US ready to seize Gulf oil in 1973

dahamsta

Obviously this is historical and shouldn't be taken as fully representative of the way things are today (although of course personally I believe that if anything, the drive for ludicrous wealth via oil is what drives the neocons that drag modern "leaders" around by the nose). I'm just posting it as a funt up the arse to the blinkered naysayers that seem to genuinely believe that Oil Has Nothing To Do With It. I find it hard to believe that anyone can be that stupid and I have no doubt they'll try to debunk it with their own brand of bizarre, flawed, weird logic, but worth posting nonetheless imho.

adam

US ready to seize Gulf oil in 1973
by Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online world affairs correspondent

The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public.

The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do.

It was thought that US airborne troops would seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and might even ask the British to do the same in Abu Dhabi.

The episode shows how the security of oil supplies is always at the forefront of governments' planning.

[...]

sovtek

IIRC Saddam used the oil embargo to make Iraq rich and then set up a modern infrastructure.
That's what started the west's love/hate affair with Saddam.
Kinda debunks that BS you keep hearing about how Saddam dragged the country into ruin.

vorbis

dahamsta, are byou really surprised that such plans were drawn up? Oil underpinned the American economy at the time. Did you really think that they might not draw up plans to combat the embargo? Btw I do believe that the embargo was just as the Arabs were being screwed over at the time?

p.s sovtek Sadamm ruined Iraq by taking it through 10 years of sanctions.

sovtek

Oil underpinned the American economy at the time.

And how is it different now?

Originally posted by vorbis
p.s sovtek Sadamm ruined Iraq by taking it through 10 years of sanctions.

How is that Saddam is responsible for sanctions that were instituted by the UN at the request of the US?

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
And how is it different now?

Different because the 1973 geopolitical climate was much different than it is now. Furthermore, the plans were just that: proposed plans on a particular given situation. It does not necessarily mean that the US was readying or preparing for such action at that time. That would have come from the President and authorized by Congress for such action to be given credibility.

How is that Saddam is responsible for sanctions that were instituted by the UN at the request of the US?

Saddam invaded Kuwait and was part of of the cease fire and UN resolutions. Of course, France or Russia in all of its wisdom (lol) could have vetoed the proposed UN resolution and nullified the sanctions. But if Saddam would have cooperated from the beginning, those sanctions would have been lifted and Saddam would still remain in power.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
Different because the 1973 geopolitical climate was much different than it is now. Furthermore, the plans were just that: proposed plans on a particular given situation. It does not necessarily mean that the US was readying or preparing for such action at that time. That would have come from the President and authorized by Congress for such action to be given credibility.

It's actually much the same as it was then. Israeli aggression. Interference in the Middle East in it's name as well as toppling regimes that don't give unfettered access to their oil.

Saddam invaded Kuwait and was part of of the cease fire and UN resolutions.

With America's blessing!

Of course, France or Russia in all of its wisdom (lol) could have vetoed the proposed UN resolution and nullified the sanctions.

Initially they didn't but after it became clear that the expressed intentions of the sanctions (not to mention being against their own national interest), they called for an end to sanctions (as well many in charge of enforcing the sanctions saw how detrimental they were to the people of Iraq).

But if Saddam would have cooperated from the beginning, those sanctions would have been lifted and Saddam would still remain in power.

Actually three American regimes have said that their intent was "regime change". Doesn't bode well for your theory.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
p.s sovtek Sadamm ruined Iraq by taking it through 10 years of sanctions.

Q. What do all battered wives have in common?
A. Disobedience.

That rather tasteless gag pretty much sums up that postscript.

The sanctions were officially imposed to dismantle the Iraq’s WMD programmes. In theory had these programmes been removed, so would the sanctions. In practice the sanctions were there as long as Saddam was there, regardless of the existence of any Iraqi WMD programme - which appears to have been ultimately non-existent.

So the reality is that outside of Saddam throwing himself on his sword, there was little or no chance of sanctions being lifted. The only example of such a dictator being rehabilitated to date is Libya’s Gaddafi, and that took him almost 20 years and a good bit of hard cash, to do.

