that was our stated objective. Our stated objective was to incapacitate Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and remove the Taliban regime. At no time did anyone say we were going to do the ol' in-out. Our stated objective after that action was to ensure political stability, rebuild the foundation for their economy. Since then, while we're not 100% perfect, we have improved conditions there and I believe we will be successful in attaining our objectives. Finally, I can't find the thread it was in (we've discussed this a lot), the BBC article you once linked states clearly that Unocal is not involved in the consortium building a pipeline in Afghanistan. Nor can I find any correlation between Karzai and Unocal (using the same vast BBCi data). Bill, some of the information you cite, may be correct, but the manner which you state it could be done more plainly, leaving less to be read between the lines. Just my opinion of course.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,031 #128 January 27, 2003 >At no time did anyone say we were going to do the ol' in-out. Ari Fleischer: This is deeply troubling. Funding for our troops in the field is running out. Our men and women who are fighting for democracy and freedom in Afghanistan today are running out of funds. (July 10 2002) Bush: "We went into Afghanistan to free people, because we believe in freedom. We're helping people recover from living under years of tyranny and oppression. We're helping Afghanistan claim its democratic future." (Oct 11 2002) So at least our leader says we went in to free the people and restore the blessings of liberty and freedom to the oppressed people of Afghanistan. I agree that you can't really believe everything you hear, but it's still what we _claimed_ we were doing, at least in part. >the BBC article you once linked states clearly that Unocal is not >involved in the consortium building a pipeline in Afghanistan. I did not claim it was; Unocal pulled out of that project a while back. Karzai, the interim leader of Afghanistan, was once a paid consultant for Unocal, as was the US envoy to Afghanistan, Khalilzad. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4354289,00.html >Bill, some of the information you cite, may be correct, but the > manner which you state it could be done more plainly, Sorry, in the future I will add more references so people can check for themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #129 January 27, 2003 QuoteOur stated objective was to incapacitate Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and remove the Taliban regime. At no time did anyone say we were going to do the ol' in-out. Our stated objective after that action was to ensure political stability, rebuild the foundation for their economy. Actually, I recall that our objective was to destroy AlQueda in Afghanistan, remove the Taliban regime, and then get out. The quote I recall is "we do not plan to get into the business of nation building". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #130 January 27, 2003 QuoteActually, I recall that our objective was to destroy AlQueda in Afghanistan, remove the Taliban regime, and then get out. this was my understanding as well, and i had no problem with it. how in the f**k did we get on the "kill Iraq" thing? i'm tiring of this administration's mindset he can "take on the world" folks, we're in financial trouble right here in the US of A right now, how much of this B.S. can we stand? i'd rather invest in our economic growth. the govenor of texas ordered the state educational director of texas to cut his budget by over 41 million dollars just last thursday, (this money was being utilized to install a lot of computer labs in our schools) i thought the lottery was created to fund the educational system, and rebuild roads, where is this "surplus" really going? *scratching head*--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #131 January 27, 2003 QuoteActually, I recall that our objective was to destroy AlQueda in Afghanistan, remove the Taliban regime, and then get out. The quote I recall is "we do not plan to get into the business of nation building". I recall the same quote, now remember when it was...during the Presidential debates. The position shifted, and there were plenty of public addresses stating that "we would not leave Afghanistan behind" the way we had in the past. I feel cautious about it also, overall I support it, if - and I stress "if" - we follow through completely (i.e. not leave anyone behind like we did the Kurds in 91, Mujahideen in 89, et al.).So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #132 January 27, 2003 Hey...I don't have a problem with trying to help Afghanistan have a stable, democratic government, as long as that is what is wanted by the people. I'm just trying to point out that stated objectives are usually stated to win popular support and usually aren't the actual goals that the administration has in mind. And I'm not just saying that about Bush, that seems to be one of the essential similarities of all political parties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #133 January 27, 2003 Quote And I'm not just saying that about Bush, that seems to be one of the essential similarities of all political parties. And that is the art of politics: When you're not kissing babies, you're stealing their lolly-pops. It means you must be crafty, resourceful, ambitious and caring, but be ready to be a thief and a liar. It also means that you keep your options open. The shift in Bush's policy from pre-election to current events was shaped by couple things (including 9/11). Partly because he's realizing that his former position was not as workable, and because his own moral imperatives were likely in conflict with such notions. We've struggled with this before, and we're not the only one. France is not far away from a committed engagement with rebels in Ivory Coast (a former colony), in circumstances which are, IMO, shadowy reflections of southeast Asia in the 50s and 60s (in terms of the power plays at hand).So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #134 January 27, 2003 How is this a shift from pre-election? Bush was elected in 2000 and took office in Jan. 2001. As far as I can tell, Sep. 11, 2001 comes after Jan. 2001. Attacking Afghanistan was not an issue for the presidential debates and I don't recall any stated policies or intentions by anyone regarding the Taliban, other than some people being pissed that they blew up a bunch of Buddhas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #135 January 27, 2003 During the debates with Al Gore, President Bush provided strong arguments against nationbuilding in general (which were issues brought forth referencing Somalia, Haiti, etc.). That was part of his platform in how he hoped to operate as Commander-in-Chief. Naturally, Afghanistan was not part of the debate at that time. Iraq was, in reference to the Kurds. As I heard one commentator lay it out - in reference to Bush's initial policy vs. today - "He was wrong then, realized it and integrated it swiftly into his current policies."So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fedykin 0 #136 February 4, 2003 im afraid assasinating him is not as simple as it seems. he has half a dozen people surgically altered to look like him, and randomlly apears in public. if it was about oil, it would be alot simpler to open up Iraq to the markets again, the US companies could much easier get acess to it than a very costly conflict. it has been said that you can always count on America to do the right thing, when all other options have been expended. and this is a good example of this. he needs to go, and his regime as well, a democratic republic would be a great example and a catalist for the middle east. Unfortunatelly some European leaders have made some very short sighted decisions ie.. Schroder sold the whole world to get re-elected, Chirac is again snubbing the US because of its 4million or so Muslims and comfy relationship with Iraq. These are two nations that have a blood debt to the Western world that I personally feel they are ignoring. