The Gulf et al - an exercise in venture capital theory...

[Dowding]

Maybe this is the right forum?  

<cynic mode on>

It has been plausibly argued that the maintenance of sanctions, by reducing the majority of Iraqis to destitution, helps Saddam keep his grip on power. So why are the US and Britain refusing to lift sanctions by nit-picking about Saddam's compliance with their conditions and even adding new ones? Here are a couple of clues.

(1) The Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti governments are making vast profits from oil in a market from which Iraq has been excluded, and are applying pressure on the US and Britain to keep things that way. (Saudi Arabian oil profits have doubled since the war to $50bn a year.)

(2) The US and British governments have arranged deals with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait which will result in vast profits for construction companies, oil companies, and arms manufacturers in the US and Britain.

These 'easy win' wars are fanatastic for the economy. Here's a sure way to turn a profit:

1) Pick a hotspot

2) Make sure the target is not particularly well armed or numerous (preferably both)

3) Feign humanitarian concern to generate an air of moral superiority

4) Focus on the plight of an oppressed minority (they are easy to find and the stories make great copy)

5) Get your media whipped into a frenzy; you know things are about cooked when the region is never off the airwaves/frontpages for about 2 weeks

6) Try to get UN approval (not completely necessary, but it is nice to have)

7) Bomb the toejam out of their infrastructure; picking the targets is easy, since the really pricey ones also make sound military objectives (oil refining, heavy industry and power generation)

8) Minimise allied casualties; this is a big pitfall, so be very careful with your deployments; only deploy ground forces when you know there will be little resistance. Use as much air power as possible, however ineffective.

9) After the hostilities have ended, get your construction companies in there as quick as you can! Time is quite definetly money!

10) Persuade the neighbouring countries that the threat has not completely dissipated, and that the only thing that will stop a reoccurance is if they buy your new line in guns/helicopters/planes/ships.

11) Sell! Sell! Sell!

Forget the IT industry, invest in the reconstruction/rearmament industries as soon as you feel that something is 'cooking'. You simply cannot lose.

<cynical mode off>

[mietla]

and your point is...?

[miko2d]

 It is in our (US & Brits) interests to preserve Saddam Hussein as a ruler of Iraq in order to keep stability in the middle east.
 Saddam Hussein heads a secular government and is based on a minority (%20 Shi'ite?). The majority of the population have the same faith that Iranian population and quite a few of them are fundamentalists. If Saddam regime topples, it is very likely that Iraq will turn from a balance to Iran into a satellite of a fundamental Iran. Combine population resourses and fundamental ideology of one with technological level of the other and you have a much hotter situation.
  It is much better to deal with secular, smart and realistic leader like Saddam Hussein then Iranian mullahs.

 Also Iraqi Kurds will use the opportunity to form their own state along with those living in Turkey (our faithfull NATO ally and friend - the only muslim one at that), Iran and part of the former Soviet Union. That will probably start another war/terror campaign worse then 50 year israeli conflict and destabilise the region even further.

 At the same time we do not want Hussein too powerfull to be really dangerous. So by bombing him we reduce risk to ourselves and help his regime. He has many enemies among arabs/muslims who also hate us. While he is seen to be fighting us, they cannot move against him because their population will not support them.
 Of course Hussein knows it all and is very carefull to keep tensions high but not to go too far.


 As for Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti governments are making vast profits from oil, we are their main buyer. If we wanted to insure their profits (whatever for?) we could just pay them more. The oil production is artificially limited by OPEC countries. They could have easily have increased production if they wanted. Just 2 years ago oil was less then $10 per barrel and Saudies were losing money by the trillion. By that time we were "nit-picking about Saddam's compliance" for eight years, so your statement is not supported by historical data.
 What pressure could Saudis and Kwaitis exert on us to cause oil prices rise? Not allow us to protect them? Threaten to sell us cheaper oil? Threaten to raise Oil prices by themselves? Why pressure us then?

 Also, US media has definitely not been "whipped into a frenzy over Iraq" for the last few months.

miko

[LJK Raubvogel]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:

These 'easy win' wars are fanatastic for the economy. Here's a sure way to turn a profit:

1) Pick a hotspot

2) Make sure the target is not particularly well armed or numerous (preferably both)

3) Feign humanitarian concern to generate an air of moral superiority

>

While your whole post was a load of crap, as a veteran of your 'easy war' I found this part most troubling.

1) We didn't pick the hotspot.

2) Not well-armed or numerous? Iraq had the 4th largest standing army in the world, and even at the peak of the coalition deployment, his forces still outnumbered ours. Oh yeah, they had a couple of tanks too.

