Mid east

[scout 0]

saddam showed that he is not affraid to use WMD's.

George Bush senior also said he was sorry they didnt finish him in 1991

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Denoir-

the US (and others) went to war in ~Afghanistan to prevent another Sept. 11 ( and some would say to avenge it) through pre-emptive strikes on Al-Quaida .

Do you really think thats so different from going to war to destroy Saddams Chem/Bio war capability, assuming they believe he might actually use it or give to terrorists?

Many Americans genuinely believe this is a fight for survival, and BIO weapons COULD destroy america as a cohesive and strong society by killing millions, this a very real fear-

[Hilandor 1]

yes i also dont think its a fear that is faced only by the USA

[Warin 0]

I cant say that I am totally behind the idea of eliminating Saddam once and for all.  The west is already hated by many in the middle east, and I cant imagine that action to oust Saddam would sit well with other arab leaders.  After all, if the west can remove one leader, what's to stop them trying the same thing in Iran or Syria or Jordan?

The problem in my mind comes when that lunatic wont allow mandated inspections.  The only thing that shows is that he has something to hide and that's when I start to worry.

Not slamming Arab folks in general, but I truly believe Mr Hussein would happily lose some biological nightmare on the US.  And living so close to the US it scares the bejeebers out of me, since bio weapons generally dont pay much attention to borders  

Well, it will be an interesting summer. We can watch the rhetoric from the US and get an idea of what's going to happen in the fall...

Back to the actual topic of this post...I saw in the news this morning that Sharon is willing to talk to Arab leaders, and even 'responsible Palestinians'  WOnder where that will go?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

oh no, not again!!! buhuuuuu!

Right now there are more fundamentalist terorists to be found in Somalia (especially Al Quaida camps) than in Iraq. . Why does the US not interfer there first? Of course there are about a 1000 reasonable answers for this question, but it often appears that the pentagon first decides on a target and then finds sociable arguments for it!

Mmmmmh, by the way, there are a 100´000 people starving to death per day (and a child below 10 years every 3 seconds) corresponding to the Red Cross. Now seriously, who gives a .... about terrorism. It is a little propaganda war. Terrorism has become a fashion word! With this term You can beautifuly hide and generalise world misery!

Afghanistan now gets a 100 times more financial support than the Sudan, where life is propably a hundred times more miserable.

What is gonna come after Iraq. Poor Americans, who is gonna be your enemy then? Somalia...? Fair enough and then? Ahhh China, North Corea ahhhh thanks god there is enough to do for you in this century! Long live Mr. Winchester   and screw damm coward whimpy humanitarian organisation, they are all gay!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ April 08 2002,20:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Many Americans genuinely believe this is a fight for survival, and BIO weapons COULD destroy america as a cohesive and strong society by killing millions, this a very real fear-<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I understand that the average Joe might fear that. Any serious military analyst would know that Saddam has neither got the balls nor the means to do something against the US. He has enough of local problems. Don't take me wrong, I wouldn't shead one tear if Saddam was removed in one way or another. I still fail to see why the US would commit to such an effort (war is not cheap) to get rid of him. I can understand the popular demand for it, but it would seem more like a election time thing to comply with it.

[Satchel 0]

Well,

the U.S. gave a clear sign to Hussein before he invaded Kuwait by stating that the "U.S. has no obligations in Arab-Arab conflicts". Hussein took that for a green light to conduct his Invasion into Kuwait- fooled by the U.S.

To go a bit further back, it has not always been the case that Iraq was anti-american, it´s more a result of the U.S.´s foreigns politics.

The U.S. couldn´t care less if Arab states are killing each other, that never has been the point, but as soon as U.S. interests are involved it will interdict.

Take the Iran Contra affair, where the U.S. sold weapons to Iran to fund nicaraguan contras, just a few years before the Iraqi offensive against Iran in the first Gulf War was sponsored with weapons and fundings from the U.S amongst other western countries.

