What are the real reason why U.S.A. got into Iraq?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
and where is X?

X = discussing on off topic forum about a simple formula describing loss of your braincells each day due to Iraq war discussion

does it bother you that "the beacon of freedom and democracy" is killing innocent people (collateral damage while targeting the valid military targets) and causing mass destruction like this

Fallujah sometimes transliterated as Falluja or Fallouja) is a city in the Iraqi province of Al Anbar, located roughly 69 km (43 miles) west of Baghdad on the Euphrates. Fallujah dates from Babylonian times and was host to important Arab academies for many centuries. The city grew from a small town in 1947 to a pre-war population of about 435,774 inhabitants in 2003 According to UN Data but According to the Former regime there about 600 thousand inhabitants. The current population is unknown but estimated at over 25,131, with approximately 300 sunni immigrants arriving monthly from Baghdad. Within Iraq, it is known as the "city of mosques" for the more than 200 mosques found in the city and surrounding villages. The Iraq American War has reportedly damaged 80% of the city's buildings, with 50% totally destroyed including 60 of the city's mosques.

in the world for no particular reason?

or do you think it's teh terrorists.. so if you do good for you and enjoy growing the extra braincells by abstaining from brain damaging discussion and why even bother to post in this thread???

if yes... well than bring on the discussion...

Civ was right; we can still raze cities in the modern era!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If you really want to engage a supposed neo-con in debate then I suggest you figure out why they believe what they do.

I already do. They believe that because they want the oil.

Oh and for curiousity, where do I fit?

I don't know. Where do you want to fit in?

[Patroklos]

In a full scale war with the US the following are...

The width of the Persian Gulf is largely irrelevant.[Yeah, I can totally see how the geography of the battle space would be irrelevant ] Iran has more than a thousand patrol craft [USELESS, and no they do not have a thousand patrol craft capable of the following activites], capable of carrying missiles, explosive and mines. They have subs[Already addressed, and while not insignificant, definetly negligable], light aircraft[USELESS], land based missiles[USELESS. if you are not within their range] and, presumably, special forces capable of attacking oil terminals.[USELESS, and no they don't]

If Iran wants to prevent oil traffic in the Gulf, that's what's going to happen. The US can hurt them while they do it. But we probably can't stop them.

Until you can come up with a good reason why this would be the case, accept the facts already presented.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

what they could do is litter the passage with mines while trying to avoid to be detected by US navy... that tactic would work to slow down the traffic as long as they have enough material to litter around with...that would not be dead easy to stop... before all the Iranian ports would be rubble which would happen fairly quickly in the case of a war... but there could be some disruption with this type of tactic, as it would take time to clean up (dependable how much they manage to release)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Geronimo
gulf war 1 probably would have happened regardless. It's easy to get a rise out of the international community by declaring another country your 19th province and annexing it by force. With gulf war 1 established I don't see why it would be likely that the current administration would have seen the situation any differently in the absence of oil. If anything the invasion probably would have occurred even earlier because of no risk of the invasion interrupting oil supplies.

So we can expect U.S. troops in Congo to drive out Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi any day now? The Palestinians can expect liberation by the U.S. Marines? Hardly.

One of the U.S.'s major foreign policy objectives is to prevent the consolidation of oil resources under any one polity powerful enough to enable that polity to threaten capitalism. It is American policy to keep the ME fragmented and squabbling; just enough to prevent the rise of a regional hegemon, but not enough that the region becomes unstable.

There was some real fear that Iraq might try and take the Arab Gulf. According to Tariq Aziz, though, when he suggested to Hussein that they should seize the Arab Gulf regions (to see how far Hussein was willing to go) Hussein replied that the Americans would never allow it.

The main reason for the First Gulf War was geo-political. The USSR was falling apart at the seems and the U.S. wanted to show the world exactly who was boss now. The war was a demonstration of American military and political power. The message was this, "Disobey and this will happen to you."

