Iraq exit strategy: go through Iran

[BadCompany]

Blaise said:

I can foresee only China overtaking the US in the next 50 years. The US can hold on to its lead over the rest of the world (and China as well) if it wins the race to develop alternative energy sources that are suitable for transportation. However, to do so it will have to detox from its addiction to petroleum. (Hear that, you Crawford, Texas resident moron?)

Or find better and easier ways to get petroleum.

An interesting technology being developed, which puzzles me as to why it isn't getting more attention:

Garbage Into Oil

Sounds like just thing the thing the Canadian Government and/or Oil companies should be jumping all over, if you ask me...

As for Iraq and US security (for HFLA), nobody denies the US the right to protect its own citizens. But there has to be a credible threat. Iraq posed as much of a threat to the US as Iceland does, would you support an invasion of that country?

As fas as US national security goes, there were and are much, much more dangerous nations out there, including North Korea, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saddam Hussein may have been distasteful from a PR perspective, but he posed no real threat to anybody, other than his own people. Those very people you seem quite content to kill under the guise of "collateral damage."

Some estimates put the number of Iraqi dead since this war started at well over 150,000, civilians and soldiers killed during the initial invasion and subsequent quagmire. How soon before Iraqi casualties surpass the number of dead killed under Hussein's reign?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

RANK	COUNTRY	RESERVES IN MILLION TONNES	OPEC MEMBER
1	Saudi Arabia	35,700	Yes
2	Iraq	13,400	Yes
3	Kuwait	13,300	Yes
4	United Arab Emirates	12,700	Yes
5	Iran	12,000	Yes
6	Venezuela	9,300	Yes
7	Former USSR	7,800
8	Mexico	7,100
9	Libya	3,900	Yes
10	USA	3,700
11	China	3,300
12	Nigeria	2,800	Yes
13	Algeria	1,200	Yes
14	Norway	1,100
15	Canada	900
16	India	800
17=	Indonesia	700	Yes
17=	Oman	700
17=	Angola	700
20=	Malaysia	600
20=	United Kingdom	600

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

BadCompany said:

Or find better and easier ways to get petroleum.

An interesting technology being developed, which puzzles me as to why it isn't getting more attention:

Garbage Into Oil

Too much moolah already commited to people and technology in the oil extraction, refining, and distribution businesses. Not to to mention the myriad businesses that depend on petroleum by-products to make their profits.

*

US OIL DEMAND, 2004: Over 20 million barrels per day, up from January 2002, when demand was about 18.5 million barrels per day, = 777 million gallons. If lined up in 1-gallon cans, they would encircle the earth at the equator almost 6 times (about 147,000 miles of cans) — every day. 55-60% of US consumption is imported at a cost of $50 billion+ per year, amounting to the largest single element of our trade deficit. In summer 2004, thanks to higher prices, increased demand, and lower production, record trade deficits of more than $50 billion per month were recorded, with approximately 30% of that attributable to imported energy costs. In September 2004, the US reported its lowest montly oil production in 55 years, at an average of 4.85 million barrels per day.

In March 2004, the total trade deficit was about $46 billion for the month, and oil imports were about 11 million barrels per day x $40 per barrel x 30 days per month = $13.2 billion, or about a quarter of the total trade deficit for the month. If March served as an average for the year, the total value of oil imports for 2004 would be about $156 billion — but this number depends on volume of imports (which is unlikely to decrease) and price of oil (which is likely to fluctuate).

- more slick reading

[HabbaDasher]

M. said:

RANK	COUNTRY	RESERVES IN MILLION TONNES	OPEC MEMBER
1	Saudi Arabia	35,700	Yes
2	Iraq	13,400	Yes
3	Kuwait	13,300	Yes
4	United Arab Emirates	12,700	Yes
5	Iran	12,000	Yes
6	Venezuela	9,300	Yes
7	Former USSR	7,800
8	Mexico	7,100
9	Libya	3,900	Yes
10	USA	3,700
11	China	3,300
12	Nigeria	2,800	Yes
13	Algeria	1,200	Yes
14	Norway	1,100
15	Canada	900
16	India	800
17=	Indonesia	700	Yes
17=	Oman	700
17=	Angola	700
20=	Malaysia	600
20=	United Kingdom	600

But the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with oil?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

Your points are well taken, HFLA. After 9/11 measures had to be taken to ensure the safety, and integrity, of the American way of life. No one can blame Bush for going on the offensive and he did the right thing.

However, I honestly believe that Bush has lost his focus. And, I have to admit that I'm one of those people that feel he's using the 9/11 scenario to substantiate everything he's doing right now.


Yes it is. But, Bush seems to be trying his best to putting dibbs on much of the world's oil supply. At least that's what some of the OPEC countries are thinking. Wonder if gas prices would go down if he were to change his policy on this.