Originally posted by Geromino
Saddam invaded Kuwait and was part of of the cease fire and UN resolutions. Of course, France or Russia in all of its wisdom (lol) could have vetoed the proposed UN resolution and nullified the sanctions.

France or Russia were unlikely to use any veto at the time as it was never in their interests to do so. Not that it matters, as your comment is irrelevant to the present argument. Anyhow, where it comes to vetoes it’s normally the US and not either France or Russia who exercise them.

But if Saddam would have cooperated from the beginning, those sanctions would have been lifted and Saddam would still remain in power.

Unlikely. Iraq, or more correctly the Iraqi regime, was on Washington’s pariah list - typically states that have either removed US friendly regimes (such as Cuba or Iran) or former friendly dictators gone bad (such as in Iraq or Panama) - and as such sanctions were not going to be lifted without a regime change.

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
It's actually much the same as it was then. Israeli aggression. Interference in the Middle East in it's name as well as toppling regimes that don't give unfettered access to their oil.

In an except by Edward Morse, "The effects of the 1973 oil embargo by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) can still be felt. Although the United States has successfully curtailed OPEC's ability to use oil as a weapon or as leverage for political blackmail, the resource remains a viable instrument of foreign policy for OPEC member states. In particular, these states have been able to maintain the price of oil well above what it would otherwise be. The embargo was part of OPEC's overall assumption of an increased role in the oil market. The organization quickly established a price floor, permitting oil to be traded at a level often 100 percent higher than its market value. OPEC members claim that this price floor creates a stable international environment, but a more apt description is that it secures a steady flow of revenue for them. Estimating where oil prices would stand were the market free from OPEC's influence is difficult. Nevertheless, it is sobering to realize that increased prices since the 1973 embargo -- which itself caused an immediate four-fold increase -- have transferred some $5 to 10 trillion from the hands of U.S. consumers to OPEC nations." Today, the use of oil as a political weapon has been diminished because oil consumers can regain market control by managing demand. And if you do not remember, the oil embargo of 1973 was on Europe, Japan, and the US.

With America's blessing!

Oh really. Considering the primary factor for the Iraq invasion of Kuwait was because of slant oil drilling (Saddam called this an economic war) and not forgiving Iraq's debt with its war on Iran (which the Arab league embrased by the way), I still do not how you can conclude how "Amerca gave its blessing" to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.

Initially they didn't but after it became clear that the expressed intentions of the sanctions (not to mention being against their own national interest), they called for an end to sanctions (as well many in charge of enforcing the sanctions saw how detrimental they were to the people of Iraq).

That is really brilliant Sovtek. End sanctions before the UN inspections were completed. Now, how well would any future UN resolution carry any weight whatsoever if that were to happen Sovtek. The Oil for Food program was, by the way, a gold mine for French, German, and Russian governments that enabled Saddam to continue his defiance of UN resolutions. Saddam himself gained much more money and generally did not improve the quality of conditions for the Iraqi people.

Actually three American regimes have said that their intent was "regime change". Doesn't bode well for your theory.

The first time a US president called for regime change was President Clinton in July 1998. Bush Sr did not call for such action as official US policy.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
End sanctions before the UN inspections were completed. Now, how well would any future UN resolution carry any weight whatsoever if that were to happen Sovtek.

Isn’t it a tad hypocritical to argue that to end sanctions before the UN inspection are completed would damage the credibility of any future UN resolution while simultaneously ignoring the same said UN resolution process and taking unilateral military action?

The Oil for Food program was, by the way, a gold mine for French, German, and Russian governments that enabled Saddam to continue his defiance of UN resolutions.

And the reconstruction of Iraq will undoubtedly be a gold mine for the US (or at least Halliburton), by your same logic.

Nonetheless, I still fail to see how your taking another swipe at the French, German, and Russian governments is in anyway relevant to the present discussion.

Saddam himself gained much more money and generally did not improve the quality of conditions for the Iraqi people.

