Iraq

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
JD, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I did sense a teeny bit of animosity in your earlier posts .......... I viewed this thread as a discussion, nothing more (with maybe a small bit of flame on my part).

Sorry - but most of these become a flame war against America after a while. I've proabably have become very defensive because of past topics like these. I realise that in the beginning of the thread that it was said to stay civil. It's just that everyone spouts off their countries self interests - and America is expected to just follow along with them or else we're considered wrong. I have also found that very few Europeans bother to really understand the US political system (of course very few Americans even understand it). I also regularly go into BBC.co.uk and LeMonde.fr - but they only give a very surface view of what goes on in American policy, I used to even going into RussiaToday until it became a pay news site.

I just wish that the countries that constantly complain about America's involvement in the world would get more involved if they want to. Let them be hated for a while - while at the same time giving billions and billions in aid.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There has been absolutely no proof brought forth that we had CIA operatives in the UN inspector contingent.

It was on CNN last night. It was revealed that some of the inspection staff were on the CIA payroll at the time.

]
A perfect example of people never being satisfied. People yell that the government should listen to the people and listen to our "allies" and then when they do - they're credibility comes into question for changing plans. I thought Bush gave everyone what they wanted when he went to the UN? We will now see where these "inspections" lead - but if Saddam Hussein back pedals (as is most likely) what then? What happens if all of a sudden the inspectors get there and the same things happen as before? When is enough enough? How many chances is the world going to give to Saddam Hussein to follow through with the agreements that were initially set forth after the Gulf War.

If Hussein is smart he will allow the inspections. I do think he has a desire to possess nukes but I believe the intelligence that says it is years away. Getting weapons grade plutonium is difficult. The US atomic energy commisison stated that the time to procure the equipment and raw materials, and the time to refine it puts him 10 years from the last inspection to reach the goal.

The facility we saw on the speech recently was filmed by news crews. They found "dual use" equipment, but most everything was in a relatively primative state.

My guess is that much of the Iraqi coomand and control in these so called palaces. I also beleive SH is afraid to reveal the details of his hideouts for fear of assination. Not completely irrational given the circumstance. If he fails to allow the inspections, this would ultimately prove he does have something to hide and action would be required.

If the inspections occur and nothing is found with regard to the nuke production, then what? Invade anyway? It will become more and more difficult to justify as time goes on and that is what SH wants. That is why many congressmen and senators crossed over. The threat of force is useful only if it's application is a real and imminent threat.

[Sween]

wow lots was said whilst i was drunk or sleeping last night. JD you seem quite a clever man but its intresting to see how well the propagandar has worked against you. The next Hittler lol dont make me laugh sadam couldnt be the next hittler if he tried they are completally diffrent people and have completally diffrent aims.

i see this has come down the the american system of government so lets move off that topic. The major complaint that we non americans have is how much power you have. I mean in england its a sad state that when you say jump we do . Ive written Mr Blair a letter today comp[laining about the way we are such lap dogs (special realtionship ha)

Iraq is not that much a threat why would sadam attack america it would be like signing his death warrent.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
The major complaint that we non americans have is how much power you have. I mean in england its a sad state that when you say jump we do . Ive written Mr Blair a letter today comp[laining about the way we are such lap dogs (special realtionship ha)

So then your hatred toward America basically is because of jealousy and your lack of power.

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So then your hatred toward America basically is because of jealousy and your lack of power.

hatred a rather strong word. We dont lack power you see. I just feel like we are americas lap dogs its embrassing

[Comic Book Guy]

I'm sorry to say this but I believe Sween is right.

Also JD you refer to England, when you should be referring to the United Kingdom or Britain.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
I'm sorry to say this but I believe Sween is right.

Also JD you refer to England, when you should be referring to the United Kingdom or Britain.

i should only refer to the United Kingdom or Britain if i was referring to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. I was only referring to England.

I knew hatred was a strong word - but that's a lot of what people from Europe come across as.

By the way - it's not America's fault you feel like lapdogs. Sounds like a self esteem problem to me.

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
i should only refer to the United Kingdom or Britain if i was referring to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. I was only referring to England.

I knew hatred was a strong word - but that's a lot of what people from Europe come across as.

By the way - it's not America's fault you feel like lapdogs. Sounds like a self esteem problem to me.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh get you. Our government does seem to think that we have to go along otherwise we will not be the americans best buddies.

The reason this matters to me is my best friend is in the amry and i would not like to think he is been sent to his possiable death just because America wants him too. Any good country should only attack in defence and im just not convinced that Sadam posses any danger to us.

[Comic Book Guy]

i should only refer to the United Kingdom or Britain if i was referring to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. I was only referring to England.

Sorry, I didn't make my point clear, what I meant was you obviously think there is a separate military organisation for every country in the UK, English Army, Scottish Army etc, in fact there is just one whole army, the British forces.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
Sorry, I didn't make my point clear, what I meant was you obviously think there is a separate military organisation for every country in the UK, English Army, Scottish Army etc, in fact there is just one whole army, the British forces.

