Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
US ready to seize Gulf oil in 1973
Options
Comments
-
Originally posted by The Corinthian
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?
They effectively became punishment in the long run because Iraq never FULLY complied with the inspections on a continuous and prolonged basis.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 really must have a short term memory. In the beginning, the inspectors tried to gain access to the presidential palaces along with several other key sights, but Iraq denied, delayed, and kicked out the weapon inspectors from 1991 through 1998. And when it came down to That was one of the key points in which the inspectors were kicked out. Additionally, you had Iraq to claim unfettered access, but in reality, there were so many conditions placed on the inspectors, particularily from 1991-1998, that it made authentic verfication practically impossible. You are also ignoring the 11 (I believe) UN resolutions that held Iraq in material breach (this included UN resolution 1441). Do you see a pattern here on Iraq, Corinthian?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...
The key word is appear, Corinthian. Iraq has temporarily complied with UN inspectors but have also ignored, frustrated, delayed, prohibited, and denied UN inspectors from various sites and how inspectors conducted their verification.
As far as WMD, it all depends on how you define WMD. Do you really think that it is only the vials, containers, and ammo that had the biological, chemical, and/or nuclear weapons. It is also those programs that research, enhance, and could obtain such devices at a specific future date. In reality, the inspectors have found more of the latter than the former. But what has not been addressed at this point is the critique of the intelligence information that was used (I am not talking about the Niger report either). Let me ellaborate:
1. Analysts relied heavily on historical information. This ranged from discoveries of Iraqi nuclear programs shortly after the end of the Gulf War, to data on the use of CW against Kurds and Iranians in the 1980s, to the reams of material produced by the UN inspection regime over the years. Although dated, this was important documentation on what Saddam Hussein was willing to do and capable of attaining. Saddam's continuing desire to possess WMD was never in doubt, and who could say (without good HUMINT sources) that his capabilities were adequately blunted?
2. Analysts made extensive use of negative inference - i.e., when Saddam refused to prove something was not the case, the inference was drawn that it possibly (sometimes probably) was the case. And there was a lot of this kind of information. Many times Baghdad refused to account for gaps and inconsistencies in its WMD declarations, or never provided proof that it completely destroyed the weapons and production infrastructure it said it had. The Iraqis withheld important details on their nuclear program, never documented the 6,000 missing CW bombs from the Iran/Iraq war, never explained what happened to thousands of tons of chemical precursors, and much more. If all was actually as Baghdad claimed, why then the refusal to prove it? To this day, the most plausible explanation for this ultimately self-destructive behavior remains that the Iraqis were lying.
3. Finally, analysts drew on national technical means (NTM), such as satellite photographs. They looked at rocket test facilities where buildings were going up, chemical plants with suspicious new additions, and the like. Although overhead photographs tell analysts nothing about plans and intentions, they provide incontrovertible evidence that something is going on. And when that 'something' involves a dual-use chemical production facility in a rogue state like Iraq, it is logical to suspect (if not assume) the worst.0 -
Not quite the same. One (USA invading Saudi Arabia) was out and out aggression, the other much more benevolant and cooperative.Originally posted by 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.
So when the Swedish Special Forces deployed here (half dozen guys thown out the back of a plane and told "find your way home") for a training mission was that "involved troops being sent into a foreign country"? Don't UN missions involve "troops being sent into a foreign country"? There is a big difference between legitimate and illegitimate intervention.0 -
Originally posted by Victor
Not quite the same. One (USA invading Saudi Arabia) was out and out aggression, the other much more benevolant and cooperative.
So when the Swedish Special Forces deployed here (half dozen guys thown out the back of a plane and told "find your way home") for a training mission was that "involved troops being sent into a foreign country"? Don't UN missions involve "troops being sent into a foreign country"? There is a big difference between legitimate and illegitimate intervention.
I think you meant Iraq, not Saudi Arabia, Victor. And training missions between UN, NATO, ASEAN, or any other mutual defense treaty mechanism is not interventionist by any definition. However, it all depends how you define legitimate and illegitimate reasons. Again, Resulution 686 and 1441 called for alternative means when Iraq did not comply with such resolutions. And that disagreement of what the definition of alternative means seperates, mainly, those who support the Iraq military action and those who do not.0 -
Guess what? This thread isn't about Iraq. Read back through the quotes, vorbis was comparing the similarity between the USA invading Saudi Arabia with Ireland intervening in Northern Ireland.Originally posted by Geromino
I think you meant Iraq, not Saudi Arabia, Victor. And training missions between UN, NATO, ASEAN, or any other mutual defense treaty mechanism is not interventionist by any definition. However, it all depends how you define legitimate and illegitimate reasons. Again, Resulution 686 and 1441 called for alternative means when Iraq did not comply with such resolutions. And that disagreement of what the definition of alternative means seperates, mainly, those who support the Iraq military action and those who do not.0 -
no need to be pedantic Victor. The fact is irish troops deployed north of the border would effectively consitute an invasion. That seems pretty similar to plans by the US to invade Saudi Arabia.0
-
Advertisement
-
Originally posted by Victor
Guess what? This thread isn't about Iraq. Read back through the quotes, vorbis was comparing the similarity between the USA invading Saudi Arabia with Ireland intervening in Northern Ireland.
Then he was off-topic. And the thread is about Iraq.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.
Thats the first paragraph of the thread.0 -
Originally posted by Victor
Guess what? This thread isn't about Iraq. Read back through the quotes, vorbis was comparing the similarity between the USA invading Saudi Arabia with Ireland intervening in Northern Ireland.