Don't take me the wrong way HFLA, but this seems to be the perception out there. Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, was recently quoted as saying,

"The United States government would very much like to keep all our oil for itself," Chavez said. But our oil reserve does not belong to Mr. Bush. The oil belongs to the Venezuelan people."

Honestly, Chavez is only saying what some other countries are thinking. Moreover, in the same article he is quoted as saying this;

"We are just waiting for the United States to announce next that Venezuela has weapons of mass destruction,"

All this rhetoric started when Venezuela agreed to supply China with oil (possibly more than it supplies the USA) and Bush can't handle it.


Yes, it has always been that way. When I lived in Germany lead-free (blei frei) gas was already over DM 1/litre and that was back in '86. I couldn't figure out how Europeans could afford gas when everyone drove 130 km (plus) on the autobahns.


Easier said than done. Try telling consumers that they can no longer drive the vehicles of their choice and the first thing a North American will do (after telling the powers to be to pound salt) is cite their rights.


I know where you're coming from, HFLA. Like you said already, the USA provides a percentage of it's own oil needs. But, as I was saying before, I honestly believe that if Bush doesn't change is policy and, more importantly, if the international perception fails to change, North America and Europe will continue to see gas prices rise.

Coming full circle on you, HFLA, I feel there's nothing wrong with protecting one's own country. Heck, Canadians will now have to show passports at the borders as of next year. But, somewhere along the line, I honestly believe that Bush has lost his focus.

Just my opinions buds.

Cheers.

Your points are well taken too and I agree to an extent that Bush has lost his focus. As I have said many times, I don't agree with everything Bush does and in fact I disagree with him more than I am in accord. I appreciate your fair and considered analysis of both sides of the argument.
I disagree with Bush on abortion, separation of Church and State, constitutional amendments, illegal immigration, borders, and getting involved in Schiavo at his level. I agree with him on the need to vigorously defend the US and I think he does it better than Kerry would have, but he is now too soft on terrorism.
As I have said in the past "There are three components to the justice system, Rehabilitation, Punative, and Deterant."
Muslims who have been raised in squalid refugee camps hating the US all their lives will NOT be rehabilitated. They will not suddenly embrace democracy and capitalism because we retreat and send them some aid.
Suicide bombers can NOT be punished, they are already dead. You can't put their corpses in jail.
The Deterant must be sufficiently harsh to make them realize that their actions will not further their cause and in fact will bring about results they find disasterous. If the US retaliates against Sunnis by bombing whole blocks of Basra to ensure that the perpetrators are killed and thousands of civilians are killed too, the people will see that the disasterous results are linked to attacking the US. If they see US soldiers being picked off one by one with no retaliation, their insurgent actions are reinforced.
When the US went to war with Vietnam, they did it half harted and it failed. If they had bombed Hanoi into a crater, they would have won.
When the US bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima, they hastened the end of the war and SAVED lives.
When you take your gun out of your holster, you have to be prepared to use it.
When John Ferguson dropped his gloves he wasn't extending an invitation to negotiation. He was initiating a call to action.
Bush HAS lost his focus and we have to agressively persue our goals. Half way measures don't work.

[HabbaDasher]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Your points are well taken too and I agree to an extent that Bush has lost his focus. As I have said many times, I don't agree with everything Bush does and in fact I disagree with him more than I am in accord. I appreciate your fair and considered analysis of both sides of the argument.
I disagree with Bush on abortion, separation of Church and State, constitutional amendments, illegal immigration, borders, and getting involved in Schiavo at his level. I agree with him on the need to vigorously defend the US and I think he does it better than Kerry would have, but he is now too soft on terrorism.
As I have said in the past "There are three components to the justice system, Rehabilitation, Punative, and Deterant."
Muslims who have been raised in squalid refugee camps hating the US all their lives will NOT be rehabilitated. They will not suddenly embrace democracy and capitalism because we retreat and send them some aid.
Suicide bombers can NOT be punished, they are already dead. You can't put their corpses in jail.
The Deterant must be sufficiently harsh to make them realize that their actions will not further their cause and in fact will bring about results they find disasterous. If the US retaliates against Sunnis by bombing whole blocks of Basra to ensure that the perpetrators are killed and thousands of civilians are killed too, the people will see that the disasterous results are linked to attacking the US. If they see US soldiers being picked off one by one with no retaliation, their insurgent actions are reinforced.
When the US went to war with Vietnam, they did it half harted and it failed. If they had bombed Hanoi into a crater, they would have won.
When the US bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima, they hastened the end of the war and SAVED lives.
When you take your gun out of your holster, you have to be prepared to use it.
When John Ferguson dropped his gloves he wasn't extending an invitation to negotiation. He was initiating a call to action.
Bush HAS lost his focus and we have to agressively persue our goals. Half way measures don't work.

So basically, more bombing is needed.
Once the world understands the USA will blow any threat or opposition to Kingdom Come, they'll all fall in line.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

HabbaDasher said:

So basically, more bombing is needed.
Once the world understands the USA will blow any threat or opposition to Kingdom Come, they'll all fall in line.

