Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sparks on February 20, 2003, 10:09:13 AM
-
Maybe I'm wierd but I am just SO SICK of this whole Iraq "Will we won't we?? Is it moral" situation.
There are endless discussions on TV, radio, papers this BBS and everywhere you look based purely on what we've see in ..... TV, radio, papers. NONE of us - NONE of us really know whats really going on but rest assured it probably has nothing to do with removing a dictator or freeing an oppressed people or removing a threat to the Western world.
To those of you that take the "immenent threat" postion. Do you really believe that terrorists supported by a rogue nation can be a serious threat to any of our nations existance??? 3000 people died on 9-11 and the US economy barely trembled. Are you saying a major earthquake in CA killing 10's if not 100's of thousands is going to bring the US to it's knees ?? I doubt it the same as London and Coventry being flattenned in WW2 ended the exisistance of the UK. So why would a major terrorist attack ?? - It would merely invoke a massive end it all retaliation to form another chapter in our kids history books.
To the moralists - We were dragged into Yugoslavia kicking and screaming while men were taking out into fields by the thousand and shot. Sudan .... where ??? Zimbabwe ....Huh ??? Chechnya ??? Our history is full of places where we have stood and done nothing while people die. There is NO reason to suggest that todays leaders are suddenly more "morally aware".
So what do we know about world conflicts - what has driven them in the past ?? POWER and WEALTH
How does that align with todays situation ??
Power - a large geographic area in the centre of the Middle East with immediate access to many other nations which have leaderships with views contrary to ours. Control of half of the worlds energy resource for the next 50-100years.
Wealth - The ability to control the price and export of the second largest oil feild in the world. Those people who quote Opec - look how many of the OPEC countries are in the pocket of Western countries.
We have no way of knowing the deals and schemes going on behind closed doors but I'm reasonably sure the UN can be basically considered as the publics comfort blanket - nice to have and cling on to but basically irrelevant.
You want the REAL threats.
Here in the UK we have a slow and as yet unrelenting invasion economic immigrants from the Middle East and Eurasia taking our welfare system to breaking point and imposing cultural changes which are alienating the natural population.
The US - look at all you're buying in the shops and see how much has "made in china" written on them. Look at North Korea and see if you think they wouldn't detonate a nuke in a US city if provoked??
Get real - our "elected governments" will do whatever they want to enhance their personal power and control over prosperity - Iraq is going to happen so why not just STFU and get on with it. The comfort blanket is getting ragged at the edges and dirty - time to ditch it.
Sparks
-
DETH TO AMEERKA OIL MONGERS
-
Patience is required here. Though perhaps not much more. It looks like the attempt to gain multinational support against Saddam's resistance has just about failed. War looks to be inevitable.
-
Didn't take long did it ..............
This isn't anti US - read the damn post.
Even better read a history book about world conficts and get your head out of Fox and CNN.
Since the second world war we've been trying to build ourselves as the moral police of the world because of the great thing we did by stooping the Axis. The outcome of this is the UN so we can feel warm and fuzzy about what we do and how great and good we are. The problem is we have now backed ourselves into a corner where the normal reasons for a war (Power and wealth) have to be some "justified" within the UN while the REAL reasons are sorted out behind locked doors.
Does no-one else see this ????
Sparks
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It looks like the attempt to gain multinational support against Saddam's resistance has just about failed
Akiron this is exactly my point - it has NOTHING to do with multinational support - that is the comfort blanket. It has everything to do with who is going to get what in terms of trade, power, strategic influence etc. afterwards.
In these terms the USA and UK are actually being weak - I would respect our leaders more if they had said "stuff the UN we need control of Iraq and we're going in. Ya'll can join in if you want but you'll get what you're given after if you don't". The waiverers are only doing it until they get their peice of the pie sorted.
Sparks
-
Sparks... the U.S. economy barely trembled? Why, because your welfare checks kept coming? You can be sick of whatever you like.. just stop being so illinformed before you spew.
-
Dunno about the "REAL" reasons being sorted out behind closed doors. Won't you consider the possibility that the renewed interest in Iraq is because of the increase in world terrorism, some of which is now being focused on the United States? And our fear and knowledge that Saddam is eager to help with that effort. Seems pretty up front and straight forward to me.