You might want to reread your post and see if there is any minor grammar mistakes. You said,
, I took it only one way as being Iraq because you were using a context of something that had already happened, not something that could have happened several decades ago on a proposed military action. You should have said, "USA could have invaded Saudi Arabia which would constitute out and out agression."Originally posted by Victor ...One (USA invading Saudi Arabia) was out and out aggression
So, let us take your premise that if the US would have invaded Saudi Arabia in 1973, economic blackmail, as was the case, would and could be for legitimate reasons of military action. Second, how in the hell would you consider a military action to invade Northern Island, without any due discourse, as being benevolent and cooperative. This is not what I am understanding. From what little I know about the conflict, this would have been out and out agression by the ROI (Republic of Ireland) against the UK for solely political means. Please elaborate on how you came to this conclusion.0 -
You weren't. You implied that this report shows that the 2003 invasion of Iraq had something to do with oil, without explaining how.Originally posted by dahamsta
I believe I was pretty clear in my first post.0 -
Have a look at 1969's chronology of events on Cain and make up your own mind whether the Irish government was right to consider sending troops over the border. 'Shankill Defence Association' leader John McKeague estimated that if they'd 48 hours more before British troops were deployed then Belfast would have had all its catholics booted out.Originally posted by Geromino
Second, how in the hell would you consider a military action to invade Northern Island, without any due discourse, as being benevolent and cooperative. This is not what I am understanding. From what little I know about the conflict, this would have been out and out agression by the ROI (Republic of Ireland) against the UK for solely political means. Please elaborate on how you came to this conclusion.0 -
Originally posted by Redleslie
Have a look at 1969's chronology of events on Cain and make up your own mind whether the Irish government was right to consider sending troops over the border. 'Shankill Defence Association' leader John McKeague estimated that if they'd 48 hours more before British troops were deployed then Belfast would have had all its catholics booted out.
First, I want to thank you for the info. Second, the situation in Ireland in 1969 was very similar to the civil rights marches of the 1960's with the culmination of the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Personally and military speaking, I would have considered such an action. However, to call the proposal benevolent is a misrepresentation of the facts presented. Considering that even the NI government was setting up inquiries and establishing control mechanisms to curb the violence, a purely humanitarian reason would not be the the pivotal premise. It would be, in fact, a more political premise (A united Ireland possibly) as the primary motivating factor.0 -
Advertisement
-
Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
You weren't. You implied that this report shows that the 2003 invasion of Iraq had something to do with oil, without explaining how.Originally posted by dahamsta
I doubt you're unable to understand, so I presume you're simply unwilling.0 -
It was a bit late for setting up half assed enquiries I think. The NI government had lost control and it was all happening in the streets. And the Irish army's offensive capability was shall we say, extremely limited, so the idea that they could successfully invade NI, control the loyalists, defeat the British army AND leave enough troops in the republic to prevent any IRA monkey business is a fiction. A report released last year (I think) stated that the army brass believed that if troops were to over the border they'd get whooped by the brits in about 2 weeks.Originally posted by Geromino
However, to call the proposal benevolent is a misrepresentation of the facts presented. Considering that even the NI government was setting up inquiries and establishing control mechanisms to curb the violence, a purely humanitarian reason would not be the the pivotal premise. It would be, in fact, a more political premise (A united Ireland possibly) as the primary motivating factor.
I dunno how people are comparing a plan by a superpower (which could land troops on the moon in hours if it wanted to) to seize control of the world's oil supplies with a plan by a tiny country (with hardly any defence forces at all) to stop people from being killed and burnt out of their homes.0 -
The question however is whether Iraq could ever have fully complied with the demands placed upon it to the satisfaction of the US (that was not interested in letting Iraq off the hook). Impossible compliance is a common diplomatic mechanism for dressing up the politically expedient with a moral veneer, not unlike impossible ultimatums (such as Austria-Hungary’s demands of Serbia in 1914 or the US’s demand on Iraq on March 18th) are often used as the final pretext of war.Originally posted by Geromino
They effectively became punishment in the long run because Iraq never FULLY complied with the inspections on a continuous and prolonged basis.
As such, it is questionable whether Iraq would ever have had sanctions lifted without a regime change. In fact, the most likely purposes for the sanctions were a combination containment and as an encouragement to those within Iraq to facilitate such a regime change.
As I said before, the only example where sanctions were lifted without regime change is Libya - and it took Gadaffi twenty years, a lot of hard cash and some good old-fashioned exploitation of the present political climate.
Who said Iraq is or was without blame? For that matter, how many UN resolutions hold Israel, or numerous other nations, in material breach of one agreement or other?You really must have a short term memory. In the beginning, the inspectors tried to gain access to the presidential palaces along with several other key sights, but Iraq denied, delayed, and kicked out the weapon inspectors from 1991 through 1998. And when it came down to That was one of the key points in which the inspectors were kicked out. Additionally, you had Iraq to claim unfettered access, but in reality, there were so many conditions placed on the inspectors, particularily from 1991-1998, that it made authentic verfication practically impossible. You are also ignoring the 11 (I believe) UN resolutions that held Iraq in material breach (this included UN resolution 1441). Do you see a pattern here on Iraq, Corinthian?
Yet for all your pontificating on the defence of the principles that these resolutions and the UN are based upon, it does not change the fact that the US did more damage to that same institution and the rule of international law than Iraq ever did.
The US wounded the UN in the name of defending it - this is the hypocrisy I’m highlighting for you.
But it was not for the US to decide any of this - it was for the UN inspectors to investigate and advise (which they advised that inspections should continue) and for the UN Security Council to decide on any use of force (which they did not and almost certainly would have voted against, even without vetoes).The key word is appear, Corinthian. Iraq has temporarily complied with UN inspectors but have also ignored, frustrated, delayed, prohibited, and denied UN inspectors from various sites and how inspectors conducted their verification.
As far as WMD, it all depends on how you define WMD. Do you really think that it is only the vials, containers, and ammo that had the biological, chemical, and/or nuclear weapons. It is also those programs that research, enhance, and could obtain such devices at a specific future date. In reality, the inspectors have found more of the latter than the former.