I think part of the reason had to do with the U.S. wanting to have its hand on the global oil faucet. As out economy is much bigger than any other single country's, even more so back than than today, we can absorb higher oil prices more easily. If Japan, China, or the EU start getting a little uppity, we just tighten the flow of oil a little, make their economies hurt, etc. Oil may be fungible, but you can't simply get more oil someplace else. Most of it is already tied up in contracts.

BTW, Iraq didn't suddenly declare Kuwait to be its 19th province. Iraq has claimed Kuwait since independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1919. They first attempted to reassert their claim in 1960 when the British granted Kuwait independence but the mobilization of the Brits caused Iraq to back down.

As to the present war, this was also a war for geo-politics. The U.S. had just been hurt. 9/11 was the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Slapping down Afghanistan wasn't enough of a demonstration to show the world never to try that again. It was a weak state and remote. The point of the invasion of Iraq was to show the world what America was fully capable of.

Unfortunately for them, they overestimated American power, underestimated Iraqi will to resist, and tried to carry out the mission on the cheap. Instead of following the Powell doctrine (use overwhelming force, get lots of allies, and get out quick), they went back to the Vietnam doctrine of trying to "scientifically" micromanage the war and using only just enough resources to get specific tasks done. Far from proving to the world that the U.S. was an unstoppable juggernaut, the invasion of Iraq has shown the limitations of American power, and now, even in it's own back yard, the American empire is crumbling. An empire relies on fear as much as power. The fear is gone and the U.S. doesn't have the power to force everyone back in to line.

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by Patroklos
In a full scale war with the US the following are...





Until you can come up with a good reason why this would be the case, accept the facts already presented.

Present some "facts" and I may accept them.

Iran can hit ships with C-802 missiles from islands and their mainland along extent of at least 60 miles. Two MEUs are not going to occupy that amount of coast line. They can probably occupy the small islands in the middle of the Gulf (the Tunbs) without too much difficulty, and possibly even Qeshm.

But that's it. They aren't going to invade the mainland. We simply can't spread a very small number of infantry along a thirty mile beachhead perimeter. That's just not going to happen.

Capturing the islands is the only reasonable use for amphibious warfare. It is easiest and has the best return for the risk.

But even if we do it, this only stops the threat of C-802s. From land.

It does nothing against Sunburns, which Iran probably owns. Nor does it do very much against small craft, mines, C-802s launched from other platforms, subs or special forces. All of these can be used throughout the Gulf to attack tankers or oil terminals.

It really doesn't matter anyway. Just cutting off Iran's own oil is enough to drive up prices by at least 50%. Add in Iraq's, which will be impossible to export at the start of any conflict and we are almost certainly looking at $200+ a barrel. Add in the effect of Iran reducing shipping from other Gulf sources and oil prices would hit depression inducing levels instantly.

[DinoDoc]

You guys do realize that this entire scenario is incredibly farfetched given Iran's a) lack of refining capacity and b) economic dependence on oil. Right?

[Patroklos]

Iran can hit ships with C-802 missiles from islands and their mainland along extent of at least 60 miles. Two MEUs are not going to occupy that amount of coast line. They can probably occupy the small islands in the middle of the Gulf (the Tunbs) without too much difficulty, and possibly even Qeshm.

1.) Iran has not had a successful C-802 test fire for the better part of a decade. They try every year.

2.) Find yourself a map of of the Gulf. Get a compass and trace a 60 mile radius circle from any point on the Iranian coast. Relize no combination of circles comes even close to cutting off naviagale waters anwhere but the SOH. Learn. Apply.

3.) we don' need to occupy those islands. All we have to do is land, destroy everything, and then leave.

4.) You will note that half the Iranian coast with the SOH is masked by a very large island that is more than suitable for taking and then easily holding.

[Patroklos]

But that's it. They aren't going to invade the mainland. We simply can't spread a very small number of infantry along a thirty mile beachhead perimeter. That's just not going to happen.

We couldn't even fit 10,000 soldiers in a 30 mile perimeter in good order. The perimeter would be far greater than that. But you are again missing the point. There is no beachhead. All there is is a few detachments of marines landing and holding a very few locations along the Iranian SOH that can host serious AS missile batteries. The very terrian that makes it easy to take (on the coast) is the same terrain that would make it impossible for Iran to dislodge us (up against mountans.

