The Iraq Thread

[fraggit 0]

Well not that this matters now but...

US Exaggerates Relative Size of Iraq Alliance

Not in the article, but what I thought was kind of funny.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"The list includes a lot of `who-cares' countries," said Jonathan Stevenson, a defense expert with the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. <span id='postcolor'>

Do I remember seeing Ethiopia and Afghanistan as part of this "coalition"?  

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (fraggit @ Mar. 20 2003,23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well not that this matters now but...

US Exaggerates Relative Size of Iraq Alliance

Not in the article, but what I thought was kind of funny.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"The list includes a lot of `who-cares' countries," said Jonathan Stevenson, a defense expert with the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. <span id='postcolor'>

Do I remember seeing Ethiopia and Afghanistan as part of this "coalition"?  <span id='postcolor'>

Dont forget Eritrea.

WTF?    ERITREA?

These rather thin attempts by the US to make it look like this action has the support of a lot of people is laughable in the extreme.  The vast majority of first world nations are against the current action, and the US's most stalwart ally in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia) is out of it (at least publically)

Perhaps it should be changed from the Coalition of the Willing to The Coalition of the Mostly Insignificant.

[Jinef 2]

Indeed, well there was shitloads of protests in the UK today, widespread public disobedience. Funny images of these schoolchildren being wrestled into vans by Police in body armour.

I guess we are becoming more like big brother over there.

So now you've got your war are you yanks happy? Is the knowledge that even though everyone hates your ideas and actions you can still just carry on anyway regardless and no one can stop you comforting in some kind of way?

This war makes me sick.

[FSPilot 0]

just because they're protesting doesnt make them the majority.

and whats this about calling countrys insignifigant? you think your opinion matters more than theirs?

[Die Alive 0]

Ya, it's pretty low of the US making these insignifigant p******s look important. They should go back to being out of sight, out of mind.

It's like a popular guy in high school asking an ugly girl out to the prom, just to dump her at the last moment and laugh about it with the rest of the popular people.  That kind of behaviour is just mean.

-=Die Alive=-

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 21 2003,01:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">just because they're protesting doesnt make them the majority.

and whats this about calling countrys insignifigant?  you think your opinion matters more than theirs?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes. My opinion matters more than Eritrea. Did you even KNOW there was a country called Eritrea? Quick..where is it! And dont look at a map

Of course my opinion doesnt matter (on a world stage) more than Eritrea. But when you have many nations who are traditionally onside with US policy (France, Germany, Canada etc etc) who are NOT on side with what you are doing, using little countries like Eritrea to say 'Look, we have a coalition' is both a little lame and kind of sad.

[OxPecker 0]

Operation Iraqi freedom? I feel nauteous.

Bush, you slimey SOB, you are NOT sending troops to Iraq to free the Iraqi people (even if this happens as a side effect of US action).

You are going there to find/remove these alleged WMD and to assassinate a leader who is counter to the US agenda.

It is NOT about freeing Iraqi civilians, but admittedly this will probably happen as a side effect of killing/ousting Saddam.

It really makes my blood boil the Bush is selling his illegal war as a humantarian effort, and that so many people are lapping this line of BS up.

[Badgerboy 0]

The joys of politics eh?

As for the operation name..... Who the hell comes up with these? Military operations with 'politically correct' op names? Jeebus! Crazy Americans!

For example, Desert Stormwas called Operation Granby, and the Falklands conflict, was called Operation Corporate. See, randomly select your names. You don't look like complete twats!

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is NOT about freeing Iraqi civilians<span id='postcolor'>

Definately. Just checked a report of 2 US officers pointing out that the US forces are not able to support basic life support for civillians in Iraq longer than TWO days.

Aid organizations left Iraq for TBA´s wonderfull freedom war.

Ireaqui civillians will love those 19 year old grunts never trained in humanitarian aid. Choclate won´t do it this time. Neither will the ridiculouse 22 million dollars TBA offers for humanitarian aid in Iraq. It´s about Freedom ? It´s about people ? YOU STINK MR. BUSH !

I don´t want to start on wages for iraqi governmetal peops to be paid by US for at least one year. They don´t know how to explain that to the US public so they just snipped it out.

Europe has agreed on a 120 million Euro prompt package for the peops in Iraq at once.

[Tovarish 0]

"Liberty Shield"

"Shock And Awe"

"Iraqi Freedom"

...wtf? They change the name every few hours? And it's not like they get any better

[Badgerboy 0]

The PM said that money generated from the Iraqi oilfields will be put into a UN trust fund.