Originally posted by Sparks
Didn't take long did it ..............
This isn't anti US - read the damn post.
Even better read a history book about world conficts and get your head out of Fox and CNN.
Since the second world war we've been trying to build ourselves as the moral police of the world because of the great thing we did by stooping the Axis. The outcome of this is the UN so we can feel warm and fuzzy about what we do and how great and good we are. The problem is we have now backed ourselves into a corner where the normal reasons for a war (Power and wealth) have to be some "justified" within the UN while the REAL reasons are sorted out behind locked doors.
Does no-one else see this ????
Sparks
-
Originally posted by Steve
the U.S. economy barely trembled? Why, because your welfare checks kept coming? You can be sick of whatever you like.. just stop being so illinformed before you spew.
1. I'm not on welfare ... you say I'm ill informed????
2. You think the downturn post 9-11 wasn't coming ?? - Enron only happened because of terrorism ??. I work in the industry supposedly hardest hit by 9-11 and terrorism - aviation - and trust me the job losses were well overdue - 9-11 was a very convenient excuse for the scale achieved. 150 guys lost jobs at my place on the back of 9-11 - the fact we had no profitable work before that was irrelevant - ooh yes I'm ill ifnformed.
Originally posted by AKIronWon't you consider the possibility that the renewed interest in Iraq is because of the increase in world terrorism, some of which is now being focused on the United States? And our fear and knowledge that Saddam is eager to help with that effort. Seems pretty up front and straight forward to me.
for rational posting AK - but I'm sorry AK I don't agree with that view. If that is the sole driver then what about what about every other unstable country which has been ignored for the past 10 years - chechnya???
Steve and AK - go to my main point - pls show me a conflict that wasn't STARTED by the driver of power or wealth.
I'm not anti-war _ I'm saying lets be honest with ourselves and stop the fake hand wringing.
Sparks
-
Maybe not much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/02/19/us.iraq.warning/index.html
-
Don't put words in my mouth about the downturn of the economy. I NEVER suggested that the economy wasn't destined for the bubble to burst, I said that 9-11 had more of an impact than "barely trembled". The Clinton administration's artificial reporting of key economic indicators managed to put it off...but also made it more dramatic. Certainly only someone who has been living in a cave would truly think that the situation wasn't noticeable excaberated by 9-11. I could give you a litany of examples...must I?
I'm not one of those guys saying it's the "moral" thing to do to go in and melt Saddam. I'm one of those guys saying that he will cause great consternation for us in the future if we leave him be... so why not squash him ahead of time? I feel the justification is there..on paper his violations of the UN resolution make a military response legit....but as I said I think we should kill the salamander before he becomes a real problem. I have no moral dilemma with a first strike policy...none whatsoever. Maybe it makes me a war monger.. I dunno. I'm not saying my way is right and everyone else is a nimrod...I am saying it's my opinion. :)
-
So...
In summary, "its all about oil" right?
...Im ok with that.
-
DELETED, It was a joke however... :rolleyes:
I'm about as plugged into the mililtary scene as a brick..
-
Originally posted by Modas
I removed my tin hat long enuf to recieve the following message.
Dont want to be a dick, but I think you might want to consider deleteing that post if the source of the information warrents it.
-
Dunno about the "REAL" reasons being sorted out behind closed doors. Won't you consider the possibility that the renewed interest in Iraq is because of the increase in world terrorism, some of which is now being focused on the United States? And our fear and knowledge that Saddam is eager to help with that effort. Seems pretty up front and straight forward to me.
Is it really that straight forward. Doesn't the Al Qaeda angle seem to be the most forced argument in the move towards war?
For the past four years I've earned a living analyzing petroleum distribution issues for a 100-year-old trade magazine. There are plenty of people, literally thousands, who know a lot more about this complex industry than I do. But there are not many people who's job requires them, for example, to actually read 400+ pages of the Bush energy plan and try to see how it meets the real needs in the marketplace for retailers and consumers. Or look at what the impact will be from the Venezuelan strike on spring-time gasoline prices.