The U.S., as many other western states including germany ceased it´s support as the deployment of chemical weapons by Iraq lead to extensive media coverage, and none of the western states wanted to be ascociated with this dirty war in public, since politics towards Iraq changed considerably.

Hussein feeled betrayed, and left alone by it´s former supporters.

8 years after the 2nd Gulf War Hussein dispatched a letter to Clinton, content was the promise for a new Iraqi Agenda, new political system, allowance of other political parties, the ceasing to threaten Israel and to take an active role in middle east peace talks amongst the U.S. as Israel.

Even secured Oil delivery contracts made with France and Russia could be investigated and changed eventually in favor of U.S. firms.

Hussein demanded a cease of the sanctions against Iraq for his offering.

The U.S. answer was "We are not interested in discussions".

The greatest Interest of the U.S. in this region is export of defence industry products, the Oil plays too a role and is directly related to the defence industry market, as it´s price rises or drops with the tension in those regions, and a high price almost guarantees for increased sales of defence products. As the U.S. is not really dependant on the Oil resources there, the winners in this buisness are those controlling the Oil fields, and those selling weapons into these regions.

From the U.S. as GB side there is no real interest in lasting peace in this region, as it would mean a major decrease of defence market sales- if noone has to defend itself against possible neighbour aggressions, there is no need for a huge war machinery, that simple.

Since 25 years the U.S. and GB successfully disturbed planned Arab reunite attempts, keeping them weak and controllable, devide and rule.

As the caucasus region belongs geo-strategical to the US Central Command, Iraqs geographical position is an important one to the U.S.

There are many reasons for the U.S. to start a conflict against Iraq, one reason falling not under this is the removal of Hussein.

As long as he exists as an Uncertainty factor in the middle east, weapon exports of western defence industries are rolling to potential foes or targets of Iraq, and are also getting acceptance from Arab states to the liking and in favor of the U.S..

I doubt there had been ever plans to remove Hussein or the whole government from power, if there had been he would be already dead and Iraq would be most certainly falling apart into 3 parts, with Turkey, Iran and Syra fighting for these.

Politics are dirty, hard to tell who´s good and who´s on the  bad side, but as a rule of thumb you can say the good side is always the side you are fighting for.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, I understand that the average Joe might fear that. Any serious military analyst would know that Saddam has neither got the balls nor the means to do something against the US. He has enough of local problems. Don't take me wrong, I wouldn't shead one tear if Saddam was removed in one way or another. I still fail to see why the US would commit to such an effort (war is not cheap) to get rid of him. I can understand the popular demand for it, but it would seem more like a election time thing to comply with it.<span id='postcolor'>

(In my opinion\/)

The Pentagon likes certainty(especially post S.11)- Saddam is a great uncertainty.(the greatest in geopolitics perhaps)

they (US Gov.) are NOT willing to say "hey he might have these mass extinction weapons-but gee-whizz he sure wouldnt use them against big old us"

What if the world situation changes in some unforeseen way?

What if he uses them against Israel (more likely)?

It could start WW3, and so threatens USA almost as much.

maybe before Sept. 11 but NOT NOW, after the WTCs collapsed ,world threats have become alot more real to everyone in the involved western nations (Not least Pentagon planners)

I think war should be avoided at almost all costs, but if there is intelligence that Iraq intends to use NBC weapons (or is sufficiently far along in developing them) them what other option is there -Hope this brutal dictator acts nice?

no way, thats not the Pentagons style, they like control.

Albert-

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Right now there are more fundamentalist terorists to be found in Somalia (especially Al Quaida camps) than in Iraq. . Why does the US not interfer there first? Of course there are about a 1000 reasonable answers for this question, but it often appears that the pentagon first decides on a target and then finds sociable arguments for it!

<span id='postcolor'>

Its got nothing to do with fundamentalist Islamists and everything to do with any people with NBC capability willing to act against america.

Right now the US is looking to knock out ANYONE who poses a significant threat to them (you think North Korea is muslim? )

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mmmmmh, by the way, there are a 100´000 people starving to death per day (and a child below 10 years every 3 seconds) corresponding to the Red Cross. Now seriously, who gives a .... about terrorism. It is a little propaganda war. Terrorism has become a fashion word! With this term You can beautifuly hide and generalise world misery!