I know that. But I was referring to the England as a people not England as a military unit.

I studied Bristish History on my own throughout high school and then took a senior Bristish history class when I was a freshman in college. Although I had taken it mostly because I was interested in the Plantagent Kings it did extend into the modern era.

[BeardofPants]

The issue here is not whether or not we are jealous of America, or whether or not we feel they are too powerful (hasn't this been covered before? ), it's the fact that War seems pretty imminent. The question I have to ask is, why? Why Iraq when Iran has silos? When Iran actually has a means of transporting out warheads? It seems to me like Bush is running a campaign for war because of sour grapes more than anything, and he has said as much.

Saddam won't be happy with the UN inspections because of last times security compromise -- can you blame him? Even this wily madman can see that a compromise in his security ain't a good thing.

You say that the US hasn't been violating Iraq airspace, and yet there have been TWO missions in which the airforce were sent in to take out civilian airport radars.

This is sad to say, but it seems that even if the UN DO manage to get in and undertake their weapons inspections without compromise, that Bush is still gonna press for war. He has pretty much gotten the green light from congress.

Furthermore, what would war acheive? Would they actually manage to take out Saddam? Bear in mind that photographic analysis indicates that he is using at least three imposters.

And once it has ended, then what next? I can't see it ending there... and contrary to what you say (sorry, don't trust YOUR figures here), I think oil DOES play an important part in this equation. Remember: the US used to be friendly with Saddam. Any weapondry that he bears was because the US gave it to him in his attacks against Iran.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Furthermore, what would war acheive? Would they actually manage to take out Saddam? Bear in mind that photographic analysis indicates that he is using at least three imposters.

Only 3 - here they said that it was more like 9 or 10 and that he has only been confirmed to have appeared in public once in the last 3 years.

Once again of course the US hasn't done or said anything right in your eyes. Granted - I agree some of the things that Bush has said is a bit idiotic. But he went to the UN like everyone asked. He has been consulting with allies. And he went through Congress.

For those of you that think America has no outlet for outside news - I am currently watching the French Prime Minister give his speech concerning Iraq which is being shown on CSPAN.

[BeardofPants]

This might be of interest: an abstract detailing oil percentages, and sources.

http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

JD, I said at least three, and once again, I see that you are taking umbrage at any non-US person disagreeing with the topic matter. Let's try and keep this on topic, eh?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
This might be of interest: an abstract detailing oil percentages, and sources.

http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache...n&ie=UTF-8</a>

JD, I said at least three, and once again, I see that you are taking umbrage at any non-US person disagreeing with the topic matter. Let's try and keep this on topic, eh?

Oh yes admin.

It gives no information on what percentage the US gets it's oil from. It is a document that contains information on the oil producers of the world - but does not say where their oil goes.

Also - you should have really have supplied the PDF version because the Google translated HTML one doesn't contain the graphs - http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...6/CHAPTER3.PDF

[jerseydevil]

According to the "Imports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products into the United States by Country of Origin, July 2002 (Thousand Barrels)"

Canada was our single largest supplier of oil at 41,998,000 barrels; Saudi Arabia second with 41,977,000 barrels and Venezuela third with 41,248,000 barrels. The US produced 183,146,000 barrels of oil. Without the domestic supply in there - the US imports 21% of it's oil from Arab Opec countries. Taking into account US production - we imported 12% of our oil supply from the Persian Gulf Region in July 2002. Iraq was our second largest Persian Gulf supplier of oil with 9,327,000 barrels coming from them.

International Petroleum Information

United States of America
The United States of America is the world's largest energy producer, consumer, and net importer. It also ranks twelfth worldwide in reserves of oil, sixth in natural gas, and first in coal.
The United States had total gross oil (crude and products) imports of an estimated 11.6 MMBD during 2001, representing around 59% of total U.S. oil demand. Around 47% of this oil came from OPEC nations, with Persian Gulf sources accounting for about 23% of U.S. oil imports during the year. Overall, the top suppliers of oil to the United States during 2001 were Canada (1.8 MMBD), Saudi Arabia (1.7 MMBD), Venezuela (1.5 MMBD), and Mexico (1.4 MMBD). During 2001, about 48% of U.S. gross crude oil imports came from the Western Hemisphere (19% from South America, 15% from Mexico, 14% from Canada), while 30% came from the Persian Gulf region (18% from Saudi Arabia, 9% from Iraq, 3% from Kuwait).

The European Union, with increasingly integrated economies and energy sectors, is the world's second-largest energy consumer (behind the United States). EU members include: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

The EU region is a net importer of energy. In 1999, while the EU's 15 members consumed 16% of the world's energy, they produced only 8%. Import dependency varies by fuel and individual country, with an overall import dependency for the entire EU of around 50%. In 1999, the EU was a net importer of coal (8% of world production in terms of tonnage vs. 11% of consumption in terms of tonnage); natural gas (9% of world production vs. 16% of consumption); and oil (5% of world production vs. 18% of consumption). Germany, Italy, and France are the EU's largest net importers of energy; the United Kingdom is the only significant net exporter. EU oil is imported primarily from Russia, the Persian Gulf region, Norway, and North Africa.