Applying that same approach to this situation, and what knowledge I have of petroleum supply and distribution, people who don't think there is both serious domestic/international economic risk in the region today or even that there isn't great opportunity for various corporate concerns are clueless. I get industry press releases in my e-mail offering access to consultants who will tell me "Who are the winners and losers going to be?" in the industry with a regime change. I will agree, though, that I don't think the benefits are such that we would be doing this without the very real economic and political threats in the region, threats that can't just be overlooked.
[BTW: this just represents my personal opinion as an American citizen, and does not reflect the views and opinions of the magazine that employs me. It should not be construed as providing an official or private endorsement for or against the war, just a presentation of readily available material and personal opinion.]
For those of you who are strong supporters of the "9/11 angle" I'll ask you the following:
You can debate if Abu Musab al-Zarqawi represents a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network..." in unsubstantiated claims by Powell related to a poison and explosive training camp in Northern Iraq. However, there is a captured terrorist and Zarqawi associate that claims the camp belongs to Ansar al-Islam, a group not connected to Al Qaeda and violently opposed to Hussein and operating in a region outside his control. Ansar al-Islam primarily seeks the establishment of an Islamic regime in Jordan. This was leaked by the Germans, so it probably carries as much weight as Powell's claim in the end, no more, no less.
Even if a single Al Queada cell exists, given the clear links to significant Al Qaeda support and funding in Saudi Arabia and an unwillingness of the Saudi govt. to crack down on these terrorists in a serious way (see below), shouldn't we be coming down like a brick wall on the Saudi govt.? Why aren't we? Is the World's oil supply secure (as it relates to the region)? What about military security from Iraqi aggression, WMD or otherwise? As this synopsis from the World Tribune point out (not certain of the pub but this is common knowledge stuff here):
Saudi Arabia increased military spending to $27 billion in 2001 but is still incapable of defending itself, according to a new report by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies... Saudi weaknesses, the report said, include the conduct of large-scale military maneuvers and the failure to train above the level of battalion. The report also cited what it termed the "questionable" leadership of the Saudi ground forces command... The institute also warned of growing instability as a result of political unrest and a declining oil-based economy. Saudi Arabia has failed to win either local or foreign investments needed to provide enough jobs to satisfy the demands of a young population... "Although Crown Prince Abdullah is keen on accelerating the return of major Western investors, hurdles - including declining oil prices, attacks on foreigners, perceived regime instability and lack of counter-terrorism cooperation - persist," the report said.
As I pointed out in another thread, the current architects of Gulf War 2 were pushing for a regime change back in 1998, before international terrorism was even on the horizon as the defining threat to the American way of life:
In 1997 a group of prominent Republicans and neo-conservatives (including Cheney, Jeb Bush and a number of individuals who are now Bush foreign policy staffers(Rumsfeld, Bolton - Colin Powell’s staff; Wolfowitz - Rumsfeld’s staff; Armitage - Powell’s staff; Khalilzad - UNOCOL consultant/new Bush Admin. Afghanistan envoy) organized the Project for the New American Century. Among the "urgent" needs they identified was a regime change in Iraq, due to Hussein's WMD programs and their potential threat to the regions oil supply, our ally Israel, and other moderate states. They sent a letter to Clinton in 1998 outling what they felt should happen, well before 9/11 came along to actually make it possible to achieve. Here’s a quote.
The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, 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. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
And just how secure are Saudi reserves from the internal stability angle? Perhaps this is where 9/11 comes into play the strongest. Why aren't the Saudi's cracking down on the internal terrorist supporters with a vengeance? There is A LOT of good coverage here at the PBS Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/ussaudi.html) site, but again, nothing that isn't being covered elsewhere if you really want to find it. Here are some excerpts
Frontline: There's a letter from Crown Prince Abdullah to President George W. Bush, apparently in August of this year, which was revealed the other day in Saudi Arabia, in which the Crown Prince says, "A time comes when peoples and nations part. We are at a cross-roads. And it's time for the United States and Saudi Arabia to look for their separate interests." It doesn't sound like a very solid ally.