I wonder how long till US oil companies start dipping their fingers into the pot?

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 20 2003,22:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its always nice to have a scapegoat when things go wrong(the French made it easier for Blair to accuse them of being unreasonable by saying beforehand they would veto a resolution)

, but i think after the meeting in Brussels including Blair and Chirac there will be somewhat less of that talk in London if not Washington. There has already been some criticism of scapegoating of the French by some Members of Parliament(UK) and now that the war is underway i think the UK government will try to focus on the war and leave the diplomatic failures behind them.<span id='postcolor'>

It was actually quite pathetic (as it is most of the time indeed) when the swedish parliament had a debatte over the Iraq war 12 hours ago too.

3 of the rightwing block parties just seemed to copy Bush & Blair arguments without believing at all in what they talked about. Scapegoating France + the security council in general and praising the war (without too many casualties ofcourse). I wonder if they really succeded in satisfying their voters at all by taking that pro-US approach, which seemed to be their cynical approach in the matter..

If one of them would be in charge of Sweden now, we too would be a 'insignificant ******' part of the US 'coalition'.

In fraggit´s article they even fail to mention the über-significant ally Denmark that has sent both a submarine and a corvette to fry Saddam. They probably aim on catching Saddam when he is trying to escape by swimming to Pakistan  

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Mar. 21 2003,02:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Liberty Shield"

"Shock And Awe"

"Iraqi Freedom"

...wtf? They change the name every few hours? And it's not like they get any better  <span id='postcolor'>

Those are different things.

"Liberty Shield" - the defensive measures taken in USA to protect the US mainland from terrorist attacks.

"Shock and Awe" - US designation for Blitzkrieg.

"Iraqi Freedom" - Invasion of Iraq.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 21 2003,02:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Liberty Shield"  - the defensive measures taken in USA to protect the US mainland from terrorist attacks.

"Shock and Awe" - US designation for Blitzkrieg.

"Iraqi Freedom" - Invasion of Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Gotcha . Haven't been near a TV in 2 days so I'm a bit out of the loop

[Akira 0]

Article

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In ironic echo of US/UK complaints at France's role in rendering their efforts to contrive a second resolution futile, Boutros Ghali reckoned that the attack on Iraq is certainly illegal but that there would be no point inviting the Security Council to condemn it on this account, because "the US will use its veto."<span id='postcolor'>

EDIT: Even more irony for ya....

Iraq Ask UN To Condemn Illegal War

[Balschoiw 0]

An interesting sidenote though:

If Iraq should join the ICC right now (possible within a day) US troops can be taken to ICC for warcrimes. Even if the US does not accept the ICC the war is done on Iraqi soil and therefore the US troops in case they commited warcrimes could be put to ICC. A hypothetical issue I know but an interesting one. Bush couldnt be put to ICC anyway but his soldiers.

What makes this very delicate is the fact that this war will be possibly declared illegal afterwards, no matter the outcome, so US troops theoratically could be put to ICC.

Before you start screaming (I know you lads) check out the the ICC rules

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess we are becoming more like big brother over there.<span id='postcolor'>

In the U.K.? No shit, I could have told you that years ago.

Has anyone read this yet?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">David Rennie

The Daily Telegraph

WASHINGTON - From Europe to the Middle East, you can hear the same charge: a war with Iraq is about America's plans to seize control of Baghdad's oil. Iraq, the argument runs, holds the second-largest oil reserves in the world -- a pool that America, with its insatiable greed for oil, dreams of tapping.

Today, Iraqi oil only trickles out because of punitive UN sanctions. What's more, Saddam Hussein prefers to do business with friends, so has assigned provisional oil rights to Russian, French and Chinese firms.

It seems obvious to placard-waving protesters that America needs a war to grab Iraqi oil. With a U.S. military governor or Iraqi puppet installed in Baghdad, they predict, America will tear up Russian and French contracts, handing the oil fields to ExxonMobil, Chevron and its chums.

There is one final twist to the charge: once Iraqi oil is in American hands, they say, world oil prices will plunge. That will break the Islamic stranglehold on America's oil imports, allowing Bush administration hawks to tell Saudi Arabia where to go.

The trouble is that this scenario is deeply flawed. It is based on misunderstandings of the world oil market, and several factual mistakes.

The Bush administration would go further, of course, and say it is deeply unfair. Colin Powell, the U.S. Secretary of State, recently promised that oil fields will be held "in trust" for the Iraqi people, with proceeds going toward the country's reconstruction.