It seems that the Bush administration has successfully terrorized a sizeable portion of the American population. This minimizes, to a degree, effective opposition to further unilateral military escapdes abroad, and to domestic policies. It also makes it easier to broaden the scope of Executive powers. All in the name of protecting the Homeland, of course.

Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato. Me ne frego. Viva la Morte.

[franko]

Top 15 Countries Sending Oil to the United States
(thousand barrels per day)

Country -- Jan-05 -- Dec-04

SAUDI ARABIA -- 1,602 -- 1,449
CANADA -- 1,564 -- 1,563
MEXICO -- 1,420 -- 1,552
VENEZUELA -- 1,349 -- 1,344
NIGERIA -- 1,007 -- 1,006
IRAQ -- 477 -- 626
ANGOLA -- 424 -- 306
ECUADOR -- 309 -- 249
KUWAIT -- 197 -- 205
RUSSIA -- 176 -- 196
UNITED KINGDOM -- 162 -- 287
NORWAY -- 162 -- 63
ALGERIA -- 146 -- 199
GABON -- 145 -- 233
COLOMBIA -- 122 -- 119

US Crude Imports

Are we next on the invasion list? Or are they happy with the slow cultural invasion?

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Your points are well taken too and I agree to an extent that Bush has lost his focus.

George W. Bush showed outstanding leadership on several occasions.

• Taking the immediate offensive in the 9/11 scenario. He wasn't just visual, he was publicly assertive.
  
  
• He landed on an aircraft carrier after being flown in on an A6 Intruder.
  
  
• He visited the troops in Baghdad at Christmas. That was a major coup on multi levels

The things I feel he was less than a leader on were;

• Outright lying about Iraq. In fact, he discussed the Iraqi campaign as long as two years before he took office. The WMD issue was possibly a distraction to getting back at the man who tried to kill his dad. Oil? Yes, he definitely wants his "share."
  
  
• Bush went into Iraq without UN approval. While it was wrong to do so, I understand why he did. Two permanent security council members, Germany and France, would have vetoed the motion not because they thought it wrong, but because both countries had billions in annual trade with Iraq. What I thought Bush was weak on was not citing this conflict of intrest to the UN General Assembly.
  
  
• Bush keeps prodding into other nation's affairs. Why would he care if Venezuela sells oil to China? China has billions of dollars in exports to the US.

Muslims who have been raised in squalid refugee camps hating the US all their lives will NOT be rehabilitated.

True enough. However, they've been taught this since birth and their teachers are usually fundemental Islamic clerics who have their own agendas as well. What was once an apprehension to Christianity has now focused squarely on anti-Americanism.

Bush HAS lost his focus and we have to agressively persue our goals. Half way measures don't work.

To me, it all depends on what those goals are, how they are achieved and who else is affected by it. The US-led invasion of Iraq wasn't just about removing a dictator, it was about disarming a nation.

How did this affect others? Well, I'm wondering if gas prices will eventually fall if the coalition leaves Iraq and/or Bush changes his foreign policy. We won't know for a while me thinks.

Cheers.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

HabbaDasher said:

So basically, more bombing is needed.
Once the world understands the USA will blow any threat or opposition to Kingdom Come, they'll all fall in line.

That sums it up. Not everyone will fall in line right away, but when those that don't fall in line are eliminated, most will. We, (I) don't really want to take anybodys oil. I just want to live in peace and raise my kids in a secure environment.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

George W. Bush showed outstanding leadership on several occasions.

• Taking the immediate offensive in the 9/11 scenario. He wasn't just visual, he was publicly assertive.
  
  
• He landed on an aircraft carrier after being flown in on an A6 Intruder.
  
  
• He visited the troops in Baghdad at Christmas. That was a major coup on multi levels

The things I feel he was less than a leader on were;

• Outright lying about Iraq. In fact, he discussed the Iraqi campaign as long as two years before he took office. The WMD issue was possibly a distraction to getting back at the man who tried to kill his dad. Oil? Yes, he definitely wants his "share."
  
  
• Bush went into Iraq without UN approval. While it was wrong to do so, I understand why he did. Two permanent security council members, Germany and France, would have vetoed the motion not because they thought it wrong, but because both countries had billions in annual trade with Iraq. What I thought Bush was weak on was not citing this conflict of intrest to the UN General Assembly.
  
  
• Bush keeps prodding into other nation's affairs. Why would he care if Venezuela sells oil to China? China has billions of dollars in exports to the US.

True enough. However, they've been taught this since birth and their teachers are usually fundemental Islamic clerics who have their own agendas as well. What was once an apprehension to Christianity has now focused squarely on anti-Americanism.


To me, it all depends on what those goals are, how they are achieved and who else is affected by it. The US-led invasion of Iraq wasn't just about removing a dictator, it was about disarming a nation.