However, the US decided differently and chose to act unilaterally.0 -
yawn why do people feel the need to drag the issue of Israel into any topic concerning the US? There isn't a relevance in this issue. The point about sanctions which i think people are missing is that Sadamm waited too long before complying with them. had he complied fully in say 1998, then I have no doubt he would still be in power today. However, as you insinuate corinthian, once the US had decided to go to war, from then on it was simply too late. I believe that America started on that road about a year and a half ago.
The issue about similarity with Nothern Ireland holds. It does not matter how good the irish army was, it would still have been agression against a foreign country.0 -
Purely coincidental in this case - don’t read too much into it. Israel just happened to be a good example of a country (other than Iraq) that has been in breach of UN resolutions. Other nations that have similarly been in breach of UN resolutions include Ethiopia and Indonesia.Originally posted by vorbis
yawn why do people feel the need to drag the issue of Israel into any topic concerning the US?
However, I’ve already contended that the point of sanctions was indeed to remove Saddam Hussein from power. If so, he would never have been able to comply fully. Given US contempt at the institutions that officially arbitrated compliance, it would lend credence to this interpretation.There isn't a relevance in this issue. The point about sanctions which i think people are missing is that Sadamm waited too long before complying with them. had he complied fully in say 1998, then I have no doubt he would still be in power today.0 -
No - to repeat the quote:Originally posted by vorbis
no need to be pedantic Victor. The fact is irish troops deployed north of the border would effectively consitute an invasion. That seems pretty similar to plans by the US to invade Saudi Arabia.
How can it be considered invasion if they were envisaged to be working together with the British Army, not shooting at them?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".
Actaully, I understand this thread is about the possibility of American gression in 1973/74.Originally posted by therecklessone
Then he was off-topic. And the thread is about Iraq.
Yes, I apologise, my phrasing was poor and your grammar is more correct, but my tenses did agree - as there was no invasion of Northern Ireland, there was also no invasion of Saudi Arabia.Originally posted by Geromino
You might want to reread your post and see if there is any minor grammar mistakes. You said, , I took it only one way as being Iraq because you were using a context of something that had already happened, not something that could have happened several decades ago on a proposed military action. You should have said, "USA could have invaded Saudi Arabia which would constitute out and out agression."
Blockade is a reason for (and indeed an act of) war. I don't believe either embargo or "economic blackmail" are. Should the rest of the world have gone to war against Bush's steel tariffs? Should Cuba or Iran attack the USA for the sanctions against them? Should Ireland now attack the USA for their arms embargo on us?Originally posted by Geromino
So, let us take your premise that if the US would have invaded Saudi Arabia in 1973, economic blackmail, as was the case, would and could be for legitimate reasons of military action.0 -
Originally posted by Victor
Blockade is a reason for (and indeed an act of) war. I don't believe either embargo or "economic blackmail" are. Should the rest of the world have gone to war against Bush's steel tariffs? Should Cuba or Iran attack the USA for the sanctions against them? Should Ireland now attack the USA for their arms embargo on us?
What do you think an embargo or "economic blackmail is? It is a form of a blockade. However, with an embargo, there are varying degrees of said embargo. For example, in Feb 1941 (or maybe it was May), the US stopped (embargo) all oil shipments to Japan. That, by the interpretation of the Japanese government, was a de facto act of war. The reason: the US was its single oil importer and had no internal supply to sustain its most miminal productivity. That is also why the US government was so interested in keeping an eye on the Japanese navy and other military forces. However, the US government incorrectly assessed that such an attack would occur in the Philippines and not anywhere further east (some had to do with racist attitudes and some on the incorrect operational assessment of conducting military ops at Pearl Harbor). However, an arms embargo, which is never a country's sole national industry, is considered more of a nuissance than an act of war. Economic blackmail is an another form of blockade, but is much more political in nature to obtain a specific, yet unqualified, set of goals or agendas.0 -
Originally posted by The Corinthian
However, I’ve already contended that the point of sanctions was indeed to remove Saddam Hussein from power. If so, he would never have been able to comply fully. Given US contempt at the institutions that officially arbitrated compliance, it would lend credence to this interpretation.
To make your assertion hold water Corinthian, it must have been from the onset. However, when looking at the initial set of UN resolutions, that is simply not the case. The primary reason for the sanctions was for containment, not regime change. Would most people welcome a regime change (specifically voluntarily). That answer would have been a RESOUNDING YES! Yet this admission does not verify your argument simply because the geopolitical climate of 1991 (everybody wanted containment at that time and expected Iraq to comply). In 1995, that is when the UN security council became deadlocked and containment policy became irrelevant. It is also when you see France and Russia starting to differ with the US on the Iraq issue. What Iraq did was, in fact a blueprint to nullify any UN sactions, a remarkable piece of political saavy. If you are able to hold off the UN from acting on any given issue, then that issue will eventually become deadlocked, nullified, split, and politically expendable for certain countries. When that happened, then the politics and political agendas began to change. That is where you started seeing a more active political stance for regime change and not before.0 -
Because their own rules include provisions to manipulate output. e.g. Their existant ruiles permit the redction of output by up to 500,000 barrels per day should oil drop below the desired market range of $22-$27 a barrel.Originally posted by Geromino
Why do you thnk OPEC maintains a price floor on producing oil, Bonkey?
So, I think that they do because they act like they do, their rules say this is the reason they act that way, and every single report you see about OPEC typically involves discussing
No, but it is still dependant on oil. Saying it is less than it was is only significant if the dependancy is no longer significant.The West is not nearly as dependent upon oil as it was in 1973.
It is also true that OPEC no longer controls as much market share as it used to, but that still does not mean that the US (or anyone else) is free from their influence.
Do you honestly think that the US economy could survive the impact of another oil embargo? Seriously? Even if it were of lesser impact because of the changed situation?
No? Not even considering the massive energy-shortcuts the Us is already staring in the face?
I've never claimed a new embargo would be as bad, just that it would be bad.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.
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.