At the Azores summit, George W. Bush, the U.S. President, yielded to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's call for Iraqi oil revenues to be held by the United Nations as an "interim" measure after the war.

Many in Europe, of course, do not set much store on American promises. Put trust to one side then, and stick to facts.

Since 1999, UN sanctions have placed no limit on how much oil Iraq can export. The UN only controls the use of Iraqi oil revenues. Under the oil-for-food scheme, proceeds from oil sales must be spent on humanitarian goods, war reparations to Kuwait and UN activities in Iraq. That angers Saddam, which is why he smuggles oil to neighbours and tries to collect illegal surcharges on the oil he exports.

The United States already buys lots of Iraqi oil. Last year, America bought an average of 449,000 barrels a day, or about a quarter of Iraq's production. The Arab world's stranglehold over America is exaggerated. Last year, Gulf nations accounted for 11% of America's daily consumption of 19.9 million barrels.

Oil is perhaps the most freely traded commodity on Earth, with oil flowing regardless of political enmities. Venezuela, run by a populist strongman who loathes Mr. Bush, is America's fourth-largest source of oil.

To quote Amy Myers Jaffe, a senior analyst at the James A Baker III Institute for Public Policy in Houston: "If the U.S. were to start buying oil only from people we like, we'd have to change our lifestyles."

The White House's position is that if it wanted Iraq's oil, it would simply lift sanctions and let the oil flow freely.

American analysts also reject talk of Big Oil dictating U.S. foreign policy. U.S. oil companies own several giant oilfields in Libya, but are barred from exploiting them by American sanctions, Ms. Jaffe noted.

"The UN has lifted sanctions on Libya, but we have not. If all President Bush was concerned about was American access to oil, he could wave his hand and lift U.S. sanctions, and you would get another million barrels of Libyan oil a day."

If rapid access to Iraqi oil drove American policy, Ms. Jaffe added, Washington would do better to lift sanctions.

"Ironically, for the 'no blood for oil' crowd, regime change might delay the day Iraqi oil floods on to the market, compared to ending sanctions. A war might cause much more damage to the fields."

Nobody is getting their hands on Iraq's reserves in the near future. Two decades of neglect and periodic war have left Saddam's oilfields badly damaged. According to most oil analysts, it will take years, and tens of billions of dollars in investment, to bring Iraqi production back to pre-war levels.

If there is an Iraqi bonanza for Western firms, it is likely to be for oil-service companies and engineers, not refiners.

Finally, private oil analysts and U.S. government advisors are far from agreed that oil prices will plunge after an Iraqi war.

War with Iraq, the experts agree, will have a huge effect on world oil prices. The hard part is getting them to agree what that effect will be.

There is near consensus that prices will soar sharply upwards on the day war breaks out.

"There is no question. If there is a war, prices will rocket. It's a gut reaction," said John Lichtblau, chairman of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation in New York.

"There's already a war premium at work -- prices are at US$32 a barrel; that's very high. It could go to almost anything for a few days."

Many analysts hope the American, Japanese and European governments will counter any price surge by releasing some of the 1.2 billion barrels of oil in state-owned reserves worldwide.

Dr. Philip Verleger, a U.S. government advisor on oil and foreign affairs, goes further, urging a massive release of reserves.

"You want to put a lot of oil on the market," he said. "If governments are reluctant, they're going to get themselves an economic catastrophe. They're going to get themselves US$50 oil."

State-held reserves are brim full, partly because war with Iraq has loomed for so long. America alone holds 600 million barrels in underground salt caverns in Louisiana and Texas.

"Under almost any circumstances, unless Iraq manages to take out some Saudi production for a long time, these stocks will last two or three years," said Dr. Verleger. "There is no reason to be at all cautious."

Analysts are confident Mr. Bush will heed such calls -- they point to the fate of his father, who saw oil prices rise to US$40 a barrel during the 1991 Gulf War, triggering a recession that some say cost him his presidency.

Yet an equally plausible scenario has oil prices crashing to historic lows before the end of this year.

So, curiously, though Iraq is at the centre of the crisis, its oil -- actual physical oil flowing from wells -- is a relatively minor factor, at least in the short term.

Iraqi oil production has slumped from 3.5 million barrels a day before 1990 to some two million barrels now.

The world consumes 77 million barrels a day. Saudi Arabia alone produces eight million barrels and has plenty of spare capacity.