But even if we do it, this only stops the threat of C-802s. From land.

Yes, it does. Do you realize that the SOH channel is already outside normal surface search radar range? Do you realize any currently active radar station will disapear in hours? Do you realize that as soon as anyone radiates anything on the Iranian coast theu will be toast? Do you realize that the Iranians have no ability to get targeting date via the air? Do you realize that while the current location of the channel is optimal, there are plenty of sub optimal but still navigational waters far closer to Oman?

It does nothing against Sunburns, which Iran probably owns.

They do now, but they suffer from the same lack of targeting data that C-802s do.

Nor does it do very much against small craft, mines, C-802s launched from other platforms, subs or special forces. All of these can be used throughout the Gulf to attack tankers or oil terminals.

You understand that the US has unquestioned control of the air space over the Gulf/SOH no matter how things break out right? You realize a maritime battlespace is nothing more than a large featureless expanse of flatness. All we need to do is fire up a LANTERN and every Iranian craft on the water from a Houdong to a jet ski becomes a blindgly obvious white target on the display.

Iran's small boat threat is only such a thing if Iran suprise attacks and thus can preposition them and capitalize on confusion following the initial start of hostilities, Or only until air/surface power goes through the tedious but none to difficult task of blowing them up. That might in fact take time, there are a lot of them.

Not to mention that a jet ski, while being easily detected and destroyed from the air, is also only useful within a few miles to shore (or only the SOH). And only in calm seas.

It really doesn't matter anyway. Just cutting off Iran's own oil is enough to drive up prices by at least 50%. Add in Iraq's, which will be impossible to export at the start of any conflict and we are almost certainly looking at $200+ a barrel. Add in the effect of Iran reducing shipping from other Gulf sources and oil prices would hit depression inducing levels instantly.

Irrelevant. If Iran went on TV and simply said they were going to close the SOH and then did nothing about it, prices would jump just as much. Thats right, even if the physical supply was still uneffected whatsoever, the price would still jump.

That can't be avoided. But it can be addressed (again, you are not actually out of oil).

[Ben Kenobi]

Cronos is the closest.

[Ben Kenobi]

BTW, Iraq didn't suddenly declare Kuwait to be its 19th province. Iraq has claimed Kuwait since independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1919. They first attempted to reassert their claim in 1960 when the British granted Kuwait independence but the mobilization of the Brits caused Iraq to back down.

Seems to me the war was because Iraq tried to invade Kuwait.

If Iraq had not invaded Kuwait, we'd not be talking about a first gulf war.

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by Patroklos


1.) Iran has not had a successful C-802 test fire for the better part of a decade. They try every year.

The missile that hit Hanit is generally accepted to have come from Iran. This is a successful hit on a small, US built stealth corvette equipped with modern radar and air defense, at range from defilade.

2.) Find yourself a map of of the Gulf. Get a compass and trace a 60 mile radius circle from any point on the Iranian coast. Relize no combination of circles comes even close to cutting off naviagale waters anwhere but the SOH. Learn. Apply.

3.) we don' need to occupy those islands. All we have to do is land, destroy everything, and then leave.

What happens when the Iranians come back?

4.) You will note that half the Iranian coast with the SOH is masked by a very large island that is more than suitable for taking and then easily holding.

Qeshm. Yes, taking it would be very valuable and within the capabilities of two Marine Expeditionary Units. But it is hardly a risk free target. It is certainly within range of Iranian missiles and boats and its waters are likely to be heavily mined.

But sure. We would have to take it. So we'll take it.

They do now, but they suffer from the same lack of targeting data that C-802s do.

All they have to do is see a tanker and fire in that direction. The missile does the rest of the work once it gets close. Iranians will have no problem knowing where any tanker is in the Gulf. They can probably just Google Earth them. Or use their own drones.

But now of course you say that we will detect and shoot down those drones. With our magic super RADAR BEAMS that can correctly identify and keep track of every man-made object in a million square kilometer area. Yawn.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So we can expect U.S. troops in Congo to drive out Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi any day now? The Palestinians can expect liberation by the U.S. Marines? Hardly.