[Sween]

hmmmmmmmm your point has no purpose. We dont want war with iraq and you do therefore saying we want to gain from oil is a bit of a pointless argument.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
hmmmmmmmm your point has no purpose. We dont want war with iraq and you do therefore saying we want to gain from oil is a bit of a pointless argument.

I don't necessarily want war. At this point I'm actually undecided. The majority of Americans currently support outing Saddam Hussein - but that changes based on the question.

If he doesn't allow unrestricted weapons inspectors - as was decided originally - then I think that the argument to go into Iraq is more justified.

You keep saying that Saddam Hussein won't use the weapons? Yet you also claim he is a madman. Why do you think he won't use them, either undercover by supplying them to terrorist groups - or openly?

[Sween]

Im not sure sadam is a madman. I mean sure hes evil but mad? No i think not he is probably very intelgent. Hittler wasnt mad he just had evil ideals.

Sadam would never ever openly attack america? what would he gain? How could he possiably win. Im not sure he even hates you that much. I mean it wasnt even you that directly put sancions on his country thats UN business. Would he supply terrorists with wepons of mass destuction (does he even have these have any ever been recovred?) possiably mind you its not hard to find out wheres these things came from so again that would be him seeling his own doom again. Does he want this? No.

For me its a bit like my fun to cost ratio which i invoke a lot. Say i go to watch scunthorpe united play its £12 to get in then its £2 for a burger then add about £10 for bozze and before you know it you've payed £24 and watched the shambles that is scunthorpe united and become very depressed and sat in the coldest stand (its even cold even when its warm everywhere else i dont understand that). Applying this to Iraq is it really worth all the cost and human suffering and possiable death to deal with maybes and buts. I just feel that this campain is bassed entirly on irrational fears of the American people.

My fear of this is my friend (in army) been sent out to die for not a worth while cause.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween

Sadam would never ever openly attack america? what would he gain? How could he possiably win. Im not sure he even hates you that much. I mean it wasnt even you that directly put sancions on his country thats UN business. Would he supply terrorists with wepons of mass destuction (does he even have these have any ever been recovred?) possiably mind you its not hard to find out wheres these things came from so again that would be him seeling his own doom again. Does he want this? No.

Most of the proganda around the world and especially in the Arab World blames us for the sanctions, They completely ignore the fact that we tried getting smart sactions instituted that would have eliviated the suffering of the Iraqi people. But most news agency in that part of the world - accuse us of killing 100's of thousands of iraqis through the UN sanctions, that we have instituted a wart against islam. Of course the completely ignore the times we have come to the aid of Muslims or the fact that we have many arab muslims freely living and worshipping in this country.

I just don't think he would refrain from using the weapons if he could. He could also destabilize the entire region too (I know something that we're being accused of). He can hold all his neighbors basically hostage. If he has nothing to hide - he should give the weapons inspectors unfettered access as was agreed upon in the beginning.

Without the US pushing the UN into taking some action in regards to weapon inspections he would be happily building his war machine again. Clinton should have taken a harder stand with the UN and forced the issue long ago. We should never have accepted him just throwing out the inspectors.

[osszie]

Brilliant Sween................that's all I'm saying about that

Sween statistically your friend in the forces has much more to fear from the Americans..........more British soldiers were killed by "friendly fire" during the Gulf War than by Iraqi soldiers.

Re: Oil

"Despite the sanctions and lack of diplomatic ties between Iraq and the United States, the U.S. is still the biggest buyer of Iraqi crude oil under the U.N.-approved oil-for-food programme. "
Source. CNN.com

Saddam evicted weapons inspectors in 1998 when the USA broke the UN agreement by sending inspectors into Iraq who were directly linked to the CIA.

Surely if he were willing to use weapons of mass destruction this would have been the ideal time? He would have gained sympathy from many countries after america had broken the UN regulations regarding weapons inspection.

American weapons of mass destruction used in the Gulf War are STILL claiming casualties............cases of childhood lukemia, birth deformaties and cancer through all age groups has risen by 280%, mainly due to the use of missiles containing depleted uranium during the Gulf War.

Saddam has once again started negotiations to allow weapons inspectors into his country, it is the same trick he has used a hundred times, but it is enough to ensure that any invasion will be illegal...............he is dancing rings around the western world but surely that is not enough reason to invade his country?

There has been a lot of talk about the UK being the US's lap-dog, Bush has now, by saying that he will go against the will of the UN if he feels it necessary, forced every country in the world to make a black and white decision. "Are you with us or against us?".......I think he will get quite a surprise how many are against him.