Where did you pull that fact out of then?

The first time a US president called for regime change was President Clinton in July 1998. Bush Sr did not call for such action as official US policy.

Bush Senior’s cabinet did publicly encourage insurrection and rebellion amongst Saddam’s lieutenants just after the first Iraq war, they also made no secret of how they would have been a lot happier with his removal - that’s pretty much a regime change policy, if you ask me.

Of course, you may technically be correct and that it technically was not official policy. That does not mean that it was not unofficial policy. Was the bombing of Laos in the 1960’s official US policy, for example?

Geromino

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Q. What do all battered wives have in common?
A. Disobedience.

That rather tasteless gag pretty much sums up that postscript.

The blame the victims aurgument!

The sanctions were officially imposed to dismantle the Iraq’s WMD programmes. In theory had these programmes been removed, so would the sanctions. In practice the sanctions were there as long as Saddam was there, regardless of the existence of any Iraqi WMD programme - which appears to have been ultimately non-existent.

So the reality is that outside of Saddam throwing himself on his sword, there was little or no chance of sanctions being lifted. The only example of such a dictator being rehabilitated to date is Libya’s Gaddafi, and that took him almost 20 years and a good bit of hard cash, to do.

France or Russia were unlikely to use any veto at the time as it was never in their interests to do so. Not that it matters, as your comment is irrelevant to the present argument. Anyhow, where it comes to vetoes it’s normally the US and not either France or Russia who exercise them.

All it had to take was France, Russia, China, or the UK to use its veto power to quash any one of the 11 UN resolutions that had Iraq in material breach of UN resolution 686. In fact, that is the one agreement which all the P5 members agree on unanimously. If that would have happened, your argument would have weight. Since it did not, your argument is therefore fatally flawed.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
In an except by Edward Morse...

OK...but that doesn't address the point raised. The major world economies are still entirely dependant on oil, and simply pointing out that OPEC may not be as powerful as it once was (which I personally believe is more because it has reasons not to flex its muscles rather than a lack of ability to do so) does nothing to undermine the point you were answering which is that the international reality still revolves to a large degree around oil.

Today, the use of oil as a political weapon has been diminished because oil consumers can regain market control by managing demand.

No they can't. If they could, then OPEC would not be able to maintain the price-bracket it wishes to sell oil at simply by increasing and decreasing its output....which is what it continues to do to this day. It maintains prices by manipulating supply. If the market could manage demand as effectively as you claim, then OPEC would simply not have this ability. It does.

If OPEC decided in the morning that it was in its own interests to issue an oil embargo, then there is simply no way the world economy could just "manage demand" around it...unless by "manage demand" you mean "suffer a drought".

And if you do not remember, the oil embargo of 1973 was on Europe, Japan, and the US.

Relevance? I can't see how this relates to anything you have posted, or are answering. Are you saying that because other nations were also screwed that it follows that the US economy was not (or is not) so dependant on oil???? Illogical though that seems, I can't see how else you could be making any point relevant to what you appear to be discussing.

Oh really.

Yes, really. There is no shortage of evidence that April Glaspie - the US ambassador to Iraq at the time, I believe - had a meeting with Saddam shortly before the invasion, where he effectively sought US permission to invade Kuwait, and was not opposed. A quick google on the relevant terms (including Glaspie's suename) should provide all the links you want, some of which will also mention how the initial US reaction at the start of the war appeared to be that they didn't think Saddam was going after all of Kuwait, but just the disputed border terrorities, and that this was not something they would get involved in.

It is questionable as to what the US motive was. Did Glaspie screw up by not telling Saddam the US would oppose the invasion? Did the US screw up by changing its mind? Did they string Saddam along, seeing this as the perfect opportunity to begin the process of regime-change? Who knows.

What is undeniable, however, is that he US had advance warning, and did not oppose the invasion at that time. You may stop short of saying that this is giving it their blessing, but it would seem a lot closer to that than to saying that they actually opposed the war or didn't know about it until it happened.