<span id='postcolor'>

Not sure about all of that, but i partly agree, there are many other world issues and you could say that massive terrorist BIO attack is maybe just above massive meteor strikes in terms of probability, but the consequences are terrible if you gamble wrongly to ignore what a few arabs collapsing massive skyscrapers killing thousands means,

any number of non state controlled people have (thanks to technology) power to destroy unrivalled throughout history

and a small number are willing to use that power, it cant be laughed off

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Damn it Satchel ,youre typing too fast for me to keep up.

I keep (over)simplifying my arguments, and leaving thoughts out, which makes me sound stupid compared to your in depth

(if controvertial) post.

Im not entirely convinced by the 'its all about oil' argument

the US does get much of its oil from Arab peninsular countries

but the majority  (i think) from other sources

"Since 25 years the U.S. and GB successfully disturbed planned Arab reunite attempts, keeping them weak and controllable, devide and rule."

/\some sources or evidence please,

Its possible that its all just a right wing conspiracy on behalf of the Brit/Yank military industrial complex to keep sales up,

but in the reality of international politics ,nothing is that simple.

There are a lot of factors to take into account when analysing the actions and foreign policy of countries over the long term, what Satchel has detailed (without much eveidence i might add) i only (possibly) one of them.

This is NOT a simple subject, and there are no ('its all down to THIS' simple answers

ill try to go through the rest later

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Satchel-Furthermore do you really think the US government would take continued instability

(that is with a global potential and with a significant and actual danger of massive US/Western casualties- **AS OPPOSED to carefully intelligence agency controlled and monitored regional 'instability' of the kind that certainly is tolerated and perhaps exploited**) with the benefits of the ensueing arms contracts

over the peace and security of the american homeland?

NO i dont.

possibly before S.11 the US was playing that game,

but now it knows how dangerous it really is.

And safety is coming first (US style -DEAD OR ALIVE, WITH OR AGAINST)

[Guest]

I don't know why, but this got me really laughing my ass off. It's from the first page on CNN.com:

[red oct 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2002,23:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know why, but this got me really laughing my ass off. It's from the first page on CNN.com:

<span id='postcolor'>

whats so funny about it? doest it remind you of another joke or something?

[KingBeast 0]

I think its funny because its like Bush is a soft mother telling a child off, but not being strict about it.

Jimmy, dont play with your ball in the house!

(Telling israel to pull out)

*Jimmy plays with the ball still*

*Israel do not pull out*

Now Jimmy, I meant what I said!

(Bush saying "I meant what I said")

Maybe im well out of line, but thats what i find funny

Whereas with other countries hes more of a strict father:

Jimmy, i know you have been smoking pot. Give it to me now or im getting medieval on your ass boyo

(Taliban, hand over bin laden!

No dad, i will not!

(Taliban refusal)

Thats it Jimmy, im fetching the slipper

(USA smashing the taliban)

[Pukko 0]

I was about to say this thread has gone oftopic, but obviously Mid East is not only Israel/Palestine, and the 'war on terror', especially against Iraq, have quite some things in common with the Palestine/Israel conflict (at least if one can say that territory currently is'nt the real main issue there). Lets just hope that the 'war on terror' does not develop to a global version of this miltary force vs terrorism conflict - which it has clear potential to do....

Damn, I have forgotten much of what I thought about writing now. I definatly leave the sofisticated speculations about western interests in Mid east to you guys, at least for the moment. Really interesting some things anyway..

One thing I thought about regarding Oil export limitations is what I heard on a tv documentary about global energy consumotion. In the 70's there was obviously a big oil crisis where the Arab nations limited its oil supply. One really good thing that came out of that was that people/organisations/nations started to look for alternative energy sources; it was therefore the starting point for many environmental discussions and actions. Among serious considerations of sun and wind energy etc., also household waste discussions and such were given more attention, and we could do good with a new kick on our butt now.