Mr. Lichtblau said: "If we had to, the world could do without Iraqi oil for years. Iraqi exports on their own are not a major factor."

The oil industry is nervous for other reasons. One fear is that a cornered Saddam Hussein will fight on for months, or attack his neighbours.

"If disruption goes beyond Iraq, then we are in trouble," said Mr. Lichtblau. "If Saudi production is blocked, or damaged, that's the nightmare of nightmares."

Even barring such disasters, the Iraq crisis comes at a bad time. Venezuela has spent months locked in a bitter general strike. Commercial oil stocks are also at near-record lows, for various complex reasons.

It could, of course, go the other way. The war in Iraq could be short, and America's victory crushing. If Venezuela returns to normal at the same time, the oil industry fears a price crash.

"If Iraqi oil becomes fully available by the second half of 2003, and Venezuela comes back, you could have US$20 oil," Mr. Lichtblau added.

<span id='postcolor'>

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Has anyone read this yet?<span id='postcolor'>

If I am not totally wrong this has already been posted like 100 pages ago.

It´s not about 5-10 years. It´s about 20- 30 years wich makes a real difference.

[Guest]

Have you seen the news on the demonstrations around the world? Riots is more like it. 1300 people arrested in San Francisco, pictures of police beating demonstrators. Tear gas used in NY. Water cannons used in Brussels.

The closest thing I have see to this is archive pictures of anti-Vietnam demonstrations. This is serious.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I am not totally wrong this has already been posted like 100 pages ago.<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry then. I haven't been reading this thread religiously , but I thought the article made a good point.

This isn't related to the article, but I just ran into it on another forum and I thought it would be worth a listen. It's a recording from a Seattle radio show. MP3 format.

Iraqi-American vs. Peace protestor.

Tyler

[Wires 0]

At least in Australia the govt. has always said that any protests should be aimed at them and never at the troops, and so far afaik that has been the case. But if anyone wants to whine and whinge and slander any serviceperson better not be in my earshot No matter the outcome the men and women that protect our countries deserve respect.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 21 2003,05:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have you seen the news on the demonstrations around the world?   Riots is more like it. 1300 people arrested in San Francisco, pictures of police beating demonstrators. Tear gas used in NY. Water cannons used in Brussels.  

The closest thing I have see to this is archive pictures of anti-Vietnam demonstrations. This is serious.<span id='postcolor'>

I posted this a couple pages back in the Dogs Of War thread...

But...

At a couple of the demonstations some of the demonstrators were chanting "Hey hey, how many kids did you kill today"...

Pisses me off..

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 21 2003,08:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">An interesting sidenote though:

If Iraq should join the ICC right now (possible within a day) US troops can be taken to ICC for warcrimes. Even if the US does not accept the ICC the war is done on Iraqi soil and therefore the US troops in case they commited warcrimes could be put to ICC. A hypothetical issue I know but an interesting one. Bush couldnt be put to ICC anyway but his soldiers.

What makes this very delicate is the fact that this war will be possibly declared illegal afterwards, no matter the outcome, so US troops theoratically could be put to ICC.  

Before you start screaming (I know you lads) check out the the ICC rules  <span id='postcolor'>

I think Saddam has more to worry about than the US when it comes to the ICC.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 21 2003,05:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have you seen the news on the demonstrations around the world? Riots is more like it. 1300 people arrested in San Francisco, pictures of police beating demonstrators. Tear gas used in NY. Water cannons used in Brussels.

The closest thing I have see to this is archive pictures of anti-Vietnam demonstrations. This is serious.<span id='postcolor'>

I posted this a couple pages back in the Dogs Of War thread...

But...

At a couple of the demonstations some of the demonstrators were chanting "Hey hey, how many kids did you kill today"...

Pisses me off..<span id='postcolor'>

Nice regime there in the USA.  

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Mar. 21 2003,06:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 21 2003,05:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have you seen the news on the demonstrations around the world?   Riots is more like it. 1300 people arrested in San Francisco, pictures of police beating demonstrators. Tear gas used in NY. Water cannons used in Brussels.  

The closest thing I have see to this is archive pictures of anti-Vietnam demonstrations. This is serious.<span id='postcolor'>

I posted this a couple pages back in the Dogs Of War thread...

But...

At a couple of the demonstations some of the demonstrators were chanting "Hey hey, how many kids did you kill today"...

Pisses me off..<span id='postcolor'>

Nice regime there in the USA.  <span id='postcolor'>

Not sure how protestors chanting against soldiers has to do with the dipwads in office...