In terms of dubious relevance and shaky applicability, I think you've outdone yourself on that one m8. In terms of a response...I think my answer to the next bit is sufficient. If not, then you might consider why anyone from the ME is involved in terrorism against the US as well. After all, that only hurts the Palestinian cause as well....and if people are willing to do that.....
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.
I think you are the only person on this entire thread who has assumed that any such embargo would be aimed at, and limited to, one country. All I have done is said that an embargo could still have disastrous effects on the US - not that it would have to be a US-targetted, US-limited-embargo.
You've already defended the US plans for invasion in the 70s as being based on an embargo which - as you yourself pointed out - targetted the US, Europe and Japan. Now you're saying that the reason it could never re-occur is because the US on its own could never be targetted. Undermining your own arguments before you make them.....good one.
Why? in the 70s, the world's powers and super-powers were all dependant on oil. Today, they're still dependant on oil. It is dependant to a lesser degree I'll grant, but thats like saying the body is less dependant on water than on air .... it still doesn't mean that being deprived of the commodity (or even just a percentage of it) will not have disastrous effects.
The relevance has to do with the changing geopolical structure between 1973 and today.
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.
Yes, and you construe this to mean that saying "we're not getting involved" is not giving tacit support at the very least.
Tell me....if the Irish had received a communique from Al Qaeda on September 10th, 2001, which contained the plan of attack for the following day, and we decided to sit on it because :
1) The conflicts the US is involved in are not our disputes.
2) We have no military capable of preventing the act on the day
3) Every other excuse you offer for the US' inaction
Tell me...if Ireland did that...and then publically admitted it on the 12th....do you think the US would be as understanding of our "non-involvement" as you are of the US with respect to Kuwait? Honestly? Bearing that "with us or against us" speech and all???
Unless you can put your hand on your heart and say that not only would the US have taken no offence, but that the Irish - in such a hypothetical situation - did not condone, or in any way support the attacks, then you have absolutely no non-hypocritical defence of the US action in terms of the invasion of Kuwait.
The US knew in advance and chose to do nothing. Thats not hindsight. At best, its miserable incompetence.
Hindsight is lways 20/10, is in it Bonky?
When you have the largest, most projectable force in the world, and are dealing with a dictator that you not only helped to put in power but have helped keep in power for decades, up to and including providing (at least) base materials for WMD production, then you can be pretty sure that you have a fair amount of leverage over the person in question.
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 US did nothing. No advance warning to the Kuwaitis. No indications of additional meetings where the US tried to say "no, Iran was one thing, but this is something else". Nothing. They didn't even try to stop the war - they said it wasn't their concern, and then decided that, oops, it was.
That we stop trying to bully the nations we can beat up, and instead try treating them like the nations where reform is encouraged because the nation in question is too big to push around.And may I ask what would be the alternative?
Look at the path the so-called West has taken with China. They've accepted that the human rights abuses will take decades (or longer...lifetimes?) to fix, but they deal with it slowly, slowly.
If China was a smaller nation, it would have been embargoed, possibly even invaded. It would have been treated as the scum of the earth. But because its not, progress has been made.
No, but I question the sanctions that were taken.Would you suggest that no sanctions should be imposed while inspections were going on?
I question the wisdom of the no-fly zones. I question every single action taken to try and subdue and cow the Iraqi nation post-1990.
I question whether "shut up and do as we say and we might eventually stop starving your people and bombing your country" is a good technique for getting what you want, even if you weren't rubbing salt into the wounds by ensuring the weapons inspections teams were riddled with intelligence agents.
But I guess its easier to just paint it all in black and white...Saddam was bad, ergo the US must be good. I disagree with teh US, ergo, I must be a Saddamite.
Yeah...heard it.
jc0 -
Earlier in this thread you jumped from regime change not being official policy after the first war, to internal regime change being official policy after the first war and failed to address my questioning of this changing of goalposts.Originally posted by Geromino
To make your assertion hold water Corinthian, it must have been from the onset. However, when looking at the initial set of UN resolutions, that is simply not the case. The primary reason for the sanctions was for containment, not regime change.
Not that you’ve been the only one changing the goalposts - after all, the primary reason for the invasion was WMD and Saddam’s links with al-Qaeda. Or not, as the case may be. So your assertion now, that it was all about containment and not regime change is simply not believable. There’s only so many times you can cry wolf before we stop running...
However, if the purpose were containment with a preference for regime change, then it would verify that it would have been against the interests of these aims to accept that Iraq had ever fully complied.Would most people welcome a regime change (specifically voluntarily). That answer would have been a RESOUNDING YES! Yet this admission does not verify your argument simply because the geopolitical climate of 1991 (everybody wanted containment at that time and expected Iraq to comply).
Here I won’t disagree with you, but again you’re playing with semantics; a more active political stance for regime change implies that a political stance for regime change existed prior to that, even if it was less aggressive. And as I said, if this was the political stance; official or not, active or passive; then lifting sanctions for whatever reasons, would have gained nothing for those aims.In 1995, that is when the UN security council became deadlocked and containment policy became irrelevant. It is also when you see France and Russia starting to differ with the US on the Iraq issue. What Iraq did was, in fact a blueprint to nullify any UN sactions, a remarkable piece of political saavy. If you are able to hold off the UN from acting on any given issue, then that issue will eventually become deadlocked, nullified, split, and politically expendable for certain countries. When that happened, then the politics and political agendas began to change. That is where you started seeing a more active political stance for regime change and not before.