Brent Scowcroft (U.S. national security adviser during the Gulf War): Well, look, the Saudis are worried. They're very worried. Because Osama bin Laden is probably a deeper threat to Saudi Arabia, to Egypt, to Jordan, you name it, than to the United States. Osama bin Laden is going after us to get us out of the region, so he can deal with the regimes that he sees in the region, or replace them with purists. The Saudis are concerned.
Or,
Frontline: I'm going to meet with former Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury, James Baker, who for instance, was heavily involved in the sale of the F-15, F-16 fighters just before he left office in 1992. He has returned to the region, as a lobbyist, if you will, for various groups, like the Carlyle group. What should we ask him?
Vali Nasr (Islamic fundamentalist expert): Well, we should ask him, where are we going with Saudi Arabia? This is a country that's under tremendous amount of stress. Sept. 11 has exposed contradictions and massive fissures in its relationship with its society that we were unawares about. And now are those exposed. It's not business as usual.
Saudi Arabia has the world's largest petroleum reserves, Iraq has the second largest. Can you see how having a friendly, pro west regime would add stability to the world's oil market? Does this make any sense, perhaps more sense than trying like hell to establish any possible terrorist link with Iraq while ignoring the fact that Al Qaeda is at heart a Saudi financed and manned organization?
So why the lies? Well, they're not lies. There is a grain of truth, and for "ethical" PR, unfortunately, that's all you need. The doomsday scenarios are possible, but perhaps not as likely as they're being presented.
(cont.)
-
Which message sells better?
1. We need to go to war because Americans are at physical risk from the Iraqi WMD program?
2. 100s of pages of analysis and commentary, from different sources, about what, at the end of the day, is a somewhat complicated economic concern in a complicated international political stage. Something that creates some ethical questions in its own right. It is perhaps the most important economic concern in the world today, but it is the type of concern that will only become obvious to most people when they lose their jobs and/or see the cost of living increase broadly depending to what extent the activity, shipping, manufacturing or service is related to petroleum.
This selling approach is not uncommon, in fact, it is a major feature of politics. You see this type of PR in every political campaign and most national and international policy issues, and it is played by all countries and all parties. If you cover policy issues and talk to lobbyists, staffers and the leading figures "off the record" or "background" or just over a few cocktails you quickly see that many, if not most, public issues are sold to the public and even attacked for reasons that are quite different than the real drivers.
If you've ever done PR for a living, speech writing, message development, PR campaigns, marketing and/or advertising then you never quite look at what a politician says the same way as before you peered behind the curtain. It also becomes easier, for example, to see what is not said in a speech how the message is developed and how it is presented to achieve the most emotional impact and support without crossing the line between truth and blatant falsehood. You also always look for the real angle, as opposed to the feel-good angle, which usually comes down to "What's in it for me?"
I suppose I agree with Steve somewhat. I just wonder if it is something that we can pull off in the long run, or if the end result will be worse than the alternative, which is to keep riding it out and hope for a natural turn of events to our favor in the Iraq. We can't really go back and make friendly with Saddam, particularly with the current administration, so we are stuck with letting him gradually creep back into the world stage or pull another Kuwait.
Saddam is in breach and there is full justification for action. He did lose the war and it has always bugged me that he even had any wiggle room in these matters. Morally, he is evil (not a small international club there) and except for those US soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed in the attack (who I can't just gloss over as statistics) it should be a long-term improvement.
I just don't like to see the typical "selling" approach to the war that creates an instant credibility gap, since there really will be some clear winners if it works. The preemptive nature also bugs me, because, IMO, it then becomes too easy to "do the right thing" from here on out with a unilateral approach. I don’t know if I really want a “New World Order” that we actually have to go out and create in a preemptive manner. And, we have yet to see just how well our end-game is structured. Do we just put in another half-assed, corrupt dictator, but one that will play ball, or do we go for a real democracy that may have a mind of its own? I hope for the latter, along with a broader, more open-minded approach to the issues in the region. We'll have to see.
Charon
-
Very well formed response Charon. Thank you for the time you took to post it.