One of the U.S.'s major foreign policy objectives is to prevent the consolidation of oil resources under any one polity powerful enough to enable that polity to threaten capitalism. It is American policy to keep the ME fragmented and squabbling; just enough to prevent the rise of a regional hegemon, but not enough that the region becomes unstable.

There was some real fear that Iraq might try and take the Arab Gulf. According to Tariq Aziz, though, when he suggested to Hussein that they should seize the Arab Gulf regions (to see how far Hussein was willing to go) Hussein replied that the Americans would never allow it.

The main reason for the First Gulf War was geo-political. The USSR was falling apart at the seems and the U.S. wanted to show the world exactly who was boss now. The war was a demonstration of American military and political power. The message was this, "Disobey and this will happen to you."

I think part of the reason had to do with the U.S. wanting to have its hand on the global oil faucet. As out economy is much bigger than any other single country's, even more so back than than today, we can absorb higher oil prices more easily. If Japan, China, or the EU start getting a little uppity, we just tighten the flow of oil a little, make their economies hurt, etc. Oil may be fungible, but you can't simply get more oil someplace else. Most of it is already tied up in contracts.

BTW, Iraq didn't suddenly declare Kuwait to be its 19th province. Iraq has claimed Kuwait since independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1919. They first attempted to reassert their claim in 1960 when the British granted Kuwait independence but the mobilization of the Brits caused Iraq to back down.

As to the present war, this was also a war for geo-politics. The U.S. had just been hurt. 9/11 was the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Slapping down Afghanistan wasn't enough of a demonstration to show the world never to try that again. It was a weak state and remote. The point of the invasion of Iraq was to show the world what America was fully capable of.

Unfortunately for them, they overestimated American power, underestimated Iraqi will to resist, and tried to carry out the mission on the cheap. Instead of following the Powell doctrine (use overwhelming force, get lots of allies, and get out quick), they went back to the Vietnam doctrine of trying to "scientifically" micromanage the war and using only just enough resources to get specific tasks done. Far from proving to the world that the U.S. was an unstoppable juggernaut, the invasion of Iraq has shown the limitations of American power, and now, even in it's own back yard, the American empire is crumbling. An empire relies on fear as much as power. The fear is gone and the U.S. doesn't have the power to force everyone back in to line.

If you look at your reasoning carefully you will see that the wars would have been quite likely in the absence of oil.

Furthermore, Palestine wasn't a conquered state but rather an area orphaned by jordan after occupation by israel. Congo hasn't been conquered and the neighbors aren't claiming the entire country. One country simply invading and annexing another country is quite extraordinary these days. Even in africa there would be prospects of intervention in such circumstances. Somalia would appear to be quite unlikely from a control of resources point of view but the US military ended up there regardless.

[Patroklos]

Originally posted by Vanguard


The missile that hit Hanit is generally accepted to have come from Iran.

Yes, that is where they came from. How does it make Iran look that Hezbollah pulled of a hit on their first ever firing on a real target with no practice and Iran can't hit jack in controlled tests for years?

US built

So? The US builds all sorts of things, that doesn't mean we use them. Is a Tiger Shark the same thing as a Raptor?

stealth corvette

No.

equipped with modern radar and air defense

Modern, yes. The best (like SPY-D), no. Hell, they are using the oldest and least effective point defense system in the US inventory (behind RAM and ESSM), and are two block upgrades behind the Phalanx even then!

And of course as you know, and failed to mention for obvious reasons, none of those systems were on. Isreali doctrine is not US doctrine.

at range from defilade.

At range? Maybe thats what 10nm means to you. To everyone else talking about 10nm and a missile with a range of 60nm, no.

The only way to have defilade at sea is to be behind an island (or other object) or over the horizon, and neither is the case here. Hanit was hit 10nm off shore. Normal visual range of a surface ship is 13nm, and thus would be the same for any 2 story building on shore.

What happens when the Iranians come back?

You mean if Iran decides to reoccupy islands that no longer have any military value, and do so over sea and air space where we have unquestioned superiority? Thank god and fire up the LANTERNs maybe?