End sanctions before the UN inspections were completed.

The sanctions should never have been imposed in the first place. Taking your argumet alongside Corinthian's accurate (though tasteless) analagy...you're basically saying that you should only stop beating the wife once she has completed her obedience courses. Doing so before she had completed the courses would make the courses pointless.

As you can imagine, I disagree.

See, the point is that the sanctions were a bad idea from the start. Sanctions, on their own, simply do not work effectively. Sanctions coupled with incentives have shown themselves to be far more successful. However, "we'll stop beating you up" does not qualify as an incentive. Arguing that you shouldn't have stopped the beating (i.e. the sanctions) until the objectives were reached is all well and good, only if you assume it was ok to start the beating/sanctions in the first place as a valid method of achieving your objectives.

The Oil for Food program was, by the way, a gold mine for French, German, and Russian governments that enabled Saddam to continue his defiance of UN resolutions.

It most certainly was....which adds further weight to the argument of just how important oil is to the international powers. No-one has suggested that the US is the only oil-dependant nation out there.

Saddam himself gained much more money and generally did not improve the quality of conditions for the Iraqi people.

Yes, he stopped improving the quality of conditions after the first Gulf War and the imposition of sanctions.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
The blame the victims aurgument!

You’re catching on. Good.

All it had to take was France, Russia, China, or the UK to use its veto power to quash any one of the 11 UN resolutions that had Iraq in material breach of UN resolution 686. In fact, that is the one agreement which all the P5 members agree on unanimously. If that would have happened, your argument would have weight. Since it did not, your argument is therefore fatally flawed.

Which argument is fatally flawed? Seriously - how is this connected to what I’ve posted here? Please make it coherent, or at least relevant.

Geromino

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Isn’t it a tad hypocritical to argue that to end sanctions before the UN inspection are completed would damage the credibility of any future UN resolution while simultaneously ignoring the same said UN resolution process and taking unilateral military action?

But it all depends on how you define certain phrases within UN Resolution 686 and 1441. Both authorize UN member states to use "alternative means" to enforce said resolutions. And the definition of what "alternative methods" exactly mean is where you have the disagreement between France et al and the US et al. It is also where your argument fails in describing "hypocritical actions," as you have define them.

And the reconstruction of Iraq will undoubtedly be a gold mine for the US (or at least Halliburton), by your same logic.

Nonetheless, I still fail to see how your taking another swipe at the French, German, and Russian governments is in anyway relevant to the present discussion.

In most views here, the US is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Where did you pull that fact out of then?

Considering the fact that Saddam refurbished his 55 palaces during that time as well as sending money and weapons to Hamas and Islamic Jihad extremists, one can reasonably assume that Saddam was filling is cofers during the sanctions and which Iraqis could not improve their lifestyle, unless they were part of the Ba'ath party in the first place.

Bush Senior’s cabinet did publicly encourage insurrection and rebellion amongst Saddam’s lieutenants just after the first Iraq war, they also made no secret of how they would have been a lot happier with his removal - that’s pretty much a regime change policy, if you ask me.

Of course, you may technically be correct and that it technically was not official policy. That does not mean that it was not unofficial policy. Was the bombing of Laos in the 1960’s official US policy, for example?

More precisely, Bush Sr wanted internal regime change. That is to say, to have any group that could oppose Saddam internally with little help from the outside (define that as westen powers in general). In other words, Bush Sr wanted the Iraqis to help Iraqis change for the better by removing Saddam through open rebellion (the only way you could remove Saddam at that time). Of course, one of the faults by Bush Sr was not following through on the proposal overtly or covertly. The difference has been who completed the regime change: internally by Bush Sr or externally, advocated originally by Clinton and then followed by Bush Jr. If you want to use a very broad definition of "regime change" then of course you could include posters here, who are not US citizens, wanting or advocating a particular party to win the election. Does this now mean you advocate regime change in the United States and thus "intervene" in political matters in which you do not have any legal right to do so? (I am hypothetically speaking).

dahamsta

I find it hard to believe that anyone can be that stupid and I have no doubt they'll try to debunk it with their own brand of bizarre, flawed, weird logic

Perhaps I should get a job with Irish Pychics Online.