-
i hear the term "neo-conservatives' used alot, what is a"neo-conservative" , neo means new, but i don't think that is what the users mean.
i think it is a subtle way to try to link conservatives with nazis through the use of the prefix "neo" as in neo-nazi.
people who don't know what "neo" means may think that "neo' means something bad because it is linked with nazis as in neo-nazi, which of course means "new nazi"
-
i think it is a subtle way to try to link conservatives with nazis through the use of the prefix "neo" as in neo-nazi.
Like many definitions what exacly is a neo concervative is somewhat vague, but the general definition seems to more positive that facist in tone:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002840
On second though, given the members of the Project for the New American Century it may be an inaccurate and "too liberal" term. BTW, I was wondering what had happened to Linda Chavez, now I know :)
Charon
-
First thankyou for that post Charon - a very interesting read for me
Originally quoted by SteveI feel the justification is there..on paper his violations of the UN resolution make a military response legit
Again my point Steve - the UN resolutions are there merely to do the sales work that Charon spoke of in his post. The public comfort blanket because our leaders feel the real issue is too complex for us to understand.
If I have understood Charons post correctly (correct me if I'm wrong pls Charon) it is pretty much as I've said - the power and control of the region is the driver. I'm not anti-war - Saddam is a certifiable nutter who will kill family members to achieve his aims and as such cannot be left in power over such important territory or resource. But please lets stop all the moralising about oppresion and hammering out resolutions to make us feel better - we need to get the job done if we are going to do it.
We are going to ask people to lose their lives over this - we should have the strength of character to tell the truth over why they are there.
Sparks
edit > Charon - I'd be interested on what you know about French involvement in Iraq in regards financial and energy stakes - Elf etc. Thanks
-
Sparks, I wouldn't really say the UN resolutions are there to do the selling, they just provide the justification. The whole WMD/terrorist angle is what drives public opinion, IMO.
From a financial standpoint, there are major production contracts available to extract Iraqi oil. In simple terms they are lease arrangements to develop the infrastructure and extract the product and get it on the way to further processing in refineries around the world. In the oil universe, exploration and production represent “Big Oil” and is where the money is made. Refining and marketing follow somewhat behind. In fact, a lot of the majors are moving away from refining because the margins can vary too greatly.
Currently, LUKoil, Grazprom and ZarubezhNeft in Russia, TotalFinaElf in France and Petronas in Malaysia and China National Petroleum Corporation have the inside track on the contracts. LUKoil and ZarubezhNeft have about $110 bn at stake. TotalFina stands to triple its access to international petroleum reserves.
There is no guarantee that US oil interests could just walk in and dictate control after the war, but we can’t do anything at the present time and will not be players under the current regime. A stabilized region would be broadly beneficial, and there is enough room to share, so to speak, for the countries that are on board. I still believe that even though there are some sizable financial opportunities to potentially be gained in the war, the real motivation is more security. But, you just can’t overlook those proactive benefits either.
I rest my assumption on the fact that our “multinational” oil companies have enough profitability for these benefits not to be worth what has become a considerable effort. Perhaps here is where I stick my head in the sand.
This may be the administration's vision for a post war Iraq, as outlined in The National Review by Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation. http://www.nationalreview.com/cohen/cohen121102.asp
As for France, JBA has done a pretty good job of covering some of those motivations. There are oil interests, but we could probably deal on those. However, the deal wouldn’t be a step up for the players sitting in the saddle today. Also, billions in owed debt may not be honored. In addition, there is a defense market at risk, and if you want to be a major aerospace player for example, you have to be able to export or else you can’t drive cost efficiencies and can’t afford the programs. France has fairly limited export options beyond the Middle East, and without exports it can’t just order 400 of the latest design for its own air force like the US can to help cut costs. Then there is the battle for the leadership position in the EU. Just which factor weighs heaviest is for someone with more knowledge of French economics and politics. Beyond defense, Iraq represents a broader export market for friendly countries.
Here are some very good, fairly neutral, links on the subject and worth the read, much more detailed than what I can supply.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/824407.asp
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,805530,00.html
http://www.ocnus.net/artman/publish/article_3120.shtml
They also cover some of the intereesting possibilities with how the new supply may or may not integrate with OPEC. Abundant, cheap oil is one thing to the consumer, but quite another for the producer :)
Charon