If anything, lifting sanctions would have lessened the aim of containment too - so any way you see it Iraq was pretty screwed on the compliance issue.0 -
Advertisement
-
Originally posted by Geromino
What do you think an embargo or "economic blackmail is? It is a form of a blockade. However, with an embargo, there are varying degrees of said embargo. For example, in Feb 1941 (or maybe it was May), the US stopped (embargo) all oil shipments to Japan. That, by the interpretation of the Japanese government, was a de facto act of war. The reason: the US was its single oil importer and had no internal supply to sustain its most miminal productivity. That is also why the US government was so interested in keeping an eye on the Japanese navy and other military forces. However, the US government incorrectly assessed that such an attack would occur in the Philippines and not anywhere further east (some had to do with racist attitudes and some on the incorrect operational assessment of conducting military ops at Pearl Harbor). However, an arms embargo, which is never a country's sole national industry, is considered more of a nuissance than an act of war. Economic blackmail is an another form of blockade, but is much more political in nature to obtain a specific, yet unqualified, set of goals or agendas.
Blockade
The isolation of a nation, area, city, or harbor by hostile ships or forces in order to prevent the entrance and exit of traffic and commerce.
Embargo
A prohibition by a government on certain or all trade with a foreign nation.
Two quite different things, the first a reason for war, the other for a diplomatic spat (ignoring Machievelli for the moment). One is stopping stuff entering another country altogether the other is stopping stuff leaving your country.
The USA embargoed oil (one essential commodity) to Japan in 1941, it is now embargoing weapons (one essential commodity) to Ireland. Ireland has a pressing need for certain types of weapons to bring it's defences into the 20th (yes
) century. While the USA was the world's major (but not only, USSR, Middle East, Indonesia) oil producer in 1941, it is in 2003 the world's major (but not only) weapons producer. By your reckoning should we go to war? 0 -
Originally posted by bonkey
Because their own rules include provisions to manipulate output. e.g. Their existant ruiles permit the redction of output by up to 500,000 barrels per day should oil drop below the desired market range of $22-$27 a barrel.
So, I think that they do because they act like they do, their rules say this is the reason they act that way, and every single report you see about OPEC typically involves discussing.
I have should have said before 1970, Bonkey. The oil embargo was the primary factor of inflation throughout the world and the reason why you will not have one today. It is also the difference between 1973 and now. Before 1973, you still had the same rules, but the member nations constantly broke those same rules. Furthermore, it is also when the member nations became much more economically powerful (i.e. rich) and to the extent that geopolitics and geoeconomic dynamics now have significant political/economic forefront.No, but it is still dependant on oil. Saying it is less than it was is only significant if the dependancy is no longer significant.
It is also true that OPEC no longer controls as much market share as it used to, but that still does not mean that the US (or anyone else) is free from their influence.
Do you honestly think that the US economy could survive the impact of another oil embargo? Seriously? Even if it were of lesser impact because of the changed situation?
No? Not even considering the massive energy-shortcuts the Us is already staring in the face?
But the loss of significance in certain nations and the greater dependence of other nation, those sympathetic to the Palestine cause is what is different Bonkey. I have never said we are not dominated, but the west have more alternatives than other nations. If an embargo ever occured, it would be based on a political idealogy: the Palestinian cause). We have already had Iran and Iraq, in 2002, wanting such an embargo, but it would hurt the Asian nations, especially Malaysia, Indonesia, etc., than it would hurt the Western nations. This is the reason why the embargo would target the United States (for its support of Israel) but would have more disastrous effects on other nations that are sympathetic. This is what I have meant all along and political/economic analysists have reached the same conclusion. As far as the US economy would survive, it would take a longer effect than it would with other nations.
...In terms of dubious relevance and shaky applicability, I think you've outdone yourself on that one m8. In terms of a response...I think my answer to the next bit is sufficient. If not, then you might consider why anyone from the ME is involved in terrorism against the US as well. After all, that only hurts the Palestinian cause as well....and if people are willing to do that..
The relevance was coming from an economic analysis of a potential oil embargo in 2002. Here are some web sites for further reading:
http://web.nps.navy.mil/~relooney/Stratfor_Oil_1.htm
http://www.erisk.com/reference/case/ref_case_oilcrisis.asp
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build96/art113.html
http://www.aceee.org/pubs/u983.htm
http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-24-02.html This is a new paper.I think you are the only person on this entire thread who has assumed that any such embargo would be aimed at, and limited to, one country. All I have done is said that an embargo could still have disastrous effects on the US - not that it would have to be a US-targetted, US-limited-embargo.
You've already defended the US plans for invasion in the 70s as being based on an embargo which - as you yourself pointed out - targetted the US, Europe and Japan. Now you're saying that the reason it could never re-occur is because the US on its own could never be targetted. Undermining your own arguments before you make them.....good one.
The aim, as I stated before, would be at the US support of Israel (one of the reasons for terrorism), but at the same time would have disatrous effects on those nations who are supportive of Palestinian causes. Would you want to have an embargo that would hurt an economy you despise but have more disastrous effects on your own? I don't think so Bonkey.Why? in the 70s, the world's powers and super-powers were all dependant on oil. Today, they're still dependant on oil. It is dependant to a lesser degree I'll grant, but thats like saying the body is less dependant on water than on air .... it still doesn't mean that being deprived of the commodity (or even just a percentage of it) will not have disastrous effects.
See my statements above.Yes, and you construe this to mean that saying "we're not getting involved" is not giving tacit support at the very least.
Tell me....if the Irish had received a communique from Al Qaeda on September 10th, 2001, which contained the plan of attack for the following day, and we decided to sit on it because :
1) The conflicts the US is involved in are not our disputes.
2) We have no military capable of preventing the act on the day
3) Every other excuse you offer for the US' inaction
Tell me...if Ireland did that...and then publically admitted it on the 12th....do you think the US would be as understanding of our "non-involvement" as you are of the US with respect to Kuwait? Honestly? Bearing that "with us or against us" speech and all???
Unless you can put your hand on your heart and say that not only would the US have taken no offence, but that the Irish - in such a hypothetical situation - did not condone, or in any way support the attacks, then you have absolutely no non-hypocritical defence of the US action in terms of the invasion of Kuwait.