Victor

Originally posted by Geromino
Different because the 1973 geopolitical climate was much different than it is now. Furthermore, the plans were just that: proposed plans on a particular given situation. It does not necessarily mean that the US was readying or preparing for such action at that time. That would have come from the President and authorized by Congress for such action to be given credibility.

So conspiracy to rob a bank is OK? Once you don't actually rob the bank?

Originally posted by Geromino
Oh really. Considering the primary factor for the Iraq invasion of Kuwait was because of slant oil drilling (Saddam called this an economic war) and not forgiving Iraq's debt with its war on Iran (which the Arab league embrased by the way), I still do not how you can conclude how "Amerca gave its blessing" to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.

The border oil fields were an excuse, not a reason. And I think the conversation on ~August 1st 1990 went something like:

Saddam: We intend to invade Kuwait tomorrow
American Ambassador: Fair enough, that’s an internal Arab matter, it doesn't involve the United states.
Saddam: More tea?

Originally posted by Geromino
The first time a US president called for regime change was President Clinton in July 1998. Bush Sr did not call for such action as official US policy.

Didn't Bush senior say something to the effect of "Rise up and we will support you"?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
But it all depends on how you define certain phrases within UN Resolution 686 and 1441. Both authorize UN member states to use "alternative means" to enforce said resolutions. And the definition of what "alternative methods" exactly mean is where you have the disagreement between France et al and the US et al. It is also where your argument fails in describing "hypocritical actions," as you have define them.

How you define them? That’s a pretty liberal definition of "alternative means", don’t you think? So, how come there’s not been any similar ambiguity in previous UN Security Council resolutions that authorised force? And, if the definition of the use of force was so clear-cut for the US and UK, why did they feel compelled to seek out another resolution, fail and then go ahead regardless?

And if, as you originally said, such hawkish actions were to defend the credibility of the UN, how does that explain that they have in fact undermined that same credibility? Regardless of how you define "alternative means", it is pretty self evident that the unilateral actions taken by the US have greatly harmed the UN’s authority.

In most views here, the US is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

You still have not explained why you’ve had to drag the French, German, and Russian governments into this discussion. It’s irrelevant to the present argument.

Considering the fact that Saddam refurbished his 55 palaces during that time as well as sending money and weapons to Hamas and Islamic Jihad extremists, one can reasonably assume that Saddam was filling is cofers during the sanctions and which Iraqis could not improve their lifestyle, unless they were part of the Ba'ath party in the first place.

How did this mean that he was financially better off under the sanctions as you implied?

More precisely, Bush Sr wanted internal regime change.

So, we’ve moved from regime change not being official policy to internal regime change being (official) policy - shifting the goalposts here aren’t we Geromino?

If you want to use a very broad definition of "regime change" then of course you could include posters here, who are not US citizens, wanting or advocating a particular party to win the election. Does this now mean you advocate regime change in the United States and thus "intervene" in political matters in which you do not have any legal right to do so? (I am hypothetically speaking).

Irrelevant to the present discussion: You and vorbis would contend that had Saddam complied with Western demands sanctions would have been lifted. I disagreed and argued that essentially only regime change would have satisfied the US. By agreeing there was a policy or aim of regime change in Iraq by the US, you’ve given further evidence to support my argument.

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
OK...but that doesn't address the point raised. The major world economies are still entirely dependant on oil, and simply pointing out that OPEC may not be as powerful as it once was (which I personally believe is more because it has reasons not to flex its muscles rather than a lack of ability to do so) does nothing to undermine the point you were answering which is that the international reality still revolves to a large degree around oil.

No they can't. If they could, then OPEC would not be able to maintain the price-bracket it wishes to sell oil at simply by increasing and decreasing its output....which is what it continues to do to this day. It maintains prices by manipulating supply. If the market could manage demand as effectively as you claim, then OPEC would simply not have this ability. It does.