How did this affect others? Well, I'm wondering if gas prices will eventually fall if the coalition leaves Iraq and/or Bush changes his foreign policy. We won't know for a while me thinks.

Cheers.

If I really thought Bush invaded Iraq to avenge his father, he would be greatly diminished in stature in my eyes. Eliminating Saddam was good for a hundred reasons, all of which were more important than avenging the father.
Going ahead without UN approval is like electing a new pope without the approval of the Sunni and Saperlipopettee clerics. To quote "W", "We don't need their stinking approval!"
The world is a small planet that we all have to share. If France is selling enriched plutonium to North Korea, it is my business. If some country is harboring terrorist training camps, it is my business. If Germany isn't checking airplane passengers for bombs as they embark for the US, it is my business. If fundamentalist clerics are encouraging their parishoners to attack the US, it is my business.

We are the good guys. We create, build, show compassion, concern, respect women, feed the hungry, help the needy. We're not the ones planting bombs and indiscriminately killing civilians. Now if we have to kill a few civilians to stop this senseless carnage, we will. Lets do it right this time and end the stupidity once and for all.

[PTH]

HFLA:
About radical islamists who've been raised in anti-American environments: what kind of kids do you think are growing up in the middle East now ? Going out and beating up people usually just creates more bad guys and an ever-increasing cycle of violence. Give people a good chance at a good life and suicide bombings lose much of their appeal. Destroy people's livelihoods and they don't have much to lose, so hey, why not ?

Disgruntled70sHab said:

George W. Bush showed outstanding leadership on several occasions.

• Taking the immediate offensive in the 9/11 scenario. He wasn't just visual, he was publicly assertive.

I'll agree that for the first few weeks after 9/11 Dubya did pretty well and seemed willing to try and have a controlled, intelligent to the whole situation.

[/li][li]He landed on an aircraft carrier after being flown in on an A6 Intruder.
[/quote]
Huh ? How is this leadership ? To me this is plain old showmanship, and pretty tacky at that.

[/li][li]Outright lying about Iraq. In fact, he discussed the Iraqi campaign as long as two years before he took office. The WMD issue was possibly a distraction to getting back at the man who tried to kill his dad. Oil? Yes, he definitely wants his "share."
[/quote]
Throughout the pre-war discussions what got to me was the fact that Bush was going in, and no one should bother him with facts.

[/li][li]Bush went into Iraq without UN approval. While it was wrong to do so, I understand why he did. Two permanent security council members, Germany and France, would have vetoed the motion not because they thought it wrong, but because both countries had billions in annual trade with Iraq. What I thought Bush was weak on was not citing this conflict of intrest to the UN General Assembly.[/quote]
You've repeatedly brought up this point, yet I've never seen a single reply to the counterpoint that comes to mind - even if Germany and France were protecting their business interests (which isn't a given), why would the US get a free pass for doing the exact opposite, and going after the business interests they didn't have ?

France and Russia were all ready to impose a veto (and had Germany solidly at their side), but in fact the resolution was never presented to the Defense Council, largely because it wasn't going to have a simple majority, so no veto would even have been required. The vast majority of the world population (and the majority of countries) was against the invasion, and even in the countries that participated the population was against it. I can't see how the Germans would have been against an invasion because some of their petro-chemical companies had business interests; I think that most of the world simply saw that the US was hell-bent on invading even though there was little cause for war, and that inspections were showing that there were fewer and fewer potential "issues" left.

GWB was invading while lying to his countrymen that this was about "terrorism" and he went in thanks to 9/11 even though, to quote John Kerry, this was akin to invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

[/li][li]Bush keeps prodding into other nation's affairs. Why would he care if Venezuela sells oil to China? China has billions of dollars in exports to the US.
[/quote]
Nothing new here.

To me, it all depends on what those goals are, how they are achieved and who else is affected by it. The US-led invasion of Iraq wasn't just about removing a dictator, it was about disarming a nation.

Iraq had been most effectively disarmed back in 1991.

How did this affect others? Well, I'm wondering if gas prices will eventually fall if the coalition leaves Iraq and/or Bush changes his foreign policy. We won't know for a while me thinks.

I doubt it; worldwide the trend will be for ever-increasing gas prices, and eventually you'll see the US pushing some of its client states (to call a spade a spade) to sign exclusive deals so that gas-guzzling SUVs can keep on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at reasonable prices. After all, that's the American way.

[PTH]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

If I really thought Bush invaded Iraq to avenge his father, he would be greatly diminished in stature in my eyes. Eliminating Saddam was good for a hundred reasons, all of which were more important than avenging the father.

Was it good for 150 000 reasons?

Going ahead without UN approval is like electing a new pope without the approval of the Sunni and Saperlipopettee clerics.