3)I guess all the dead Kuwaitis hanging from street lights was just a clever ploy? And the letter I got from the Department of Defense a few weeks ago confirming I was exposed to chemical agents was just a party gag?

I don't think anything pisses me off more than people trivializing a war. There's really nothing humourous about it.

[Kieren]

Yup, I have a brother who is Special Forces, camped 50 mile outside Bagdhad in the last war. It isn't a joke to me, either.  

[mietla]

we would not have this problem if only all the nations accepted socialism.

No borders, no nations, no classes, no rich, no poor and need for oil.

Right Dowding?

[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 02-16-2001).]

[Tac]

Dowding, that is EXACTLY what is happenening. No nation EVER has done or will do anything because of moral grounds. Not even Canada (sorry canucks!).

Anyone that believes that the UN intervened in the middle east because of moral reasons must take a look at somalia and the yugoslavian conflicts... I dont see the same "humanitarian" efforts.

Rotten politics and self interests. The foundations of civilization  

[LJK Raubvogel]

 

Originally posted by Tac:

Anyone that believes that the UN intervened in the middle east because of moral reasons must take a look at somalia and the yugoslavian conflicts... I dont see the same "humanitarian" efforts.

Rotten politics and self interests. The foundations of civilization  

We didn't try to help Somalia with its humanitarian problems? What? Tell that to the families of the 18 U.S. servicemen who lost their lives on a hot Mogadishu street one October day.  You people have a lot of nerve.

[StSanta]

Hm, well, compared to what we Europeans) have done in the past, we've definitely mellowed out a lot.

We've colonized and opressed in the name of profit. We started a war with China so we could sell opium to its population and turn them into addicts.

We've definitely gotten more politically correct.

Still, it is a fine line to see when something is acting in justified self interest, and when something is done for a profit.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up space"

[blur]

Dowding your post was spot on!

The media is extremely important in this type of operation. The major news services in the US are already little more than "corporate disinformation delivery devices" which makes it that much easier to pull off.

Americans rant, rave and salivate when images of Saddam are flashed on the Nightly News. They then calm down and make cooing noises when the image changes to Homer Simpson.  

[TheWobble]

 

Maybe this is the right forum?
<cynic mode on>

It has been plausibly argued that the maintenance of sanctions, by reducing the majority of Iraqis to destitution, helps Saddam keep his grip on power. So why are the US and Britain refusing to lift sanctions by nit-picking about Saddam's compliance with their conditions and even adding new ones? Here are a couple of clues.

(1) The Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti governments are making vast profits from oil in a market from which Iraq has been excluded, and are applying pressure on the US and Britain to keep things that way. (Saudi Arabian oil profits have doubled since the war to $50bn a year.)

(2) The US and British governments have arranged deals with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait which will result in vast profits for construction companies, oil companies, and arms manufacturers in the US and Britain.

These 'easy win' wars are fanatastic for the economy. Here's a sure way to turn a profit:

1) Pick a hotspot

2) Make sure the target is not particularly well armed or numerous (preferably both)

3) Feign humanitarian concern to generate an air of moral superiority

4) Focus on the plight of an oppressed minority (they are easy to find and the stories make great copy)

5) Get your media whipped into a frenzy; you know things are about cooked when the region is never off the airwaves/frontpages for about 2 weeks

6) Try to get UN approval (not completely necessary, but it is nice to have)

7) Bomb the toejam out of their infrastructure; picking the targets is easy, since the really pricey ones also make sound military objectives (oil refining, heavy industry and power generation)

8) Minimise allied casualties; this is a big pitfall, so be very careful with your deployments; only deploy ground forces when you know there will be little resistance. Use as much air power as possible, however ineffective.

9) After the hostilities have ended, get your construction companies in there as quick as you can! Time is quite definetly money!

10) Persuade the neighbouring countries that the threat has not completely dissipated, and that the only thing that will stop a reoccurance is if they buy your new line in guns/helicopters/planes/ships.

11) Sell! Sell! Sell!

Forget the IT industry, invest in the reconstruction/rearmament industries as soon as you feel that something is 'cooking'. You simply cannot lose.

<cynical mode off>

Truely pathetic,
you are more dilluded than the people of Iraq who believe that they wont the gulf war.


 

2) Make sure the target is not particularly well armed or numerous (preferably both)

4th largest in the world, most complete idiots like yourself however, which became apparent as the ground war began.




[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-17-2001).]