If OPEC decided in the morning that it was in its own interests to issue an oil embargo, then there is simply no way the world economy could just "manage demand" around it...unless by "manage demand" you mean "suffer a drought".

Why do you thnk OPEC maintains a price floor on producing oil, Bonkey?

In an unlikely event of an actual embargo today, the Muslim producers would quickly discover the weaknesses of their actions. The West is not nearly as dependent upon oil as it was in 1973. The United States consumes only 60 percent as much oil per dollar of GDP generated as it did in 1973. It is the reverse situation for most of Asia. For an oil embargo now to deliver the same level of economic shock to the West as did the 1973 energy crisis, the per barrel price would need to hit $90, a target well beyond the Muslim world's ability to deliver. Any oil embargo large enough to actually harm the West would decimate Asia, including Muslim countries, which has yet to recover from the 2001. In other words Bonkey, an the desire effedt for policy change via an oil embargo would hurt more of the countries sypathetic to the Palestinian cause than that of the United States. You simply cannot target a single country, like the United States, by using an oil embargo as a political tool to achieve a desired political means. Furthermore, in order for the embargo to work, all OPEC nations would have to agree. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have vehemently declined to pursue such action since 1973.

Relevance? I can't see how this relates to anything you have posted, or are answering. Are you saying that because other nations were also screwed that it follows that the US economy was not (or is not) so dependant on oil???? Illogical though that seems, I can't see how else you could be making any point relevant to what you appear to be discussing.

The relevance has to do with the changing geopolical structure between 1973 and today.

Yes, really. There is no shortage of evidence that April Glaspie - the US ambassador to Iraq at the time, I believe - had a meeting with Saddam shortly before the invasion, where he effectively sought US permission to invade Kuwait, and was not opposed. A quick google on the relevant terms (including Glaspie's suename) should provide all the links you want, some of which will also mention how the initial US reaction at the start of the war appeared to be that they didn't think Saddam was going after all of Kuwait, but just the disputed border terrorities, and that this was not something they would get involved in.

It is questionable as to what the US motive was. Did Glaspie screw up by not telling Saddam the US would oppose the invasion? Did the US screw up by changing its mind? Did they string Saddam along, seeing this as the perfect opportunity to begin the process of regime-change? Who knows.

What is undeniable, however, is that he US had advance warning, and did not oppose the invasion at that time. You may stop short of saying that this is giving it their blessing, but it would seem a lot closer to that than to saying that they actually opposed the war or didn't know about it until it happened.

AND

It most certainly was....which adds further weight to the argument of just how important oil is to the international powers. No-one has suggested that the US is the only oil-dependant nation out there.

The evidence, as you put it, is stated as follows: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts,' the transcript reports Glaspie saying, 'such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America.'" Furthermore, In November 1992, Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tarik Aziz, gave Glaspie some vindication. He said she had not given Iraq a green light. "She just listened and made general comments. We knew the United States would have a strong reaction." This now begs the question, what specifically did Ambassador Glaspie state specifically that would encourage Saddam to invade. Was it the fact that she did not "draw a line in the sand? In fact, the United States only viewed this as an intraregional conflict in which the United States was staying out. If you want to perceive this as "giving Saddam's blessing" then you will also have to nullify Tariq Aziz's statement. Additionally, the transcript states that Ambassador Glaspie " We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?" Based on this piece of the transcript, Glaspie had no specific instructions on how to respond to the troop movements and indicated that the United States would take a grim view on any open confrontation. You also fail to recognize that the Arab League, through the same lack of political assertiveness thought the Iraq and Kuwait would come to some monetary exchange, but never an armed conflict. The invasion shocked and dismayed the ME at that time and even Syria condemned the attack. Hindsight is always 20/10, is in it Bonky?

Second, you pose the assertion that the United States let Iraq invade Kuwait. The US had no significant military assets cabable of challenging an Iraqi invasion. Contrary to what you may believe, even an aircraft carrier has specific limitations within a combat zone.

The sanctions should never have been imposed in the first place. Taking your argumet alongside Corinthian's accurate (though tasteless) analagy...you're basically saying that you should only stop beating the wife once she has completed her obedience courses. Doing so before she had completed the courses would make the courses pointless.

As you can imagine, I disagree.

See, the point is that the sanctions were a bad idea from the start. Sanctions, on their own, simply do not work effectively. Sanctions coupled with incentives have shown themselves to be far more successful. However, "we'll stop beating you up" does not qualify as an incentive. Arguing that you shouldn't have stopped the beating (i.e. the sanctions) until the objectives were reached is all well and good, only if you assume it was ok to start the beating/sanctions in the first place as a valid method of achieving your objectives.

And may I ask what would be the alternative? Would you suggest that no sanctions should be imposed while inspections were going on? (I am assuming you are in agreement with inspections?) Or are you in agreement that Saddam had every legal right to invade and occupy Kuwait because of its economic differences with Kuwait, and thus, any coalition force at that time was grossly misinterpreted by the US (and the rest of the world) and should not have been done so?

Yes, he stopped improving the quality of conditions after the first Gulf War and the imposition of sanctions.

jc

So, I take it you believe Saddam was an overall nice guy misinterpreted by foreign powers and their oil interests?

Victor

Originally posted by Geromino
So, I take it you believe Saddam was an overall nice guy misinterpreted by foreign powers and their oil interests?

No, he3 was an asshole used by the west to further their objectives and then disposed of when his interests conflicted with theirs.

Meh

Wasn't it revealed a couple of years back that the Irish government asked the army in the 1970s to draw up plans to invade Northern Ireland?

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2001/0102/fro2.htm

Victor

Originally posted by Meh
Wasn't it revealed a couple of years back that the Irish government asked the army in the 1970s to draw up plans to invade Northern Ireland? http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2001/0102/fro2.htm

There is a difference between:

The Chief of Staff said that, as far as he was concerned, an incursion was not the same as an invasion, but rather "a short temporary stay to carry out a mercy mission and return". For his part, Mr Lynch "reaffirmed that it was the policy of the Government that force would NOT be used as a means to reintegrate the national territory". Indeed, Mr Lynch envisaged the possibility that British and Irish troops could work in conjunction to defend the minority. However, he indicated that, "should incursions into the North be required, they would not be preceded by political or diplomatic representations".

and "lets invade places and take their oil".

therecklessone

Nobody seems to have commented on the fact that the President at the time was Richard Nixon, up to his bo**ox in Watergate as he was.

I noticed today's Irish Times contains an account of Edward Heath's anger at the US government escalating nuclear tension with the USSR during the Yom Kippur war without telling his NATO allies. Tricky Dicky was at the helm for that as well, ably assisted by chief war criminal Henry Kissinger. Interesting the lengths a US President will go to in an effort to distract attention from domestic trouble, eh?

Here's a link from the Jerusalem Post

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1072930905679&p=1008596981749

Victor

Originally posted by therecklessone
I noticed today's Irish Times contains an account of Edward Heath's anger at the US government escalating nuclear tension with the USSR during the Yom Kippur war without telling his NATO allies.

Whatever about the Watergate angle, it should be noted that the oil embargo was largely a result from the Yom Kippur war.

vorbis

victor its pretty myopic not to notice a similarity between the two situations. Both would have involved troops being sent into a foreign country. As for Corinthians comment about sanctions, its completely irrelevant. Iraq was not a victim. It was the aggressor. Furthermore it did not allow inspections to be carried out properly. Are you forgetting the ejection of inspectors thoughout the nineties? You might be correct with your assertion that the US would only have settled for regime change but Sadamm never allowed the inspections to proceed properly.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
As for Corinthians comment about sanctions, its completely irrelevant.

I’ll admit that it was off-topic and took the debate off at bit of a tangent, but it was a valid point nonetheless.

Iraq was not a victim. It was the aggressor.

Are you saying that the sanctions were a punishment then? I thought they were there to force Iraq to eliminate its alleged arsenal of WMD?

Furthermore it did not allow inspections to be carried out properly. Are you forgetting the ejection of inspectors thoughout the nineties?

Are these the same inspectors that recommended that the inspections were still viable on the eve of war and that ultimately were undermined by the US and not Iraq?

You might be correct with your assertion that the US would only have settled for regime change but Sadamm never allowed the inspections to proceed properly.

By your same logic if the US would only have settled for regime change then had the inspections been allowed to proceed properly then it would have made no difference. Indeed, Iraq did appear to be complying with inspections a year ago, much to the annoyance of the US administration.

And today, a year later, there are no WMD found. More and more we hear that it was all about freeing the Iraqi people and not to worry about those nasty WMD, no doubt they’ll turn up eventually - Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by dahamsta
Obviously this is historical and shouldn't be taken as fully representative of the way things are today (although of course personally I believe that if anything, the drive for ludicrous wealth via oil is what drives the neocons that drag modern "leaders" around by the nose). I'm just posting it as a funt up the arse to the blinkered naysayers that seem to genuinely believe that Oil Has Nothing To Do With It. I find it hard to believe that anyone can be that stupid and I have no doubt they'll try to debunk it with their own brand of bizarre, flawed, weird logic, but worth posting nonetheless imho.

This post neatly sums up for me everything that is contemptible about the anti-war crowd. Somehow, the belief of the British government thirty years ago that the US government was considering seizing ME oilfields at the height of the oil crisis is supposed to show that the invasion of Iraq was all about oil? What kind of "bizarre, flawed, weird logic" is behind that?

dahamsta

For the record, I'm most certainly not "anti-war". I would have supported action in Iraq if it was sanctioned by the United Nations.

Why am I not surprised that you mischaracterise and pigeonhole people Biffa? Got a name for black people and asians too?

adam

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by dahamsta
Why am I not surprised that you mischaracterise and pigeonhole people Biffa? Got a name for black people and asians too?

Yawn.

So are you going to tell us what the relevance of the article is to anything?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
So are you going to tell us what the relevance of the article is to anything?

Not a hell of a lot of relevance to anything current, IMHO, and more of a historical topic, but it did stimulate a good argument

dahamsta

I believe I was pretty clear in my first post. I doubt you're unable to understand, so I presume you're simply unwilling. A bit like Cork, eh?

adam

vorbis

corinthian your example about wife beating, I think portrayed Iraq as the victim. At the time yes they were the agressor. The sanctions were a form of punishment that would be lifted when inspections were fully carried out. As for compliance with inspections, Sadamm started co-operating far too late. There was no way Bush was going to withdraw the troops deployed to the Middle East due to some last minute compliance. Because thats what it ultimately was, Sadamm finally realisng that they were going to invade.

The comment about conspiracy to rob a bank is also a bit misleading. Has anyone ever been prosecuted for having 30 year old plans for a robbery that never actually took place? (Knowing my luck someone has)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
corinthian your example about wife beating, I think portrayed Iraq as the victim. At the time yes they were the agressor.

The example I gave simply highlighted your logic of “I only hurt you because you make me do so”. Whether Iraq was the aggressor originally is an irrelevant and often forgotten question ten years later - Ask the Weimar republic.

The sanctions were a form of punishment that would be lifted when inspections were fully carried out.

The sanctions were a means to compel Iraq into compliance with regard to arms inspections, not a punishment. Iraq was forced to pay war reparations as punishment.

As for their lifting when inspections were fully carried out; that scenario, given the de facto policy of ‘regime change’ adopted by the US, was improbable given the wisdom of hindsight.

As for compliance with inspections, Sadamm started co-operating far too late. There was no way Bush was going to withdraw the troops deployed to the Middle East due to some last minute compliance. Because thats what it ultimately was, Sadamm finally realisng that they were going to invade.

Then what you’re saying is Iraq ultimately was invaded because the troops were in place and not because of a failure to comply. It was never too late from a diplomatic or legal viewpoint, only from a financial or military one.