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,031 #137 February 4, 2003 >if it was about oil, it would be alot simpler to open up Iraq to the > markets again, the US companies could much easier get acess to it > than a very costly conflict. True, but if they became a dominant exporter of oil (and they have the reserves to do that) then they would have a lever with which to control our economy, and our leaders don't want that. A war will be a costly endeavor, and will drive up the price of oil before it comes back down. (After all, we currently are using Iraqi oil.) However, afterwards we will appoint another oil company consultant as president of Iraq, and a steady future supply of oil will be assured. Oil is certainly not the only reason we're going to war, but we'd have to be fools to think it doesn't play any role at all. >Unfortunatelly some European leaders have made some very short > sighted decisions ie.. Schroder sold the whole world to get re- >elected, Chirac is again snubbing the US because of its 4million or so >Muslims and comfy relationship with Iraq. We do _exactly_ the same thing. What US president hasn't made false campaign promises? Are US presidents above using the courts, rather than electoral vote, to win an election? We constantly snub the UN, which represents the interests of the rest of the world. Those Eurpoean leaders are following in our footsteps; hard to blame them for learning from us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fedykin 0 #138 February 5, 2003 a democratic iraq, operating independantly from OPEC would be a very positive force given the current economic slowdown, the whole price/supply defence agrument that OPEC has used in the past will become more or less irrelevant. And a democratic Iraq would be infinately more benign than Opec or Iraq in its current form. Im more concerned(European Leaders wise) about the very conveniently short memories that France and Germany have in terms of the degree to which they are indebted to the west(US UK and all of the Commonwealth nations). Europe, as far as im concerned is reacting very poorly to the turn of the century. When you've had the worlds attention for the last 500 or so years, and events are now primarily being dealt with by another Power you have two options, one being curl up into a ball in a fit of melancholic envy or you can try to positively affect events. Germany and France do the first option. It's kind of like in Lord of the Rings 2-Return of the King when the hobbits said to the treeants 'You are a part of the world too'. As soon as Europe realizes this, and drops the pretense and anti-american sentiment, the better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #139 February 5, 2003 Quotea democratic iraq, operating independantly from OPEC would be a very positive force given the current economic slowdown And you think that would happen in this universe? Even if we conquered and occupied Iraq, there's no way it could leave opec. Every other country in the region would declare war on them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerry81 10 #140 February 5, 2003 Quote When you've had the worlds attention for the last 500 or so years First of all, the term 'world's attention' can not be used for describing anything that happened more than 50-100 years ago. Before that, getting the attention of the entire world was simply impossible, because mass media which is the only means of getting such attention had not evolved far enough yet. It could be argued, of course, that Europe had been the center of civilization as we know it today for the last 500 years (or perhaps almost 2000, if we go back to the Roman Empire), but I think the conclusion of such arguments would be that we have simply been the best at imposing our views onto others- a practice we have since (hopefully) overgrown. Quote and events are now primarily being dealt with by another Power a Power, mind you, begat by Europe itself. Quote one being curl up into a ball in a fit of melancholic envy or you can try to positively affect events. Perhaps we are trying to positively affect events. We have had more than a fair share (a lot more than your share, if that even needs to be pointed out) of wars, terrorism and other senseless acts of violence over here. Perhaps heeding the advice of your elders from time to time would not be a bad idea Quote It's kind of like in Lord of the Rings 2-Return of the King when the hobbits said to the treeants 'You are a part of the world too'. This goes both ways. USA is neither the (most important) part nor the world which you want us to be part of, even though it behaves as if it was one of these two. We are all parts of the world, no less and no more. I may be anti-american but I have nothing against Americans. Well...let's just leave it at that, shall we? Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #141 February 5, 2003 [alpha] Iraq? It's the Oil, Stupid! At least one word in this post fits."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fedykin 0 #142 February 6, 2003 sorry, but the 'neibhors declaring war on iraq' is totally implausable. what happened to iraq when it invaded kuwait?--- syria and kuwait have both been exceeding thier opec quotas for the last 2 years, no wars declared yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #143 February 6, 2003 Not nearly as implausible as a "democratic, non-opec Iraq" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fedykin 0 #144 February 6, 2003 any individual can claim to be attempting to positivelly affect events but i think that there is a pretty clear difference between willpower and the lack there of. stalling for time(inspectors more time, more time etc..), so called franco-german allainces to attempt to undermine the US, cosy relatioships with Iraq are all not what i would call a reasonable attempt to affect outcomes. what happened to woodreau wilsons leaque of nations, attempts to pacify dictators etc... i think worldwide everyone agrees the world would be a better place without saddam but the difference comes from the means to do so, not the end, as that is agreed, a democratic iraq. The prefered means in europe seems to be total innaction and apathy, the status quo. In the west(i include UK)the course is infinatelly more pro-active, the same course of action which has saved europe more than once. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,031 #145 February 6, 2003 >In the west(i include UK)the course is infinatelly more pro-active, the > same course of action which has saved europe more than once. Let's pray that other countries do not learn from us, although it looks like they might be doing so: "The United States says that after Iraq, we are next," the paper quoted Ri (North Korean government spokesman) as saying, "but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the U.S." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,067 #146 February 12, 2003 Quote[alpha] Iraq? It's the Oil, Stupid! At least one word in this post fits. A history of US meddling in Persian Gulf oil matters, written before the 1991 Gulf War www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites