The Iraq Thread 2

[ralphwiggum 6]

something tells me that direction of this thread is going away from its intended purpose.

please create a new thread or cease posting drifting arguments from the intention of the thread.

[Schoeler 0]

$33ker @ Oct. 23 2003,11:18)]

Countries like Russia, China and India direly need a steady supply of Gulf oil.

Russia has enough oil on it's own, to sell it to Europe. China could also be supplied from russia...

Ha Ha Ha Ha!, if your referring to the fields in the Caspian Basin, you're right and you're wrong.  The oil is there sure, it just cant be pumped anywhere for anything worth doing it for.  It costs Russia around $10 (U.S.) per barrel in production costs to pump their oil out of the ground.  The Saudis do it for less than a dollar a barrel.  You can't compete in the oil market with that kind of overhead, so until Russia gets those fields online and finds an alternative route to build a pipeline other than through Iran, those fields will only function as a supplement to Russian imports and as a strategic petroleum reserve for Russia.

As far as China goes, they are currently the fastest growing consumer of oil and more than 74% of the oil they use comes from the Persian Gulf and Indonesia. In ten years, it is projected that China will import more than 90% of its oil and that they will be using a much larger percentage of the world's oil supply then they currently do. China is undergoing rapid industrialization right now, and oil is the cheapest and most abundant energy source available to fuel their economic growth. How do you suppose they would react to an oil shock? I doubt it would be pleasant for any nearby oil producing nations.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]The primary reason for the revolt was that Pahlavi forced through radical secular social changes very fast. People were outraged and revolted.

Yes I am aware of that. But don't force others to intepret history on your terms. My point was that people were not allowed to voice their opinions about the regime, were haunted by the secret police and exiled. I call that oppression.

They wouldn't have revolted if they were allowed to voice their opinions would they?

Quote[/b] ]Yes, that is the way to go. Let's just invade countries that don't have WMD and don't do anything about countries that have them and threaten to kill you. Yes, that makes sense.

Don't put words into my mouth. I just mentioned it is wrong to have new nuclear powers emerging which see NK as an example how you can benefit from nukes. Just put the cat on the table and you will have it catered with scared promises of immediate economic aid, political recognition, etc. They should be dealt with but through international community not just one side even if they demanded it. Thats just plain extortion.

Quote[/b] ]Blake, is you real name perahps Rumsfeld?

Yes mister Persson.

Quote[/b] ]

NK agrees on halting their weapons program and letting back inspectors in exchange for a treaty of non-aggression with USA.

1) Sign the treaty and halt the NK nuke production. You risk having NK invading SK because you just signed a non-aggression treaty.

2) Wait until NK has nukes and then under the threat of them bombing you, you sign a non-aggression treaty. And you can bet your ass that SK will be going down then.

3) Negotiate but not give into specific demands which are gained by threat of nukes, use all other diplomatic means. International Atomic Energy Agency is not to be used as a chip in a political game. So, Göran, fair enough?

[Blake 0]

Quickly back to the topic before mod shuts this down:

Quote[/b] ]

cnn.com

A top Iraqi official attending an international conference on raising funds to rebuild Iraq warned Thursday that France and Germany's limited donations would not be forgotten.

Maybe true but somehow sounds like talking

[denoir 0]

I just mentioned it is wrong to have new nuclear powers emerging which see NK as an example how you can benefit from nukes. Just put the cat on the table and you will have it catered with scared promises of immediate economic aid, political recognition, etc. They should be dealt with but through international community not just one side even if they demanded it. Thats just plain extortion.

It's plain realistic. A person gets a gun and points it at you demanding something. Do you listen to his demands, or are you willing to take the consequences of not listening because it encourages people of threatening others with guns?

NK's nukes are not a rethoric point they are making. They are very real, dangerous weapons of mass destruction. And just as USA's nukes and Russia's nukes are a power factor, so are NK's.

And is it unreasonable? I'd say no. Actually what they are demanding is very reasonable: a treaty of non-agression with the US. And after the whole axis of evil crap and the Iraq war, who can blame them for wanting to protect themselves?

Quote[/b] ]3) Negotiate but not give into specific demands which are gained by threat of nukes, use all other diplomatic means. International Atomic Energy Agency is not to be used as a chip in a political game. So, Göran, fair enough?

Negotiate about what? NK wants assurances that it won't be the next Iraq and sees two options 1) Getting an agreement that guarantees its safety or 2) Getting enough wepons to defend themselves. Everything is about the nukes and the only points gained are through the threat of the nukes. No nukes, no diplomatic dialog. And that's nothing new - there was this little thing called the "cold war" that revolved around countries threatening each other with nukes.

Quote[/b] ]Quickly back to the topic before mod shuts this down:

Quote[/b] ]cnn.com

A top Iraqi official attending an international conference on raising funds to rebuild Iraq warned Thursday that France and Germany's limited donations would not be forgotten.

Maybe true but somehow sounds like   talking  

Yeah, I was just about to post that. Well, I suppose it's not surprising, considering the Iraqi governing council only includes US-supporters. Looking realistically however, the countries that were opposed to the war owe nothing to Iraq. So it's unreasonable to take donations for granted and much less actually demand donations. There are other countries in the world that need donations at least as much as Iraq does. And frankly, I'd rather see my tax money go to helping Congo than Iraq as I would know that it would be for a 100% humanitarian cause, rather than supporting Bush's imperialistic ambitions.

As for the Iraqi people, it's fairly shit the same where the money does come from. For every euro that the EU doesn't donate, USA will be forced to donate a dollar. Iraq will be getting its money, the question is just who will be paying it.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]And is it unreasonable? I'd say no. Actually what they are demanding is very reasonable: a treaty of non-agression with the US. And after the whole axis of evil crap and the Iraq war, who can blame them for wanting to protect themselves?

Of course it makes sense from the NK point of view, but that doesn't mean it's a right thing to do.

They have been trying to acquire nukes long time before Axis of Evil stuff hit the headlines and NK has felt threatened throughout it's 50 years of existence and UN inspectors were ousted from the country years ago. This moment of threatening with possible nukes would have, I believe, come to light sooner or later. Still I think Axis of Evil characterization was false move from the US and unhelpful.

I believe their best method is to submit to UN inspections and let their massive army takes care of their defensive needs.

They already have thousands of artillery pieces near Seoul which is a very serious deterrent if any conflict would arise.

Any invader of NK would face enormous difficulties and US would not dare to do so despite their technological edge. Submitting to gunbarrel-diplomacy, I believe would however be a bad option. Who's next demanding such treaty or other diplomatic gains? 'They only claimed having nukes almost ready and the got immunity - maybe we should do the same'.

Still there are no guarantees that NK would hold it's promise even if a deal was signed they still could go on developing nukes. US should carefully consider it's diplomatic and economic options with SK instead of automatically signing a treaty. Let's not underestimate diplomacy, Iran never demanded such things from the US altough it's neighbor was invaded yet they are now submitting to IAEA inspections.

Quote[/b] ]

There are other countries in the world that need donations at least as much as Iraq does. And frankly, I'd rather see my tax money go to helping Congo than Iraq as I would know that it would be for a 100% humanitarian cause, rather than supporting Bush's imperialistic ambitions.

As for the Iraqi people, it's fairly shit the same where the money does come from. For every euro that the EU doesn't donate, USA will be forced to donate a dollar. Iraq will be getting its money, the question is just who will be paying it.

From purely humanitarian point of view you are right. But from realpolitical view it's more in the EU's interests to get Iraq and mid-east stabilized rather than central Africa. Abandoned, poor and violent Iraq could turn out to be a serious problem for the entire region and spin off even more extremism. Even though the sentence was made by Iraqi governing council, a puppet regime, it still the holds a seed of thruth. If Iraqi government eventually gets the hold of it, EU's lacking support will not go down well. Neither it wouldn't be helpful to stabilization if only the US would do the job.

EU just cannot afford to wash it's hands out of it

completely. I believe disagreement is currently about methods of governing Iraq, not that the EU wouldn't feel it's obligations to help. Bitter pill but has to be swallowed someday.

[ralphwiggum 6]

i'm seriously considering making last few posts history and hand out some PRs since they are dealing with non-Iraq issues. (Although I'm a product of US education system, i know there is difference between NK and Iraq )

if you wish to discuss about NK situation, there is a thread for it.

[Blink Dog 0]

The biggest difference between the Iraq situation and North Korea is that Iraq did not have the support of a regional superpower like China. If the United States was to do anything to North Korea you can bet that China would get involved somehow. Iraq did not have this option. it is safe to assume that every country but the poorest ones like Albania and Somalia have some sort of nuclear weapons research program, either for offencive purposes (like India and Pakistan) or defensive purposes ie how to counter them like Canada, Sweden and Japan.

[Badgerboy 0]

Black Hawk Down

How many casulaties have been suffered since wars end. (And by casualties, I mean KIA/MIA/WIA), as most of the published figures are of KIA.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Another interesting thing to know would be how many vehicles have been written off and how much has been spent replacing them and how much has been spent repairing other damaged ones.

The US forces must have lost a few Humvees by now.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Give me a break, you live in Saudi Arabia, how educated is your public in such matters? If they were educated in political science, they would have offed the heads of the House of Saud years ago. And, as far as anti-Americanism, where do you suppose the bulk of your GNP comes from? Imagine what the Saudi standard of living would have been without all those good ol' American petrodollars.

Finally the american shows his 'eductaed civil' and true colours ...

So its down to whos the superior nation? Intellect wise?

Well at least its better then a nation who elects GW Bush as a president ..

Yeah Saud lets see who supports him.....hmmm .. OMG its the US , why we ask well if the US off him who will check their oil supply ... ,seriously schoeler no offense learn a bit about saudi arabia more and then come back to post more rabid nonsense.

As for saudi standard imagine where your standards would be if 'you' hadnt learn anything from the Arabs back in history , still would be learning how to fling a rock over a castle wall

And plz stick to the discussion at hand if its one thing i hate its people divert original arguments to save their asses.

[ralphwiggum 6]

And plz stick to the discussion at hand if its one thing i hate its people divert  original arguments to save their asses.

and so is you.

I explicitly said the discussion should not go other way, yet you did.

24 hours.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/25/halliburton.memo/index.html

Quote[/b] ](CNN) -- Halliburton Co., the energy services giant once led by Vice President Dick Cheney, has called on its employees to write letters to newspapers and lawmakers in defense of the company's image.

In a memo dated October 17, company President Dave Lesar lambasted what he called "unfounded" criticism against the company and asked its 100,000 employees to get out Halliburton's message "in a thoughtful, non-confrontational manner.

"We should avoid stooping to our critics' level of dialogue, no matter how tempting that may be," wrote Lesar, who is also chairman and chief executive officer.

The memo, obtained by the Web site misleader.org, which opposes the Bush administration, carried the subject line "Defending our Company."

[ralphwiggum 6]

Holy shit!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/26/sprj.irq.hotel/index.html

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Numerous missiles have slammed into the Baghdad hotel where U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was staying, injuring several people, coalition officials have told CNN.

As many as eight missiles were fired at the Al-Rasheed Hotel -- used by many coalition officials -- at 6.10 a.m. local time Sunday morning (0610 GMT), officials said.

There were reports of serious injuries, including limb amputations, but Wolfowitz escaped unharmed and was led away from the scene by security forces, said U.S. officials.

While soldiers at the scene told CNN's Baghdad Bureau Chief Jane Arraf there may be some fatalities, coalition officials said no one died.

i wonder if this was in response to his visit or just a coincidence...

[theavonlady 2]

i wonder if this was in response to his visit or just a coincidence...

Or the start of Ramadan "festivities" in Iraq.

[denoir 0]

Oh, the irony had he been hurt.

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]As many as eight missiles were fired at the Al-Rasheed Hotel -- used by many coalition officials -- at 6.10 a.m. local time Sunday morning (0610 GMT), officials said.

I see that CNN is as good with time-zones as Ralph is

(Baghdad is GMT+3)

Edit 2: Forgot to post this yesteday:

Big demonstrations in Washington and San Fran. against the occupation.

[Antichrist 0]

Black Hawk Down

How many casulaties have been suffered since wars end. (And by casualties, I mean KIA/MIA/WIA), as most of the published figures are of KIA.

LOL! Yeah right! "Injured" one soldier! We've seen what happened before when RPG hit Black Hawk in 1993.....

[ralphwiggum 6]

Black Hawk Down

How many casulaties have been suffered since wars end. (And by casualties, I mean KIA/MIA/WIA), as most of the published figures are of KIA.

LOL! Yeah right! "Injured" one soldier! We've seen what happened before when RPG hit Black Hawk in 1993.....

may i suggest that you tone down your words and do not make baseless accusations?

an one-liner that does not provide constructive argument/perspective is not a desired way to discuss on this forum.

edit

Great, now Red Cross. i feel sorry for those guys.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/27/sprj.irq.main/index.html

Quote[/b] ]A series of explosions rocked Baghdad early Monday, with the first blast occurring outside the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Witnesses say the blast was caused by an ambulance that was packed with explosives and detonated as it raced up to the Red Cross building. There were no immediate reports of casualties. The explosions occurred a day after U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's hotel in Baghdad was attacked in a deadly barrage of rockets.

edit2:

seems like an US colonel was killed in hotel rocket attack.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031027_87.html

[denoir 0]

18+ dead in Baghdad bombing

Five separate bombs. Including one at the Red Cross headquarters.

[theavonlady 2]

i wonder if this was in response to his visit or just a coincidence...

Or the start of Ramadan "festivities" in Iraq.

From this AP item on today's homicide bombings in Iraq:

Quote[/b] ]<Brig. Gen. Mark> Hertling said he believed the attacks may have been timed with the start of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan in order to increase the sense of unease among the 5 million people in this turbulent city. Muslims abstain from food, drink, cigarettes and sex during daylight hours during the holy month, and religious feelings run high.

[denoir 0]

"Homicide bombings"?   Have you been watching FOX News again Avon?  

Anyway, the Ramadan theory sounds plausible. I don't really get though what they can gain by attacking relief organizations. I'd understand the propaganda value of attackin US troops - but the red cross?

[theavonlady 2]

"Homicide bombings"?   Have you been watching FOX News again Avon?  

1. No.

2. There are reports that this was a car bomb, possibly without a suicide bomber.

3. "Homicide" puts the emphasis on the victims, not the attacker(s).

[denoir 0]

You don't think it's a bit redundant - like say "Homicide killings" Generally when you bomb a place, your intent is to kill people. The "Homicide" part feels quite superfluous. And the whole expression sounds very much like an empty media catch phrase.

[theavonlady 2]

You don't think it's a bit redundant - like say "Homicide killings"  

No. Originally coming from New York, the word "homicide" alone is what any TV episode of Law & Order normally starts with.

[theavonlady 2]

Anyway, call it what you want but today's death toll is now at around 40 :

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....raq