Bonkey, the two situations are totally different. One is involving a communique in which you have to put an assumption of what would and would not happen. There is only one way to absolutely know if the communique is absolutely verifiable. That is to have the communique, not do anything, and then see if the event actually occured. Otherwise, you wouldh have to use intel analysis to make such a prediction. Even the Arab leaque knew about the situation (economically and politically) of the dispute between Kuwait and Iraq. Their prediction was a monetary settlement in which would be approved by the Arab League. So, does this also mean that the Arab league also knew Saddam was going to invade? I think not Bonkey.
With the United States, the situation was relatively unknown at that time and was initially viewed as an economic disagreement between the two nations. Any involvement of the West (thise includes Ireland by the way) would be construed as interventionist in the Arab minds. Tell me, if Ireland and the UK had a similar disagreement in the North Sea, would you want outsiders to settle the conflict for you or would you want to negotiate for a settlement (even though you see military buildup). You might also look at the Spralty Islands in the East China Sea as another prime example. You had Japan, China, South Korea, and North Korea all claiming rights to those islands. You even had some Chinese military buildup in the region, yet no one was predicting an invasion or military action with that situation.0 -
The US knew in advance and chose to do nothing. Thats not hindsight. At best, its miserable incompetence.
How did the US know. Saddam did not say to the ambassador that we are invading. He was very general and misread (again) intentions of what other nations would do. Even Tariq Aziz confirmed that two years later. Unless you are a psychic, you have no foundational basis for making such a claim Bonkey.When you have the largest, most projectable force in the world, and are dealing with a dictator that you not only helped to put in power but have helped keep in power for decades, up to and including providing (at least) base materials for WMD production, then you can be pretty sure that you have a fair amount of leverage over the person in question.
The US did nothing. No advance warning to the Kuwaitis. No indications of additional meetings where the US tried to say "no, Iran was one thing, but this is something else". Nothing. They didn't even try to stop the war - they said it wasn't their concern, and then decided that, oops, it was.[.B]
There are always constraints in military action. You might look at the analysis of the "Reb Ball Express" during WWII. It was a magnificent logistical solution of that time. Again, it took 72 hours to move units into Saudi Arabia. It took a week to move a heavy division (24 Mech Inf) and several more months to move a total of 500k troops. Even England, France, Italy, Egypt, Syria, and other nations had a hard time moving their troops (with some much more closer to Iraq than others). But also, the situation was that a mooetary settlement was going to be in order (look at the Arab League minutes two months prior). However, you basing your premise as if the US "knew" yet you have no foundational basis for making such a claim. If the US knew, then the Arab League knew and I know you are not going to tell me that the Arab League was at fault too.That we stop trying to bully the nations we can beat up, and instead try treating them like the nations where reform is encouraged because the nation in question is too big to push around.
Look at the path the so-called West has taken with China. They've accepted that the human rights abuses will take decades (or longer...lifetimes?) to fix, but they deal with it slowly, slowly.
If China was a smaller nation, it would have been embargoed, possibly even invaded. It would have been treated as the scum of the earth. But because its not, progress has been made.
But you also have human rights violations with nearly every nation that you can think of. This includes Ireland, UK, US, Russia, Cuba, etc. Each situation is different and you must draw a line somewhere in each sitation. To put it simplistically in a nice little box does not reflect the numerous dynamic political inferences involved in international potitics.No, but I question the sanctions that were taken.
I question the wisdom of the no-fly zones. I question every single action taken to try and subdue and cow the Iraqi nation post-1990.
I question whether "shut up and do as we say and we might eventually stop starving your people and bombing your country" is a good technique for getting what you want, even if you weren't rubbing salt into the wounds by ensuring the weapons inspections teams were riddled with intelligence agents.
But I guess its easier to just paint it all in black and white...Saddam was bad, ergo the US must be good. I disagree with teh US, ergo, I must be a Saddamite.
Yeah...heard it.
jc
But what alternative do you have Bonkey? Would you just use the lets not want not idealogy. There are consequences to every action you take or a nation takes whether you recognize it or not.0 -
Originally posted by The Corinthian
Earlier in this thread you jumped from regime change not being official policy after the first war, to internal regime change being official policy after the first war and failed to address my questioning of this changing of goalposts.
Not that you’ve been the only one changing the goalposts - after all, the primary reason for the invasion was WMD and Saddam’s links with al-Qaeda. Or not, as the case may be. So your assertion now, that it was all about containment and not regime change is simply not believable. There’s only so many times you can cry wolf before we stop running...
But it depends on the time chronology with the political situation Corinthian. Let me give you an example. Was the US Civil War about preserving the Union or freeing the slaves as the primary cause. Keep in mind you had the Emanicapation Proclamation in 1863 while the Civil War started in 1861. It all depends on the time of when the event happened. What you are doing Corthinian is lumping everything into a single box with no time line. Thus, you have to ignore certain political realities to make your premise accurate. Given the specific events, then your premise falls apart.However, if the purpose were containment with a preference for regime change, then it would verify that it would have been against the interests of these aims to accept that Iraq had ever fully complied.
The purpose was containment. That was the prevailing doctrine at that time. However, when a nations delays, kicks out, and opposes such UN resolutions, then a change in policy would need to occur. That is the reason why you had Russia propose to drop ALL UN resolutions in 1998. That is also the reason why you had the oil for food program initiated in 1995 (still wanting containment). That is why you had the inspections to continue during the eight years prior to 1998.Here I won’t disagree with you, but again you’re playing with semantics; a more active political stance for regime change implies that a political stance for regime change existed prior to that, even if it was less aggressive. And as I said, if this was the political stance; official or not, active or passive; then lifting sanctions for whatever reasons, would have gained nothing for those aims.
If anything, lifting sanctions would have lessened the aim of containment too - so any way you see it Iraq was pretty screwed on the compliance issue.