[Toad]

Not to argue the right or wrong of the no-fly zones but:

Dowding you ARE aware that both the British and US forces flying and enforcing the no-fly zones get shot at quite routinely, correct? This has been going on for the entire time since the zones were established. It's certainly a weekly and sometimes much more frequent event.

You don't expect an occasional "slap upside the head" when these incidents increase to an intolerable level?

[Tac]

"We didn't try to help Somalia with its humanitarian problems? What? Tell that to the families of the 18 U.S. servicemen who lost their lives on a hot Mogadishu street one October day.  You people have a lot of nerve"

Raub, my point was that if Somalia had huge oil reserves, or anything of material interest to the US (and UN) you would have seen a *serious* effort. The troops sent to somalia were nothing but tokens. You think that if Kuwait produced Papayas instead of oil, would the response has been the same? It aint nerve, its the sad truth.

[Dowding]

Toad:

Firstly, let me say that I have no problem with the no-fly zones, or this latest wave of raids. It is as clear as day that Saddam was upping the ante in the area, and if OUR pilots are in danger, then they must respond.

In theory the no-fly zones are a great idea, but have several crucial flaws:

1) They are not UN sanctioned

- a problem, but I would doubt China or Russia to agree to this kind of action anyway, regardless of the circumstances

2) The Turks routinely attack the Kurds in the north with warplanes.

- and for a bonus point, the action taken against the Turks is?

Sweet FA. We welcome them with open arms into NATO

Hypocrisy with a touch of political expediency; it looks good for us Westerners to have such a faithful, and above all, Islamic ally.

If you want to enforce the no-fly zones for humanitarian reasons, then do the same with Turkey.

       

I guess all the dead Kuwaitis hanging from street lights was just a clever ploy?

lol! As if we were defending a democratic state!!!! You do know that Kuwait has a downright horrific human rights record don't you? They routinely torture their own people for god's sake, but because we don't see the pictures on CNN, everything is a-ok.

 

And the letter I got from the Department of Defense a few weeks ago confirming I was exposed to chemical agents was just a party gag?

That's very sad. It was the Germans who planted the seeds of the Iraqi chemical weapons industry. You know, back when we were all good friends - the US, UK and Iraq all united against the common enemy of communist backed Islamic fundamentalism. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be hilarious.

 

I don't think anything pisses me off more than people trivializing a war. There's really nothing humourous about it.

Cold irony was basis of my post, not humour. I find the situation abominable. We send our armed forces to their deaths, supporting questionable (not to mention near impossible) objectives.

Meanwhile the innocents in all this, the very people we are trying to help, suffer even more. Take this quote from MAIC (Medical Aid for Iraqi Children):

"The continuation of sanction imposed on Iraq since 1991 has had a staggering effect on the health of children. International health and aid organisations, as well as UN agencies' figures estimate that around 6000 children are dying every month. A total of 570,000 have died from malnutrition and disease between 1990 and 1996. Since then this figure is estimated to have reached over 1 million. Since then, this figure is estimated to have reached 1.5 million."

Are our pilots risking their lives to apparently protect a small minority (which in the north is being bombed to buggery every week), while the majority suffer even more?

Am I the only one that thinks this is completely wrong? This disastrous medical aid embargo gives Saddam all the ammo he needs to brainwash his people into believing the outside world is completely against the Iraqi people. He steals the money from oil sales and then blames shortages on the embargoes and the outside world generally.

In twenty years time we will start to see the results of the isolationism we have inadvertedly fostered. Iraqi children, brought up to hate the West will be all too willing to sacrifice themselves for 'the good of Iraq' in the face of the 'infidel'. And the people of Lockerbie and Pan Am Flight 103 know what that means all too well.

TheWaffle - you'll have to do better than that. Come up with an argument next time, and while we are at it, comparing me to an Iraqi soldier isn't very smart. I'm also very surprised you haven't thrown a wobbly yet (it's been a couple of days since the last one).


[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 02-17-2001).]

[LJK Raubvogel]

 

Originally posted by Tac:
[B
Raub, my point was that if Somalia had huge oil reserves, or anything of material interest to the US (and UN) you would have seen a *serious* effort. The troops sent to somalia were nothing but tokens. You think that if Kuwait produced Papayas instead of oil, would the response has been the same? It aint nerve, its the sad truth.

[/B]

A serious effort? The troops were a token? You surely must be kidding. We sent most of a light infantry division, and a Ranger battalion. That's hardly a token. Some of those men lost their lives, but I guess it was only a token to people like you. You have obviously never lost a good friend or family member in one of these "token efforts". It's people like you who convince me that we should not deploy troops to any of these toejamholes.