Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pepe on April 09, 2003, 03:32:19 AM
-
10:19 09Apr2003 RTRS-UPDATE 1-Crowds cheer as U.S. Marines near Baghdad centre
BAGHDAD, April 9 (Reuters) - Hundreds of jubilant Iraqis mobbed a convoy of U.S. Marines on Wednesday, cheering, dancing and waving as American troops swept towards central Baghdad through slums and leafy suburbs from the east.
Reuters correspondent Sean Maguire said crowds threw flowers at the Marines as they drove past the Martyrs' Monument, just three km (two miles) east of the central Jumhuriya Bridge over the Tigris river.
"These are quite extraordinary scenes," Maguire said after a morning's drive through first the rundown sprawl of Saddam City and then more prosperous, suburbs with villas and trim lawns.
The crowds, mainly young and middle-aged men, many wearing the soccer shirts of leading western clubs like Manchester United, shouted: "Hello, hello" as Marines advanced through local traffic.
"No more (President) Saddam Hussein," chanted one group, waving to troops as they passed. "We love you, we love you."
One young man ran alongside a Marine armoured personnel carrier trying to hand over a heavy belt of ammunition.
An older man made a wild kicking gesture with his foot, saying "Goodbye Saddam."
Notwithstanding this, there will be people denying the evidence...
-
:)
-
Having lived in constant tyranny for so long it is not surprising that it takes a lot to convince the Iraqi people that this time around, Saddam WILL go.
Basra in '91 is also embedded in their minds. It wasn't so long ago that the US semi-let the people there down, suggesting that they'd help but in the end electing not to.
With a bit of luck, this war could be over soon. I hope more and more Iraqis, including the Iraqi soldiers, will realize that US intent isn't occupation. Sure, the Iraqi people will pay a price for freedom; occupation for a bit, contracts going to Western (US) companies, war paid for by Iraqi oil, but what they gain, if democracy is succesfully installed, is worth many times more than what they pay.
IMHO, of course.
-
Do we have any players from Arab nations?
One thing I've noticed, and it seems to be consistent with the Arab race, is that they smack images with their shoe. It seems to be an insult of some kind, but I don't know how/why. Anyone know what the history behind this is? It's obviously not just coincidence.
-
My Santa... you're going to get tossed out of Club Euro if you keep talking like that.
-
Any contracts gone to British companies yet, out of interest?
Oil alone will not pay for reconstruction. There will need to be outside investment.
-
the Brits deserve to share equal credit with the Americans for this... Thier effort is proportional... Let's not forget Spain and the other coalition members either.
lazs
-
Let's not forget Spain and the other coalition members either
good point. there were 200 Polish troops there, are there any reports how they performed?
-
Originally posted by hawk220
[B
there were 200 Polish troops there, are there any reports how they performed? [/B]
Last I heard from my Euro buddies, the Poles were instumental in the success of "special ops" moves.
-
Charon's post can't be beat in response to this...
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=820881#post820881
-
I disagree.
I think Charon's right about this war being about a lot of things. I don't thing Oil is the most important issue, although it is obvious it is an important one. If I have to think on the single most important aspect, I would say is war on terror. US lost its innocence on 9/11, and is acting accordingly.
I think the US goal on this was (is) to give the world a clear indication on what to expect. Terrorists assume that as long as they remain fuzzy against the background no sovereign nation is going to haunt them. US action is aimed (I think) to break this assumption and tell governments who shelter (or are suspected to shelter) there are a fair chance of being attacked if they are believed to be a threat to US, wether with or without UN support.
Afghan has no oil, and has been attacked too.
Let's see how N.Korea evolves.
Whatever way I look at it, I think this war as a tiny bit of a much wider picture. IMHO, we are seeing another step in a huge change in international relations and balance of power.
Reducing this to a war for oil is shortsighted.
-
Pepe, I think you need to do some more research on the neo-conservativies and the "Pax Americana" vision that they have, which was formulated long before 9-11.
If this war was to reduce terrorism it will fail miserably...it has been the best recruiting drive that Al Qaeda has ever had.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/896967.asp?0cl=c1
-
Martlet,
In some Arab cultures (if not all, not sure though), it is an insult to show the bottom of your shoe to another person.
-
CrowMAW, I am not an american myself, so my knowledge is only limited. But I think you need to do more research on the neo-liberals and the "No Blood for Oil" mantra they have, which, I'm afraid, is the habitual and worn "whatever for money" argument when questioning US behaviour. Talking about Iraq oil reserves, it is not clear even if they will be enough to pay for reconstruction.
Wether this battle will reduce or not terrorism, unless you are happy owner of a first grade crystal ball, I would say you are as clueless as the rest of us.
I'm sure your assertion about recruiting masses for Al-Quaeda cause is not true between iraqui population. And I am doubtful about the rest of the Arab countries.
You can focus as long and intensely as you like on the short term. That will not change the fact that the process we are involved in is of a very long term nature. And only time will tell if the strategy is right or wrong.
-
Hey Ya'll,
Don't forget the Aussies!
-
Originally posted by Pepe
CrowMAW, I am not an american myself, so my knowledge is only limited.
And that is why I recommended that you research the neo-conservatives. Try it...put "neo-conservative wolfowitz" in to Google and read a little about them. Your post indicated that you thought this war was about terrorism. It was not.