Qeshm. Yes, taking it would be very valuable and within the capabilities of two Marine Expeditionary Units. But it is hardly a risk free target. It is certainly within range of Iranian missiles and boats and its waters are likely to be heavily mined.

If Iran wants to waste theatre level ballistic missile assets with an accuracy of maybe 1 mile shooting at marine platoons all day let them. I would much prefer them wasting such weapons ineffectively like that then using them the way they probably will; shooting at civilian targets like Dubai, Kuwait Cit, Manama, and Tel Aviv.

What exactly are small boats going to do about retaking Qeshm? Again, if they wish to travel dozens of miles in the open seas through sea and airspace controlled by the US, all the better.

And what is this obsession you have with small boats? As stated, they would be useful in a surprise attack and to exploit confusion at the beginning of hostilities before things get organized, but that is it. I know that video a few months back seemed scary to the unacquainted, but how about some context. Those boats were watched by the US from the second they came over the horizon (maybe sooner if there was a P-3 around of ducting). The watched them slowly close all that territory all the way up to them, and until they started charging and dropping stuff in their way that was fine because they were not doing anything wrong, it was international waters. But if we are at war with Iran, all those small boats would have had to close that whole distance under fire starting at 13nm by the 5". The video would have been a bit different then, don't you think?

And how exactly do the Iranians lay mines? I guess they could do so before hand, but something tells me we would notice that (or the thousands of civilian ships blaketing the Gulf each day). The submarines (or submarine depending on how this kicks off) could do it, but as said I would much rather they waste their time doing that than causing trouble in the GOO.

All they have to do is see a tanker and fire in that direction. The missile does the rest of the work once it gets close. Iranians will have no problem knowing where any tanker is in the Gulf. They can probably just Google Earth them. Or use their own drones.

They won't just see them, the channel is 30 miles from shore.

You realize Google Earth isn't real time, right? I guess they can shoot at whatever tanker was there at 12:30 on January 3rd 2006, do you think that tanker will make it?

The Iranians have to get intel from somewhere. It is pretty obvious none of their aircraft will be up. It is possible they can get a small boat out there to take a glimpse, but how will his underpowered radio transmit through all our jamming?

And what do you mean the missile does the rest of the work? The thing shoots in a straight line and probably has a forward to back search with a mile or two or width at most. Are you suggesting the Iranians just randomly fire off missiles into the Gulf hoping they hit something? I am sure they will hit SOMETHING, probably one of a thousand fishing dhows most likely. Maybe they will get lucky and hit a Chinese tanker, oh happy day for Iran!

But now of course you say that we will detect and shoot down those drones.

What will probably happen is that a) we will jam the signals that control them. b.) we will have destroyed any transmitter that can broadcast a non jamible signal over the horizon at out to at least 60 nm or c.) we will shoot them down, why wouldn't we?

With our magic super RADAR BEAMS that can correctly identify and keep track of every man-made object in a million square kilometer area. Yawn.

SPY1-D with Aegis attached can track hundreds of contacts (I don't think I can say just how many) within 256nm. So yes, the area is very big. And it will pick things the size of a golf ball. And also note, 256 is the track range. Its detect range is much (MUCH) farther out than that, but when you start tracking everything in a circle so large, you just have to manage too much, so we keep it at 256.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Geronimo
If you look at your reasoning carefully you will see that the wars would have been quite likely in the absence of oil.

If there were no oil in the ME it wouldn't be a region of geopolitical importance. Oil made the issue salable to the American people back in 1990.

Furthermore, Palestine wasn't a conquered state but rather an area orphaned by jordan after occupation by israel.

Really, then how did a bunch of European Jews grab hold of Palestine? If you look at the maps from sixty years ago, there is only Palestine, no Israel.

Congo hasn't been conquered and the neighbors aren't claiming the entire country.

A huge part of Congo is under occupation by the countries I mentioned. In fact, the war going on there since 1994 is the bloodiest war since WWII. While they haven't annexed the territory, they are running it as if it were their own land.