Is it semantics or is it a more accurate analysis rather than a generalized analysis? I believe you would want a regime change (a change in political leadership) in the United States, but I do not think you are actively pursuing direct action (by force or support of force) for that to happen. But does it mean that you are advocating a forceful change from the onset? I don't think so? The two are totally seperate. Everybody, including you, would want a regime change in Iraq after 1991. It would have been the easiest and simpliest solution, but not realistic.0 -
Originally posted by Geromino However, when a nations delays, kicks out, and opposes such UN resolutions, then a change in policy would need to occur.
Who? The US? They refused to give inspectors intelligence regarding possible weapon sites, installed members of the CIA amongst the inspectors.
And please please please tell me you weren't refering to the withdrawal of inspectors ahead of a stepped up bombing campaign by the US...when you made this statement "kicks out, and opposes such UN resolutions"That is the reason why you had Russia propose to drop ALL UN resolutions in 1998. That is also the reason why you had the oil for food program initiated in 1995 (still wanting containment).
They didn't want to drop UN resolutions... they wanted to lift the oil embargo along with China and France.That is why you had the inspections to continue during the eight years prior to 1998.
That would be why the US did everything they could to make sure the inspections weren't successful.Everybody, including you, would want a regime change in Iraq after 1991. It would have been the easiest and simpliest solution, but not realistic.
As we see now it is a simplistic but flawed "solution".
Myself and many that opposed the war, that I know, wouldn't have wanted the US to support Saddam's rise and hold on power for 30 some odd years.0 -
So why did the last British Airways flight into Kuwait before the invasion carry soemthing like 40 SAS members, if no one "knew" anything concrete?Originally posted by Geromino
However, you basing your premise as if the US "knew" yet you have no foundational basis for making such a claim. If the US knew, then the Arab League knew and I know you are not going to tell me that the Arab League was at fault too.0 -
Originally posted by sovtek
Who? The US? They refused to give inspectors intelligence regarding possible weapon sites, installed members of the CIA amongst the inspectors.
And please please please tell me you weren't refering to the withdrawal of inspectors ahead of a stepped up bombing campaign by the US...when you made this statement "kicks out, and opposes such UN resolutions"
Remember Scott Ritter? He was the one in which the connection between the CIA and the inspectors occured in the first place. All others were the universal trump card when Iraq was about to be forced to give UN inspectors access to the presidential palaces (the perverbial international racist card). From 1993 through the end of inspections, there has not been one verified piece of evidence linking the inspectors to the intelligence units of UK and the US. But who is for facts in this case. The last time inspectors were withdrawn, it was November 1998. The bombing occured in Dec 1998. Here is an except:
"On August 5, Iraq announces that it is suspending cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA inspections. The Security Council condemns Iraq’s decision the next day and one month later passes Resolution 1194, calling for Iraq to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. The resolution does not brandish a stick but a carrot, holding out the possibility of a comprehensive review of Iraq’s disarmament progress—a condition Iraq had long demanded—after it readmitted inspectors. On October 30, the Security Council approves a plan to conduct the review, but Baghdad declares the next day that in addition to not allowing inspections, it would no longer permit UNSCOM and IAEA activities to conduct less intrusive monitoring activities intended to determine Iraq’s continued compliance with its disarmament obligations. The Security Council condemns the move November 5 amid US and British preparations to punish Iraq with military strikes.
"With a U.S.-British attack imminent, Iraq announces November 14 that it will cooperate with inspectors. Baghdad’s cooperation is short-lived, however, and the IAEA and UNSCOM withdraw their personnel from Iraq December 16, just hours before the United States and the United Kingdom begin three days of air strikes, during which Baghdad declares that weapons inspections are finished. The attacks surprise other Security Council members, some of whom condemn the action."
Now, who initialized what first. It was not the US and UK with its air attack, but Iraq with its disgenuous analysis in 1998. But who is for facts in this case?They didn't want to drop UN resolutions... they wanted to lift the oil embargo along with China and France.
What od you think the UN resolutions advocated in the first place Sovtek? If you want to drop the oil embargo, then you are dropping the UN resolutions.That would be why the US did everything they could to make sure the inspections weren't successful.
Oh really. Sort of like Iraq helping the inspectors by bugging their compounds in which was given advance warning before the inspectors went to a suspected sight. Not to mention the Iraqis bribing Indian and Pakistani inspectors in replace of US inspectors in 1997 (one of the reasons for withdrawal).As we see now it is a simplistic but flawed "solution".
Myself and many that opposed the war, that I know, wouldn't have wanted the US to support Saddam's rise and hold on power for 30 some odd years.
No, in your mind, you would not want the US involved in any way and then blame the US for allowing to happen when your solutions fails. The damned if you do damned if you don't policy routine.0 -
Originally posted by Geromino
Remember Scott Ritter? He was the one in which the connection between the CIA and the inspectors occured in the first place.
NopeFrom 1993 through the end of inspections, there has not been one verified piece of evidence linking the inspectors to the intelligence units of UK and the US.
And what investigation are you referencing?But who is for facts in this case. The last time inspectors were withdrawn, it was November 1998. The bombing occured in Dec 1998.
Like I said, just ahead of a bombing campaign.Here is an except:
From what?Now, who initialized what first. It was not the US and UK with its air attack, but Iraq with its disgenuous analysis in 1998. But who is for facts in this case?
Yeah he announces non-cooporation after suspicion of being spied on. Then changes his mind after being told he's going to have the sh1t bombed out of his country (without Security Council authorization of course). That's assuming that your anonymous account didn't leave anything out in the intervening chronicle of events.
Even then inspectors are still in Iraq 4 months after his declaration.
That's forgetting that Clinton and Albright stated that their strategy was "regime change".What od you think the UN resolutions advocated in the first place Sovtek?
Non-conventional weapons decommisioning and verification.If you want to drop the oil embargo, then you are dropping the UN resolutions.