Therefore, a good old oil crisis now could do us real good in the long run. Says I, who dont even have an own car at the moment

Anyway, I hope that Placebo dont consider it important to close this thread soon (I'll spare you my thoughts about that), and that Avon returns for hopefully some more 'creative' discussions about the terrible (for everyone) conflict in her 'neighbourhood'.

Also scout (you are in the IDF if I recall it right), have you any comments about the 'refuseniks' and what they say?

Last night I spent many hours reading older history about Isralel/Palestine, and now believe to understand many of Israels reasons better. But still thinks that there is a key issue in what Avon began to talk about some pages back, the different rights (, possibilities and treatment) for the 'people around', I have'nt found much info on that...

[ralphwiggum 6]

this is amazing for a non-spam thread..nearly 50 pages....

as long as ppl can hold cool-headed discussion and don't start flamwar, thread should be unlocked

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

All I wanted to say..my message was... the point that I was hinting at...

The day has 24 hours and humans have only a limited capability to care and read about global issues. Our newspapers screen for us what they consider to be important. But unfortunately I think that our focus is sometimes on little issues (which directly influence us). I think that there worse problems in this world (than Saddam) that the world has to know and learn to care about! Unfortunately I see that in some countries people focus on a very limited of issues they care about! When has Bush last talked about Africa, in fact he has probably never been there. Of course Iraq is a topic that has to be dealt with. But right now the only thing he talks about is "war against terrorism"! Since he is very important representative of the "rich world" people that doesnt talk about feel forgotten. And so it is. Did you know that the US refused to sign the treaty against land-mines (now that is not bashing). Did you know that the US provides only 0.2% of its GDP for support of underdeveloped countries. Now well I know this doesnt belong here into this thread. But I think we should not talk about IRAQ as the most urgent and important issue in this world. Give this president the chance to prove his competencies elsewhere, cause so far this country seems to be miles behind...they always got soemthing better to do!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ April 09 2002,00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe im well out of line, but thats what i find funny  <span id='postcolor'>

No, that was basically what I thought was funny too. I also find the formulation to be very funny. A normal political statement is something like "The United States of America does not tolerate [.....]", while his statement was "Now listen to me young man! Stop sending those tanks into Palestinian areas. I mean what I said. Now go and clean your room!".

[Longinius 1]

Yes, that is quite amusing. Further more, it is SO transparent. I mean, Bush says "Quit it. Stop doing that." and the Israelis keep on doing it. This way the US can later say "Well, we tried to stop it, remember?". And now, when Israel pulls out, they will probably claim to have stopped the conflict. The fact that the Israelis achieved much of what they set out to do and many civilians suffered in the process wont be discussed.

[Supah 0]

About that saddam "Im not exporting oil for 30 days" thing. Who does he think he is hurting with that? I believe it was Oil for food or something he is supposed to buy stuff for his population with it. When he stops exporting it he'll only hurt his population because allthought its 4% of the world production it wont be that big a problem for anyone outside iraq. Granted he doesnt care about his population but why dont the other arab states point this out to him?

On another note: Could some one explain to me what on earth is so bad about this: Yesterday israel released some palestinians it didnt want to keep in jail. THese men were caught in a building with some other men. At the time some of those men were in the possesion of small arms. Now i dont know how PA gun laws are but im guessing they are lacks if they excist at all. However they were also in the possesion of mortars and mortar shells. Now the men that were released werent directly linked to the people with mortars but when they returned to the area they were searched for weapons (they had to remove their jackets and a tank used its optics to search their body, they were told to turn around and the tank had a look at them from the other side, they werent forced to strip just to take their jackets off) after this they were allowed to continue their journey. Now a major dutch newspaper acts like this is inhumane of israel and all this. I mean these people were with a group that had mortars! I hardly see how one could have a mortar for peacefull purposes. "I use it for hunting" yeah right. I dont see the problem with Israel wanting to see if they arent taking guns/ explosives back in to the area especially if they do it in such a non intrusive way. Its not like they were forced to strip naked. Now that would be humiliating and i could see how they could think that isnt nice but this .... I REALLY dont see how this is worth the outrage.

