"US will liberate Iraq", says Bush

[Ramo]

Iraq 2 Intention -- to be honest I have no damn idea what the hell is going on.

Domestic politics, I think is the most reasonable explanation. Shrub wants to secure his power.

[Thue]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
It's not about oil.

US gets all its oil from ourselves and South America.

Japan and the EU, on the other hand, are dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

It doesn't really matter that the US doesn't import directly from these contries. The oil market is global, so lack of supply will raise prices everywhere, and so cost the US money on the oil they import.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Hell, it'd be great if we actually LOST any war we start in Iraq, but that probably won't happen.

Don´t be so sure

I remember a military exercise last year (I think it was "Millenium Challenge") which brought an interesting result.

Paul van Riper, who took the Role of Saddam Hussein used orthodox tactics and wreaked Havoc on the US-Troops.

For example, he didn´t use Radio-Communication für fear, that it would be intercepted (which was of course the case) and instead he relied on coded Transmissions which were shouted by the Imams on their Minaretts and on Messengers on Motorcycles.

He also used Suicide-Attacks on American Battleships and Carriers with small fast civilian Boats, packed with Explosives.

After the US-Forces lost a couple of Ships and Carrier with some thousand Troops on Board, the Leadership of the Exercise told Paul van Riper to transmit his Orders via Cellphone and Sattelite-Communication so the US-Trops could intercept the messages.
They also reactivated the sunken ships and dead troops as if they have never been Dead.
But van Riper went still harassing the US-Troops and at the end the Leadership of the Exercise told Ripers subordinates, not to listen to his orders, but issued them different Orders instead.
This was the Point where Van Riper resigned from his Post as Leader of Team Red.
At the End the Exercise was (of course) declared a big victory for Team Blue (the US-Troops)

Here is a good source:

http://www.thepowerhour.com/iraq/millenium-challenge-war-games-iraq.htm

Seems like Saddam could stand a chance, cos it seems if confronted with unusual tactics the Leadership of the US-Military just tries to alter the Rules (which is difficult outside of an exercise) rather than question their own tactics

[Jac de Molay]

Well, I don't think the US will have much of a problem handling Iraq, considering how depleted they are. The bigger problem is what happens when Iraq is "liberated", to use Shrub's parlance.

We can't even keep our ducks in a row with afghanistan and the provisional government there, which barely has power outside of Kabul. And now we propose to nation-build yet another country in a similar manner, expecting different results?

I just don't get it. We're gonna dump up to 100+ billion dollars to prop up quasi-democracies in distant corners of the globe, with a domestic economy that's suckin' major wind and little, if any, direction on domestic policy in general.

I don't think polls tell half the story. Most "barstool" surveys I conduct among people I know indicate serious cold feet about what we are about to undertake.

[/end liberal rant]

[Ned]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST

Here is a good source:

http://www.thepowerhour.com/iraq/millenium-challenge-war-games-iraq.htm

Seems like Saddam could stand a chance, cos it seems if confronted with unusual tactics the Leadership of the US-Military just tries to alter the Rules (which is difficult outside of an exercise) rather than question their own tactics

Very interesting link. van Riper sinks the US fleet by attacking first with suicide attacks and missle-armed small boats. He (Saddam) wins. They refloat the fleet, and it looks like van Riper is winning round two as well using his unorthodox techniques.

So they simply remove van Riter and provide a scripted defense.

What did the US planners learn from this? They should have learned that they may have a hard time beating an innovative defense against a determined opponent.

Somehow, I just do not believe Saddam can have an talented and innovative generals on his staff. He rules his people by terror and has probably long ago eliminated anyone in the general staff with talent.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Bush was against 'nation building' during the elction, but now is doing it.

[Edan]

Originally posted by David Floyd Most certainly, if at all possible.

Diplomacy made the situation worse with Nazi Germany, not better.

even tactical nukes

When did the US use nukes in Afghanistan?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Thue


It doesn't really matter that the US doesn't import directly from these contries. The oil market is global, so lack of supply will raise prices everywhere, and so cost the US money on the oil they import.

THANK YOU!!!!

Why do so few people grasp this? It's not that hard a concept.

[Ted Striker]

It doesn't really matter that the US doesn't import directly from these contries. The oil market is global, so lack of supply will raise prices everywhere, and so cost the US money on the oil they import.

That's a very simplistic view, and completely ignores secondary markets. First off it ignores transportation costs. Is it alot easier to transport oil from the Gulf of Mexico (next door), than from halfway around the world (Iraq).

Secondly, a supply problem in one region can be offset by an increased production in another region(s), and level out the supply numbers or price problems.

Both the Mexicans and Saudis have done this in the past, by increasing their supply to combat these problems.

Thirdly, this completely ignores unilateral trade agreements that countries have between each other.

Here's a recent example of a trade agreement on the secondary market:

Buenos Aires, Jan 3 (EFE): The Argentine government is worried that the first fragile signs that the economy is coming out of a five-year coma could be steamrolled by inflationary pressures caused by the latest spike in world oil prices.

To counter that, it got two major oil companies to agree to sell their product at a fixed price of $28.50 per barrel for the next 90 days, providing that the going word price for a barrel of benchmark West Texas Intermediate stays at between $22 and $35.

http://hoovnews.hoovers.com/fp.asp?layout=displaynews&doc_id=NR20030103670.4_3086000d278572a7

Finally, you just made the case that this is not a US problem but a problem to the ENTIRE WORLD. It is already apparent that the non US part of the world is just as, if not MORE, dependent on oil than we are.

Please tell us how a motive of an invasion of Iraq specifically ties into the world oil markets. I have yet to see a case of how a US invasion leads to some sort of magic elixur. Iraqi oil is already on the market anyway.

Might I also just mention Royal Dutch Shell in passing as well Thue.

[chequita guevara]

Unless there's a strike in Venezuela . . . oops.

The US doesn't want to control oil for it's own oil costs. It wants to control oil in order to control others. The ME is Eupope's and [/i]Asia's[/i] supply. If the US control's the ME's oil, it controls its chief economic rivals.

Too many people underestimate the US.

[Dinner]

The truth is U.S. multinationals have been increasing their control over world oil suppplies for years. In the past countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Mexico have been able to nationalize foreign owned oil assests and amagamate them into state owned enterprises but for the last ten years they've been forced to privitise much of their holdings meaning they've had to go to U.S. and E.U. multinationals for money to continueing developing their claims.

[Ted Striker]

Yep. I don't deny its in US best interest to smooth out oil supply until we can get our dependence off of it. After all, this has caused major economic problems. (Again, for the entire world by the way).

But the idea of an invasion to secure an oil supply is outright absurd, and has to be the most counterproductive idea I've ever heard. The same thing (finding new supply) is being done on a much quieter, easier, and more profitable level, as I have pointed out numerous times, through Central Asia.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
But the idea of an invasion to secure an oil supply is outright absurd, and has to be the most counterproductive idea I've ever heard.

Especially with the very real possibility that Iraq will destroy it's own oil wells, and fire missiles at the oil wells of the surrounding countries.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Unless there's a strike in Venezuela . . . oops.

The US doesn't want to control oil for it's own oil costs. It wants to control oil in order to control others. The ME is Eupope's and [/i]Asia's[/i] supply. If the US control's the ME's oil, it controls its chief economic rivals.

Too many people underestimate the US.

Could this also explain the UK's steadfast support?