Idiotic comparison. The US was a founding member of the UN (the Allies in WWII were often referred to as ther United Nations) and it was generally agreed that force shouldn't be used indiscriminantly; that means sometimes not doing what your Neo-conservative thinktanks have thought up.

The world is a small planet that we all have to share.

So maybe trying to pollute less would be good, right ? Just don't talk to Bush (or even Kerry) about limiting the gas-guzzling SUVs...

If France is selling enriched plutonium to North Korea, it is my business. If some country is harboring terrorist training camps, it is my business. If Germany isn't checking airplane passengers for bombs as they embark for the US, it is my business. If fundamentalist clerics are encouraging their parishoners to attack the US, it is my business.

If American soldiers are torturing "prisonners" (not always suspects, just whoever they picked up on a sweep), then it's everybody's problem as well. So why doesn't the US *ever* recognize the jurisdiction of *anyone* other than the US over their own citizens ? If Americans are willing to kill people anywhere, anytime, based on their own interpretation of what's good and right and Christian, why can't the citizens of other countries ? Because the world would turn into total chaos. Hence the need for international organisations, or at least a broad consensus, before taking violent, radical action.

We are the good guys.

How American. You're the good guys, and anyone who isn't with you is against you, right ?

We create, build, show compassion, concern, respect women, feed the hungry, help the needy.

Actually much of that is highly debatable, the US hasn't been very involved internationally per capita.

We're not the ones planting bombs and indiscriminately killing civilians.

No, you're the ones dropping bombs and indiscriminately killing civilians.

Now if we have to kill a few civilians to stop this senseless carnage, we will. Lets do it right this time and end the stupidity once and for all.

You realise of course that those "few civilians" outnumber the deaths in 9/11 by about 50 to 1, right ? And those civilians are just as innocent as those in the Twin Towers. So even if Iraq was somehow related to 9/11 (which it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not, and that Iraq had no WMD) then you'd be saying that American lives are worth about 50 times what an Iraqi life is worth.

I think Hitler or Goering once said that 50 Jews weren't worth a single Aryan. So maybe there has been progress in the last 60 years. We've gone from 50 "nobodies" being worth nothing to being worth one "purebred". I guess "all men are created equal" only counts if you're born in the right country.

I think I'm gonna puke.

[blaise]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

[/li][li]He landed on an aircraft carrier after being flown in on an A6 Intruder.

[/quote]

Yeah, and that "Mission accomplished" line went over real big. If only it had a modicum of reality to go with the stage-managed pretense.

If the US hangs around Iraq long enough, the casualties and disruption will remind folks that Saddam isn't the only one who brought misery to the country.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

We are starting to sound like Goodenow and Bettman in this thread. We repeat our opinions and fail to convince the other side to change theirs.
I know it upsets you when I consider my children more important than the children in Iraq, but I do. That is why I pay their tuition, feed them and play hockey with them. They are more important to me than some strangers I don't know. Are they necessarily better than the Iraqi children? Better than some and not as good as others, but they are mine and I am protective of them. Just like a mother bear is protective of her cubs and will stand down a male grizzly to protect them, I will do whatever is necessary to ensure our security. I no longer have any faith in the UN's ability to assist in my protection. Bush waited for the UN to act before he took action. He waited for pompous ambassadors to draft resolutions that did nothing. After he determined that if he wanted action he had to do it himself, he did.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

We are starting to sound like Goodenow and Bettman in this thread. We repeat our opinions and fail to convince the other side to change theirs.
I know it upsets you when I consider my children more important than the children in Iraq, but I do. That is why I pay their tuition, feed them and play hockey with them. They are more important to me than some strangers I don't know. Are they necessarily better than the Iraqi children? Better than some and not as good as others, but they are mine and I am protective of them. Just like a mother bear is protective of her cubs and will stand down a male grizzly to protect them, I will do whatever is necessary to ensure our security. I no longer have any faith in the UN's ability to assist in my protection. Bush waited for the UN to act before he took action. He waited for pompous ambassadors to draft resolutions that did nothing. After he determined that if he wanted action he had to do it himself, he did.

Your fear is palpable. Fear generates many negative physical and psychological responses, hatred being the most destructive of them.

Statistically speaking, the odds are astronomically greater that your children will be harmed by their fellow citizens rather than by any terrorists. Would you advocate bombing your own cities?

The Ministry of Fear has sold the American people a bill of goods so that it can further its own agenda. Many have bought in because they implicitly and explicitly trust their government. The real question is: How well placed and founded in reality is that trust? As we are daily discovering, through diligent investigative reporting and the efforts of honourable government and military officials, that trust has been abused in the pursuit of dubious private agendas rather than being used to promote the public good.

Don't let lies force you to cringe in the shadows and lash out reflexively at others. Those shadows fall away from the path of democracy.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

PTH said:

Huh ? How is this leadership ? To me this is plain old showmanship, and pretty tacky at that.

I should have completed the complete thought. By assuming some of the risks his forces are going through, Jr. earns their respect. Having been in a theatre of operations I can't tell you what it does for morale when your top-dog comes to visit you. And, no, Chretien never visited us (though he visited the troops in Bosnia in the early 90's; remember the blue helmet on backwards).

Yet, I have to agree with Blaise insomuch as Bush used it as a photo op more than anything.

But, visiting the troops in Iraq at Christmas time was a MAJOR coup. "I'll go anywhere I please."

Throughout the pre-war discussions what got to me was the fact that Bush was going in, and no one should bother him with facts.

Groupthink in action (thanks BC). Colin Powell opposed the invasion but as soldiers do, he supported his commander-in-chief until his resignation.

You've repeatedly brought up this point, yet I've never seen a single reply to the counterpoint that comes to mind - even if Germany and France were protecting their business interests (which isn't a given), why would the US get a free pass for doing the exact opposite, and going after the business interests they didn't have ?

Excellent point PTH. Thanks. I think what Bush didn't say publicly was that the UN is a failing, corrupt organization. And, I feel he can back it up; I mean he seems to understand the process or mindset anyway.

Yet, while I understand why they pushed the UN aside I will agree that it was wrong to do so. In fact, if you go back in some of my posts you'll see that this is one point I strongly disagreed with. He should have gotten UN approval for any invasion and he didn't.

I think that most of the world simply saw that the US was hell-bent on invading even though there was little cause for war, and that inspections were showing that there were fewer and fewer potential "issues" left.

Right! However, being originally in favour of the invasion, I am one of those who feel betrayed now. The information on which most of the anti-war demonstrations were based, was validated for me when they didn't find the WMD and when allegations of fraud were made against the intelligence reports.

GWB was invading while lying to his countrymen that this was about "terrorism" and he went in thanks to 9/11 even though, to quote John Kerry, this was akin to invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

A good way of putting it for sure.

Iraq had been most effectively disarmed back in 1991.

Quite possibly. But, from what I understand it's possible that Iraq didn't report a lot of what they had gotten rid of. That aside, there still are no WMD anywhere to be found.

I doubt it; worldwide the trend will be for ever-increasing gas prices, and eventually you'll see the US pushing some of its client states (to call a spade a spade) to sign exclusive deals so that gas-guzzling SUVs can keep on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at reasonable prices. After all, that's the American way.

I can see several countries doing this. However, I still feel if the US stops interfering with other countrys' affairs, gas prices will reflect it. I mean, is China paying the same price per barrel from Venezuela as the USA is? I don't have this information, rather it's just a feeling.

Thanks PTH.

Cheers.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Blaise said:

Yeah, and that "Mission accomplished" line went over real big. If only it had a modicum of reality to go with the stage-managed pretense.

Blaise, you're right buds, and I agree. But please see my response to PTH.

If the US hangs around Iraq long enough, the casualties and disruption will remind folks that Saddam isn't the only one who brought misery to the country.

I think the US public is getting the message now.

Cheers.

[HabbaDasher]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

That sums it up. Not everyone will fall in line right away, but when those that don't fall in line are eliminated, most will. We, (I) don't really want to take anybodys oil. I just want to live in peace and raise my kids in a secure environment.

I was being sarcastic.
I don't think I can formulate a civil response so we'll leave it at that....

[BadCompany]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

I no longer have any faith in the UN's ability to assist in my protection. Bush waited for the UN to act before he took action. He waited for pompous ambassadors to draft resolutions that did nothing.

I'm very curious. You bring this point up, time and time again, but I really don't know where you are going with it. What, exactly, did you want the UN to do? From what I understand, the UN was attempting to prevent Iraq from developing WMD, from expanding and re-arming their army, and from posing a threat to either their neighbors, or the world at large.

The truth is:

* Iraq had no WMD

* Iraq had no program to develop WMD. Only a vague notion to "re-start the program, once the sanctions were lifted." Which, to me, anyways indicates that the UN sanctions were actually working.

* Iraq had no air force.

* Iraq had no navy.

* Iraq had a pathetic, poorly armed, poorly trained army, that was half the size of the army that got pasted 10 years earlier. Kuwait would have brushed aside a second invasion with little trouble, that's how bad Iraq's army was.

* Iraq had no, or at best, only minor connections to Al Quaeda, and none with Osama Bin Laden. As a supporter of terrorism, Iraq lagged far behind Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria/Lebanon, Pakistan, even Jordan.

It seems to me that the UN succeeded on just about every level, with regards to Iraq. They wanted to prevent Saddam Hussein from becoming a threat, and they succeeded fantastically.

What else did you expect them to do?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

BadCompany said:

I'm very curious. You bring this point up, time and time again, but I really don't know where you are going with it. What, exactly, did you want the UN to do? From what I understand, the UN was attempting to prevent Iraq from developing WMD, from expanding and re-arming their army, and from posing a threat to either their neighbors, or the world at large.

The truth is:

* Iraq had no WMD

* Iraq had no program to develop WMD. Only a vague notion to "re-start the program, once the sanctions were lifted." Which, to me, anyways indicates that the UN sanctions were actually working.

* Iraq had no air force.

* Iraq had no navy.

* Iraq had a pathetic, poorly armed, poorly trained army, that was half the size of the army that got pasted 10 years earlier. Kuwait would have brushed aside a second invasion with little trouble, that's how bad Iraq's army was.

* Iraq had no, or at best, only minor connections to Al Quaeda, and none with Osama Bin Laden. As a supporter of terrorism, Iraq lagged far behind Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria/Lebanon, Pakistan, even Jordan.

It seems to me that the UN succeeded on just about every level, with regards to Iraq. They wanted to prevent Saddam Hussein from becoming a threat, and they succeeded fantastically.

What else did you expect them to do?

Iraq had no WMD. Agreed.
Saddam constantly thwarted the US inspectors by changing dates, refusing entry to his 1001 Palaces, delaying, blocking transport, and impeding the inspections of a few inspectors trying to find WMD in a country the size of Ontario. He ignored and acted as though he had WMD.
His army retreated from Kuwait raping, plundering and setting oil wells on fire. Although disarmed, they returned to Bagdad and rebuilt. They are not nice people. He defied no-fly agreements and taunted the UN building his stature while murdering his people.
He built palaces while his people starved. His sons tortured and raped their citizens. He murdered all opposition.
He killed Kurds and put Sunnis against Saperlipopettees.
There are still a lot of criminals in Iraq that have to be captured and punished, but there is a new growth of democracy and cooperation among the Iraqi people. None of the good that has been done would have been accomplished by the UN paper resolutions.
I have no faith in the UN as a world body or a tool to improve cooperation among countries. The UN is a corrupt den of thieves cloaked as third world ambassadors. Move it from New York to paris.

[PTH]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Iraq had no WMD. Agreed.
Saddam constantly thwarted the US inspectors by changing dates, refusing entry to his 1001 Palaces, delaying, blocking transport, and impeding the inspections of a few inspectors trying to find WMD in a country the size of Ontario. He ignored and acted as though he had WMD.

OK, so he was obstrucing inspectors; why should we be surprised ? That's what we could expect him to do - even if he didn't have anything, he couldn't roll over and let the UN have the run of the country. That would be a great way to get himself killed in a coup by army officers with some self-respect.

His army retreated from Kuwait raping, plundering and setting oil wells on fire.

That was 12 years before the war; irrelevant now.

Although disarmed, they returned to Bagdad and rebuilt. They are not nice people.

Maybe they should have stayed out in the rain and died of hunger ? That would have been so much more considerate of them.

He defied no-fly agreements and taunted the UN building his stature while murdering his people.
He built palaces while his people starved. His sons tortured and raped their citizens. He murdered all opposition.
He killed Kurds and put Sunnis against Saperlipopettees.

Why should you care ? It's not OK for Iraqis to kill one another, but it's OK when the US does it ?

None of the good that has been done would have been accomplished by the UN paper resolutions.

You can't know that Iraq wouldn't have evolved towards a more respectful form of government; it's happening (slowly and confusingly, but it's happening) in Iran. Without the 150 000 dead and the billions spent.

I have no faith in the UN as a world body or a tool to improve cooperation among countries. The UN is a corrupt den of thieves cloaked as third world ambassadors. Move it from New York to paris.

How exactly is the UN corrupt ? Because it doesn't do the bidding of the US ? Kofi Annan was investigated and cleared. Just about everyone in the world agrees that the UN is imperfect and perhaps in need of reform, but it's not corrupt, certainly not to the extent to return to pre-WWI diplomacy.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

PTH said:

That was 12 years before the war; irrelevant now.

NOT IRRELEVANT TO THE WOMEN WHO WERE RAPED OR THE BLOODSHED AND POLLUTION THEY CAUSED>


You can't know that Iraq wouldn't have evolved towards a more respectful form of government; it's happening (slowly and confusingly, but it's happening) in Iran. Without the 150 000 dead and the billions spent.

SIT AND WAIT AND HOPE THE PROBLEMS GO AWAY. HOPE THERE ISN"T ANOTHER 9/11.

How exactly is the UN corrupt ? Because it doesn't do the bidding of the US ? Kofi Annan was investigated and cleared. Just about everyone in the world agrees that the UN is imperfect and perhaps in need of reform, but it's not corrupt, certainly not to the extent to return to pre-WWI diplomacy.

THE AMBASSADORS OF THE THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES ARE SIPHIONING THE MONEY DESTINED FOR THE POOR IN AFRICA TO SWITZERLAND. TO ME THAT'S CORRUPT

[HabbaDasher]

Throw more bombs at the problem!

[PTH]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

NOT IRRELEVANT TO THE WOMEN WHO WERE RAPED OR THE BLOODSHED AND POLLUTION THEY CAUSED

OK, so because of past crimes we can do as we wish ? Maybe We should occupy and bomb Germany because of what the Nazis did, invade Cambodia to make them suffer for what the Khmer Rouge did, or even invade the US for what they did to their native populations ? How far does it go back ?

SIT AND WAIT AND HOPE THE PROBLEMS GO AWAY. HOPE THERE ISN"T ANOTHER 9/11.

9/11 and Iraq have just about nothing (true) in common, so please stay on topic.

THE AMBASSADORS OF THE THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES ARE SIPHIONING THE MONEY DESTINED FOR THE POOR IN AFRICA TO SWITZERLAND. TO ME THAT'S CORRUPT

That's like blaming the Red Cross for the fact that some blood for transfusions goes to criminals who got shot by the cops. The UN isn't corrupt, but undoubtedly some members are exploiting the aid they can get their hands on. That doesn't mean the organisation as a whole is useless.

The UN is by no means perfect, but it's at least trying to do something constructive.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Embassy, June 1st, 2005
COLUMN
By Gwynne Dyer

Iraq: The Long War

"One thing we know about insurgencies is that they last from, you know, three, four years to nine years," said General Richard Myers, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, in mid-May. "These are tough fights, and in the end it's going to have to be the Iraqis that win this." All quite true, and much franker than what usually comes out of the Pentagon -- but he didn't say which Iraqis were going to win in the end. Perhaps because he doesn't know.

At the moment the insurgency is on the upswing again. About 750 Iraqis died in May as a result of bomb attacks that mainly targeted prospective recruits and serving members of the U.S. trained army and police, and more American soldiers were killed than in any month since January, but that doesn't necessarily mean a crisis is approaching. Insurgent activity peaks and falls off again in Iraq in a well-established rhythm, but only four times in the past two years have more than a hundred American soldiers been killed in a single month. This level of casualties is unlikely to force an early American pull-out.

All recent opinion polls show that a clear majority of Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave at once or very soon -- two-thirds of Shia Arabs (60 percent of the population) and practically all Sunni Arabs (20 percent) -- with only the Kurdish minority wanting them to stay. But that doesn't have much to do with how long they actually remain. That depends on two things: Washington's assessment of the likely final outcome, and the Iraqi government's judgement about whether or not it can survive without American troops.

- tinyurl.com/c3ewr

[PTH]

No one in U.S. intelligence seems ready to say the fight is hopeless. But no one is sounding very optimistic, either. The CIA produced a study this May on a topic so sensitive that even the title is classified. The paper discussed the environment in which jihadists trained at Al Qaeda's camps in Taliban-run Afghanistan, contrasting that against the environment in which Iraq's insurgents are mastering the techniques of urban warfare. For starters, not all new recruits in Afghanistan necessarily hated America before undergoing Al Qaeda indoctrination. In Iraq, on the other hand, hostility toward America is practically the only thing that all insurgents agree on—foreign infiltrators and native recruits alike. And jihadists in Iraq are getting direct, on-the-job training in a real-life insurgency, with hands-on experience in bombing, sniping and all the skills of urban warfare, unlike the essentially artificial training that was given at Al Qaeda's rural Afghan camps. One of the paper's main points is that America's Iraqi troubles will not end with the insurgency. In effect, Iraq is producing a new corps of master terrorists with an incandescent hatred for the United States—the "class of '05 problem," as it's called in the shorthand of CIA analysts. This war is proving to be longer and nastier than almost anyone expected. One day, its results may be felt closer to home.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8272787/site/newsweek/

Or, if you don't have a printer connected, save a few clicks by clicking here:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8272786/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/
(may automatically print the article though, so those with printers beware)
---


Looks like someone in the CIA took note of what BC has been predicting for what, a couple of years now ?


I can just see some kind of a terrorist attack on the US in 5 years or so, and we'll again have Americans wondering, "why doesn't everyone love us ? We only do good in the world. They must hate our freedoms or something..."

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

ABC News/Washington Post Poll

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

mrbozo said:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll

Bush quoting Jeremy Roenick, "If you think I'm a spoiled and overpaid, stay at home. Don't come to my speeches and don't watch me on TV."

A lot of Bush supporters are disappointed in the way Iraq is going too. We don't want another half hearted Vietnam. When the insurgents shoot down our helicopters, we should level a couple of city blocks. The fighting would soon stop.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

habsfaninla said:

mrbozo said:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll

A lot of Bush supporters are disappointed in the way Iraq is going too. We don't want another half hearted Vietnam. When the insurgents shoot down our helicopters, we should level a couple of city blocks. The fighting would soon stop.

Sounds like you want a few more skyscrapers to come tumbling down. I'm sure it can be arranged to be carried out by Iraqi terrorists created by the US occupation. What goes around, comes around.