No you are dropping or amending the resolution that refers to the oil embargo which, if you recall, is aid of enforcing 687.Oh really. Sort of like Iraq helping the inspectors by bugging their compounds in which was given advance warning before the inspectors went to a suspected sight. Not to mention the Iraqis bribing Indian and Pakistani inspectors in replace of US inspectors in 1997 (one of the reasons for withdrawal).
No sort of like putting the CIA amongst inspectors as well as also not cooperating with inspectors and giving them intelligence that they had on Saddam's weapons programs.
Then the "no fly" zones, Clinton and Albright's public statements about regime change.
OH yeah...and now that Paul Bremer is living comfortably in those palaces (unlike the average Iraq) they still haven't found any proscribed weapons in them.No, in your mind, you would not want the US involved in any way and then blame the US for allowing to happen when your solutions fails.
You don't have a clue what's in my mind, firstly.
"Their" solution has quite obviously failed. What is my "solution"?
And no I wouldn't have wanted the US to interfere with Iraq in 1963 onwards as it is the key reason Saddam was in power.The damned if you do damned if you don't policy routine.
They were damned the minute they thought that it was their right or a good idea to help Saddam gain and keep power all these years.0 -
This is too easy!Originally posted by sovtek
Nope
After reading that so called analysis, I can only say this. They must have talked to my ex girlfriend, former brother-in-law who use to date a blonde in college. In other words, that report was should be labeled as gossip. Again, the only factual evidence (that means verified) was Scott Ritter.And what investigation are you referencing?
Again, how do you draw your conclusion that they were spied upon. Again, allegations does not mean facts Sovtek. I can, or whoever can, allege anything to you, but until there are facts, there is no basis in those allegations.Like I said, just ahead of a bombing campaign.
And you are ignoring what happened with the UN inspectors in August and September. However, while the US attack was eminent, Iraq began comlying for a short time and then withdrew. That is when the attack happened after the UN inspectors were kicked out AGAIN. Iraq was not a victim Sovtek. It was the agressor and must adhere to the consequences of its actions.From what?
It came from Arms Control Association in their chronology of the Iraq inspections. It is very accurate in terms of events without politically analyzing it. BTW: Nearly all members of the IAEA inspection teams are members of Arms Control Association. Here is the web link:
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02.aspYeah he announces non-cooporation after suspicion of being spied on. Then changes his mind after being told he's going to have the sh1t bombed out of his country (without Security Council authorization of course). That's assuming that your anonymous account didn't leave anything out in the intervening chronicle of events.
Even then inspectors are still in Iraq 4 months after his declaration.
That's forgetting that Clinton and Albright stated that their strategy was "regime change".
Go look at my statement with the "allegations" of the inspectors as spies. Saddam used every excuse he could not to cooperate. The international race card (figuratively speaking) was accusing the inpectors of being spies.Non-conventional weapons decommisioning and verification.
Actually, the UN resolutions wanted Saddam:
"8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;"
"7. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;" and
"11. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968; "
This is directly from UN resolution 687 Sovtek. It included research as well as weapons. Both are considered part of the definition of weapons of mass destruction.No you are dropping or amending the resolution that refers to the oil embargo which, if you recall, is aid of enforcing 687.
If you drop or even ammend 687, all other resolutions would have been useless Sovtek. In fact, one of the criticisms of the inspection process was the hesitation by the UN security council to use force when it the UN resolutions were not complied with. This is a universal fact approved by the experts in weapon inspections proceedures.No sort of like putting the CIA amongst inspectors as well as also not cooperating with inspectors and giving them intelligence that they had on Saddam's weapons programs.
Then the "no fly" zones, Clinton and Albright's public statements about regime change.
OH yeah...and now that Paul Bremer is living comfortably in those palaces (unlike the average Iraq) they still haven't found any proscribed weapons in them.
Again, what evidence, other than a newpaper article of dubious inference, do you have. NONE! The no fly zones were approved by the UN security council unanimously and were enforced by the only two nations with the "cajones" to enforce them.You don't have a clue what's in my mind, firstly.
"Their" solution has quite obviously failed. What is my "solution"?
And no I wouldn't have wanted the US to interfere with Iraq in 1963 onwards as it is the key reason Saddam was in power.
I have a very good idea of your solution Sovtek by your advocation of droppiing UN resolution 687 which would have made the UN security council future resolutions not even worth the paper it is printed on. The solution failed Sovtek because you had several member nations, France, Russia, Germany, who went behind the back of the UN security resolutions for their own political and economic gains. Containment only works if all members agree. If one fails, then containment fails. The other solution would have been to give Iraq a slap on the wrist for what it did and that would have been disastrous internationally for the UN. If that occured, the UN would have gone into the side bar like that of the League of Nations. BTW: It has already started on that dubious path with the Balkans and Iraq fiasco.They were damned the minute they thought that it was their right or a good idea to help Saddam gain and keep power all these years.
No, they were damned the minute they invade Kuwait for economic blackmail Sovtek. Everything else is related to that single event regardless of your political stance.0 -
Advertisement
-
Rubbish. You’ve just argued that history should be written by the victor is morally justified. It’s not.Originally posted by Geromino
But it depends on the time chronology with the political situation Corinthian. Let me give you an example. Was the US Civil War about preserving the Union or freeing the slaves as the primary cause. Keep in mind you had the Emanicapation Proclamation in 1863 while the Civil War started in 1861. It all depends on the time of when the event happened. What you are doing Corthinian is lumping everything into a single box with no time line. Thus, you have to ignore certain political realities to make your premise accurate. Given the specific events, then your premise falls apart.
Then for containment to be effective, the pressure on Iraq could not have been lifted - otherwise containment would have effectively also been lifted. Hence, Iraq could never have satisfied the US with her cooperation with the weapons inspectors. This was my original point.The purpose was containment.
No but semantics is often used as a means of deception which is then called analysis.Is it semantics or is it a more accurate analysis rather than a generalized analysis?0
Advertisement