No 2nd Gulf War in Iraq as yet... SO

[midnight Target]

I have no problem with saber rattling. I would say that the foreign policy folks in DC did a great job if the desired outcome is achieved through threats.

[BobF]

I see one problem with a peacefull solution to this conflict that dosn't involve Husseins removal as leader of Iraq and that is the continuation of status quo.

I've seen UN numbers claiming from 200000 dead Iraqian children since the start of the UN sanctions (and as a direct result of those) to 200000 dead Iraqians a year as casualties from the sanctions.

The current "peace" is slowly killing most of Iraqs population. I don't see these sanctions suddenly comming to an end if even weapon inspections and disarnament leads to an avoidance of war. Iraq qould still be lead by a man who would definitively not suddenly be deemed trustworthy by US, UK or most other western nations.

As I see it the realistic alternative to a war is the continuation of status quo with thousands and thousands of Iraqian people dying from lack of medication or pure starvation. I have a hard time seeing this as any positive outcome.

However there are a lot of more pragmatic reasons that a solution without a war would be a good thing since there is a lot of great riscs related to the war. The whole stability of the region, the general agression a war might unleash and the dangers of a new world order where "preemptive war" is a legitimate thing. There are other contries than USA who might allso want to conduct some preemptive wars against "terrorism" if that suddenly becomes an acceptable practise.

What I'm trying to say is that how good the outcome of the whole Iraq crisis will be is not simply determined by wether or not there will be a war. The situation is far more complex.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Naso

But the price of the war will not be payed by him, but by the
Is this idea that disturb me, the price that innocent people would pay.

 

Every war, Naso, every war.

Alittle off topic but...: Anyone catch the video clips of the celebrations in the streets of Bagdad upon news of the Space Shuttle disaster?

[StSanta]

I would say 'good thing the US got an administration that has the balls to risk much politically to enforce UN resolutions'.

I KNOW that the only reason Saddam is semi-complying is because of the US forces in the region.

The world, and particularly Europe, failed miserably to police those resolutions after the war. Good thing the US will.

Saw a documentary on Hussein. It it h was receiving yet another gold sword and he said 'I know many wonder why Iraqis aren't getting medicine and food. First of all it is the UN's fault. Second, they ask why I build palaces instead of buying food for the population. Well. Mere animals think about eating and getting their pyshical body satisfied. We Iraqis are more than animals. One is not more than an animal if one craves food more than artistic expression'.

LOL. He lets thousands of people starve because of 'artistic expression'. 'Satisfying the physical body' - what is he doing with his hedonistic place-building and expensive food?

Idiot. Should be shot, then hanged. After being anally violated by a pig. Then he'd know why pig meat is considered dirty amongst Arabs.

Was much impressed by him in the interview with the British boot licker. Hah, the Brit was sitting at the edge of his chair talking to Hussein like he was a royalty of a new Messiah. Like a dog looking at his master.

Hussein did come across as very intelligent, thoughtful and relaxed though. Made a very good impression, despite his lies. Much different than the constantly blinking man on the verge of nervous collapse we saw after the 1991 war.

He'll get what is coming to him eventually, if there's any justice in the world. Should be tried at an international court. Wait, the Americans oppose that one.

[Charon]

Toad, if the scenario you describe occurs then I think it would be great. Hat's off to Bush, the master poker player. We can even start concentrating on the war against terrorism once again. However, it's hard to have confidence in any official motivation though beyond the fact that we want a regime change favorable to the West.

Hussein has literally been called a "Hitler," it's been pointed out that he's a war criminal deserving his fate, yet if he wants to leave the country we'll help him pack his bags and give him a first class ticket to exile - no Nuremberg here. If he decides to completely disarm his WMD programs, but stay in power, well... that will be interesting.

As an aside, what I find interesting, but easily coincidental, is the impact Iraqi crude will have when we're facing a major sulfur reduction in onroad (and potentially off road diesel as well) in the 2006 - 2010 time frame. By major, we're talking 80% or so, which is a significant investment/profitability issue for refiners. This was one of the excessive holdovers from the Browner administration at the EPA, but one which is supported in congress and by the current administration for political reasons.