[Longinius 1]

"About that saddam "Im not exporting oil for 30 days" thing. Who does he think he is hurting with that? I believe it was Oil for food or something he is supposed to buy stuff for his population with it. When he stops exporting it he'll only hurt his population because allthought its 4% of the world production it wont be that big a problem for anyone outside iraq. Granted he doesnt care about his population but why dont the other arab states point this out to him?"

Well, oilprices are allready going up (atleast here in Sweden). So obviously it had some impact.

[Oligo 1]

There seems to be a lot of discussion about bio weapons in here, so I'd better clear some things out.

I have heard quite a few briefings by experts on bio weapons, since parts of the research our lab does have gone to the U.S. military for bio weapon detection. (It is quite ironic this research is being done in Finland isn't it?) And all I can say is that the bio weapons have been greatly over-advertised and the fear factor associated with them is way too big.

Contrary to popular belief, various terrorist organizations have used bio weapons during history. Also some accidents have happened, which can be used as models of intentional release. Some examples:

-In Japan, the cult which used sarin in the subway previously experimented with anthrax. They had good financial backing and professional laboratory environment (plus scientists) for the development of an anthrax bio weapon. They air distributed it in Tokyo (I think) and a few persons got sick. The cult got pissed and turned to sarin.

-In U.S., weapons grade anthrax was used and a few people got wasted.

-In Russia, a load of weapons grade anthrax spores got released from a bio weapons research facility and hit a town. A few dozen people died.

In all of these cases, simulations would have predicted thousands of victims. But in reality, only marginal effect was observed. I think there are some unknown factors in the spread of bio weapons, which have not been accounted for in the simulations. Thus, bio weapons might turn out to be one of the most over-hyped weapons of our time.

[Supah 0]

Longinius: is that just some oil company person panicing or just using this situation to screw you over?  Or is it a really shortage? i think its the first part. Same as the stockmarket crash after september 11th. Though it was horrible what happened the companies whose stocks plumited were not damaged severly and their capabillity to produce wasnt damaged one bit. The stocks going down because they think the consumers stop spending as much ..... not really they stop spending as much because the stockmarket crashes and they get fired. Through all this supposed "Recession" my wages havent gone down and i havent been fired. THe prices didnt go up. The only way for me to know there is a recession is to hear it of CNN and the dutch news broadcasts. Its just a few overpayed stock market people panicking which cause recesions. Same with oil prices. No real harm done at all but people see a chance to up their prices and as i see it steal from the consumer.

[foxer 0]

Did you know that the US refused to sign the treaty against land-mines (now that is not bashing)

I don't see usa putting mines all over the world,like in farm land and other stuff.The problem with mines are not western problem,but 3rd world country problem,or if a country is having trouble with rebels.

bio weapons

IT's not what they did in the past ,but what they can do in the future.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 09 2002,14:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IT's not what they did in the past ,but what they can do in the future.<span id='postcolor'>

Mebbe you failed to understand my point: From actual experiences on the use of bio weapons in the actual field, results have been obtained, which show that bio weapons are not nearly as effective as predicted by simulations. Hence, bio weapons are probably not as dangerous as painted by the media.

This actually makes sense, since it's not like we humans invented the bio weapons. They have been here longer than we have and we as a species have always fought them. Since we are still here, it seems we have won for now. Compare this to lets say nukes and you see the difference (nukes are not natural phenomenom on Earth).

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 09 2002,14:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't see usa putting mines all over the world,like in farm land and other stuff.The problem with mines are not western problem,but 3rd world country problem,or if a country is having trouble with rebels.<span id='postcolor'>

Did you know that U.S. has fucked their exercise areas in Panama so throughoutly with unexploded munitions and mines that the natives are a little restless. They don't think it is cool that you have turned those areas into mini-Afganistans. So yes you do put mines all over the world.