True enough, I have no crystal ball. But it does not take a fortune teller to read survey polls done in Arab countries to see that the USA's approval has dropped significantly in the last 6 months (and in some cases nearly to zero) and to realize what that means and how that effects the attitude of Arabs toward Americans.
It also does not take a crystal ball to realize that the Iraqis dancing in the streets would not have been potential terrorists against the US anyway. However, we now have a cadre of former Saddam fanatics who previously were occupied oppressing their own people who now have time to direct their anger elsewhere. Where do you think that anger will be directed?
You are fortunate that you will not suffer the brunt of the terrorists attacks. On the next Achille Lauro you will be able to show your Spanish passport and live while I and other Americans may be pushed overboard.
Unfortunately, I will have to live with the consequence of my country providing a service to the Iraqi people by ousting Saddam Hussein.
As far as your comment on the Iraqi oil reserves...Iraq has 12% of the world's proven oil reserves, about 360 billion bbls. At $20 per bbl that is over $7 trillion in today's dollars. I think they will be able to afford what reconstruction the US does not pay for.
-
Basra in '91 is also embedded in their minds. It wasn't so long ago that the US semi-let the people there down, suggesting that they'd help but in the end electing not to.
It wasn't the USA who let anyone down, but rather the UN. The USA had hopes an uprising would succeed but could not intervene because the USA was abiding by international agreements on the fate of Iraq and the signature of cease fire. But the UN has only ever viewed Iraq as a means to fill its coffers.
-
CrowMAW,
Again, your point of view is shortsighted.
You are assessing the situation on the light of the immediate conflict. On the Arab evaluation of US, the issue has not finished. The military face of Iraq battle (not war) appears to be nearly over. But there is the political battle to win. The outcome of this last one will mark at the end the perception of western countries among Arabs. Who, incidentally, are not stupid and can judge by themselves.
On the oil issue, perhaps I might suggest you to find out about the costs of extracting and distributing that crude oil. According to 2.001 OPEC statistic booklet, Iraq accounts for 10'46% proven oil reserves, a total of 112.500 Million Barrells. Assuming a cost of extraction of $2 for all this reserves, which is a very optimistic estimation, forgetting everything about distribution costs, and assuming a price for iraqui crude oil of $20 (iraqi oil quotes a fair 10 to 15% lower than Arabian Light reference, which, too, quotes lower than Brent reference), the total value of Iraq Oil sums up to 2 trillion, roughly talking, in the best possible scenario.
But you have to bear in mind that Iraq's output (2.001 figures) is 2'6 Million barrells per day, which makes up to 950 Million Barrells per year. That would sum up to $17.100 Million per year, which is the money available in terms of Cash-Flow. But this would be if Iraq rigs would be intact, which is not the case. The investments needed to put Iraq potential to work are substantive.
You have to go somewhere deeper in the money issue to make some more credible argument to your Oil War assumption.
I suggest you to deepen more on the analysis, and you will find Iraq's oil, while an important factor in the US stance in Iraq battle is not, can not be, the most important.
-
Originally posted by Pepe
On the oil issue, perhaps I might suggest you to find out about the costs of extracting and distributing that crude oil. According to 2.001 OPEC statistic booklet, Iraq accounts for 10'46% proven oil reserves, a total of 112.500 Million Barrells. Assuming a cost of extraction of $2 for all this reserves, which is a very optimistic estimation, forgetting everything about distribution costs, and assuming a price for iraqui crude oil of $20 (iraqi oil quotes a fair 10 to 15% lower than Arabian Light reference, which, too, quotes lower than Brent reference), the total value of Iraq Oil sums up to 2 trillion, roughly talking, in the best possible scenario.[/b]
You are correct on this...I miss read the data I pulled. The 360 billion bbls includes estimates for yet unexplored areas of Iraq.
However, for a country of 22 million with an average annual per capita income of $2700, a $17billion annual budget from oil revenues is outstanding.
From the reports I've seen, less than 20 wells have been damaged, which is a very small percentage. I would bet that the Iraqi production is no where near capacity even with the damaged wells.
You are assessing the situation on the light of the immediate conflict. On the Arab evaluation of US, the issue has not finished. The military face of Iraq battle (not war) appears to be nearly over. But there is the political battle to win. The outcome of this last one will mark at the end the perception of western countries among Arabs. Who, incidentally, are not stupid and can judge by themselves.
There is an old Arab proverb that roughly translates to: "my bother and I against my cousin; my cousin and I against an outsider." The US is an outsider to the Arab culture and we have just finished attacking an Arab country. The polls of Arabs don't lie. They do indicate that their perception of the US has dropped dramatically in just 6 months. The Arabs are not stupid, but how they judge the US is based on our actions, of which they apparently severely disapprove.
But I tell you what...if I'm short sighted then please encourage your country to invade Morocco. Spain and Morocco have some long standing issues anyway and Morocco's support for terrorist groups is increasing. So, take on the police role that the US is now maintaining and preemptively invade and install a pro-west democratic government in Morocco for the safety of the world. It shouldn't cost your country but $15 or $20 billion...just about double your current military expenditures for a year. Just forgo some social programs, which we Americans forgo, to pay for the increased military spending. I'm sure the US would be glad to send a couple of hundred special forces to help.