This will not be easy to meet, and may result in serious under supply in various regions as small refiners decide not to invest the capital to produce what is a secondary product. For those that do, it represents a significant loss of efficiency for refiners that produce the product by running multiple desulfurization passes, or significant investments for new cracking towers. The result is potentially (likely?) significantly higher diesel prices for several years (and, of course, higher prices for everything that moves via diesel). Not very welcome in an already recessionary climate.

Refiners that produce the new diesel will benefit greatly by having low-sulfur crude supplies (but they will still face some problems). Guess what type of crude we find in Iraq Not something to go to war over on its own, IMO, but certainly another benefit behind a regime change that is not really public knowledge. BTW, if you depend on diesel or the trucking infrastructure for your business you better start taking this seriously. There is a lot of serious concern in the impacted industries over what will happen in 2006.

Charon

[Naso]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Every war, Naso, every war.

Alittle off topic but...: Anyone catch the video clips of the celebrations in the streets of Bagdad upon news of the Space Shuttle disaster?

I call the referee on the hilighted part of Rip's post

You are playing dirty.

[Naso]

Originally posted by Toad
Naso, you miss the point of my question.

It's not about "war" per se.. it's about NO war.

What if all this build up to war achieves the goals of the UN without an invasion of Iraq?

What will the anti-war crowd that's been lambasting Bush say then?

What will the "must be a regime change" folks say then?

What if we achieve inspection/disarmament by doing what Bush is doing WITHOUT the war?

Will anyone praise him?

Will anyone still condemn him?

We're all looking for a "peaceful" solution. What if this serious preparation for war provides it?

I see the point now.

I will applaud the result.

But will mantain the doubt about the intentions.

I dont condemn or praise Bush, in my book it's almost a puppet.

A powerfull puppet indeed.

[Dowding]

I seem to remember Bush wasn't going to go the UN route and was going to invade unilaterally ASAP.

But, if this UN route has worked with no shots fired, including the sabre rattling, then I'll take my hat off to Bush for having the ability and wisdom to stand up for UN resolutions and Blair for presuading him to hold fire and use the UN.

[Toad]

Realistically, it was a US route that slowly gathered a few supporters. The UN, particularly the Security Council can hardly be said to have been "on board" until the US began to make preparations.

Clearly, it was the US preparations that moved the Security Council to act on re-instating the Inspectors.

Is there ANYONE left who believes that Blix and his crew would be in Iraq at all without the US.... led by Bush... putting the pressure on to start with?

[Dowding]

Disarmament via UN weapons inspectors was definitely NOT Bush's original ploy.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by midnight Target
I have no problem with saber rattling. I would say that the foreign policy folks in DC did a great job if the desired outcome is achieved through threats.

And if it fails I place the blame on the dissenters.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by AKIron
And if it fails I place the blame on the dissenters.

Ahhhh, The "Conservative personal responsibility" angle??? >

[AKIron]

Well, ya know it's been said that Iraq invaded Kuwait because of mixed signals from the US. He's certainly getting mixed signals now.

 for Animal

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Toad
Dead,

If you want to debate the legality of the Security Council resolutions vis-a-vis the "no fly" zones, please do so in another thread.

The "no fly zones" have been in effect since the end of the Gulf War. One would think if the Security Council had a "problem" with them, there'd have been a clarifying resolution or at least an attempt to do so, no?

I'll be happy to continue to discuss it in a thread you start. You can clip this, post it and we'll begin anew in there, ok?

Thanks.

No need to get all freaked - not attempting to discuss no-fly zone legality or highjack the thread - I was merely pointing out that your contention (in the first post and in the title of the thread) that not a shot has been fired in Iraq is completely incorrect: There is an on-going US/UK bombing campaign, whatever the reasons or justifications are for it.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Dowding
Disarmament via UN weapons inspectors was definitely NOT Bush's original ploy.

I think Bush's point was the UN Inspectors had be summarily thrown out on their collective rear ends and NOTHING was done.

Not by the UN, not by the UN Security Council, not by any other nation.... not by anyone or any nation.

.....and NOTHING was the status quo until he made preparations to change that situation.