US ready to seize Gulf oil in 1973

dahamsta

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

adam

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

sovtek

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

vorbis

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

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

sovtek

Oil underpinned the American economy at the time.

And how is it different now?

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

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

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
And how is it different now?

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

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

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

sovtek

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

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

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

With America's blessing!

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

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

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

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

The Corinthian

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

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

That rather tasteless gag pretty much sums up that postscript.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geromino

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

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

With America's blessing!

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

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

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

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

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

The Corinthian

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where did you pull that fact out of then?

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

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

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

Geromino

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

That rather tasteless gag pretty much sums up that postscript.

The blame the victims aurgument!

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

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

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

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

bonkey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh really.

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

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

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

End sanctions before the UN inspections were completed.

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

As you can imagine, I disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
The blame the victims aurgument!

You’re catching on. Good.

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

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

Geromino

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

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

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

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

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

Where did you pull that fact out of then?

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

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

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

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

dahamsta

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

Perhaps I should get a job with Irish Pychics Online.

Victor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Corinthian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More precisely, Bush Sr wanted internal regime change.

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

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

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

Geromino

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND

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

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

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

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

As you can imagine, I disagree.

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

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

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

jc

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

Victor

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

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

Meh

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

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

Victor

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

There is a difference between:

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

and "lets invade places and take their oil".

therecklessone

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

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

Here's a link from the Jerusalem Post

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

Victor

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

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

vorbis

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

The Corinthian

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

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

Iraq was not a victim. It was the aggressor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biffa Bacon

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

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

dahamsta

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

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

adam

Biffa Bacon

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

Yawn.

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

The Corinthian

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

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

dahamsta

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

adam

vorbis

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

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

The Corinthian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geromino

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.

Victor

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.

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.

Geromino

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.

Victor

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.

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.

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.

therecklessone

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.

Geromino

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,

Originally posted by Victor ...One (USA invading Saudi Arabia) was out and out aggression

, 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."

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.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by dahamsta
I believe I was pretty clear in my first post.

You weren't. You implied that this report shows that the 2003 invasion of Iraq had something to do with oil, without explaining how.

Redleslie

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.

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.

Geromino

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.

dahamsta

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.

Redleslie

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.

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.

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.

The Corinthian

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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 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).

However, the US decided differently and chose to act unilaterally.

vorbis

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.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
yawn why do people feel the need to drag the issue of Israel into any topic concerning the US?

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.

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, 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.

Victor

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.

No - to repeat the quote:

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".

How can it be considered invasion if they were envisaged to be working together with the British Army, not shooting at them?

Originally posted by therecklessone
Then he was off-topic. And the thread is about Iraq.

Actaully, I understand this thread is about the possibility of American gression in 1973/74.

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."

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
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.

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?

Geromino

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.

Geromino

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.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Why do you thnk OPEC maintains a price floor on producing oil, 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

The West is not nearly as dependent upon oil as it was in 1973.

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?

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.

I've never claimed a new embargo would be as bad, just that it would be bad.

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.

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

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 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.

Hindsight is lways 20/10, is in it Bonky?

The US knew in advance and chose to do nothing. Thats not hindsight. At best, its miserable incompetence.

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.

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.

And may I ask what would be the alternative?

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.

Would you suggest that no sanctions should be imposed while inspections were going on?

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

The Corinthian

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.

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...

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).

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.

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.

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.