Iran hiding Nuclear Facility - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-15-2009, 04:22 PM   #136
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 01:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
Britain hasn't done much for us either, except try to stop us from creating our own country, so I guess we don't need them as allies either. And frankly I don't give a damn if the rest of the middle east doesn't like us for allying ourself with Israel.
British troops in Iraq - 45,000
Israeli troops in Iraq - 0

British troops killed in Iraq - 179
Israeli troops killed in Iraq - 0

and that's just 1 example.
__________________

__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 04:36 PM   #137
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
And what exactly was that real disaster expected to be?
One of the worst possible disasters would be the siezure and or sabotage of vital energy supplies in the Persian Gulf Region resulting in a worldwide economic depression equal to or worse than the 1930s Depression.

Quote:
Who's defending his regime
Those opposed to the removal of the regime.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 04:40 PM   #138
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:06 AM
and here we have the absolute rotten core of the argument, exposed.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 04:49 PM   #139
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
One of the worst possible disasters would be the siezure and or sabotage of vital energy supplies in the Persian Gulf Region resulting in a worldwide economic depression equal to or worse than the 1930s Depression.
In what way was he in a position to sieze or sabotage those supplies in 2003? From what I remember in 1990, he was chased fairly quickly and easily out of Kuwait with no ensuing worldwide economic depression.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 04:51 PM   #140
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
^ the main question i have about that was was it worth the billions and billions of dollars and thousands and thousands of lives we've blown over 6 years? what did the US gain from liberating the Iraqis from Saddam's regime?
Not having to suffer the consequences of leaving Saddam in power with little to no ability to contain him anymore thanks to the erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo. Saddam had already murdered 1.7 million people, came close to cutting off much of the planets energy supply. He had to either be contained and cooperating 100% with the international community or removed from power. A case could be made that he should have been removed after invading and annexing Kuwait, but clearly, there were only two options after he did that. Fool proof sanctions and weapons embargo plus 100% cooperation from the regime, or regime removal. Because of Saddams failure to cooperate with the international community over a period of 12 years and the break down of the international sanctions and the weapons embargo needed to have any reasonable chance of containing him, regime removal became a necessity.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 04:57 PM   #141
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and here we have the absolute rotten core of the argument, exposed.
Nothing rotten about it, just the truth about the importance of Persian Gulf Oil. Even Jimmy Carter understood it when as President he warned the Soviets after their invasion of Afghanistan that he was ready to use nuclear weapons to defend the region.

Colin Powel, Secretary Of State James Baker, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Kenneth Pollack, Michael O'Halon all expressed the same view points on the region in the past would not find any thing "rotten" about the arguement.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 05:08 PM   #142
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
In what way was he in a position to sieze or sabotage those supplies in 2003? From what I remember in 1990, he was chased fairly quickly and easily out of Kuwait with no ensuing worldwide economic depression.
It only took Saddam, 2 Republican Guard divisions and 12 hours to sieze Kuwait in August 1990 plunging the world into a huge crises.

There were estimates by the CIA that the Iraqi's still had the capability to overrun Kuwait in 2003 if they launched an all out effort, but not be able to go further. But, the use of WMD plus obtaining new conventional weapons with the breakdown of international sanctions and the weapons embargo could allow Saddam to build his capabilities well beyond that and threaten the Saudi Oil fields which would be the real prize.

But given what Saddam did in 1990, the improtant thing was to prevent anything like that from ever happening again. To knowingly wait for Saddam to be in a position to sieze key Saudi Oil field would obviously be foolish. The goal here was compliance and containment and if the key pieces of that strategy could not be enforced, then to remove him from power, rather than risk a repeat of 1990 or something worse.

By the way, Saddam's invasion and siezure of Kuwaiti oil supplies in 1990 was enough to cause the 1990-1991 global recession. It also cause a massive environmental disaster for the region when Saddam lit the Kuwaiti oil wells on fire and dumped oil from the ports into the Gulf. The nightmare senerio of a great depression would require the siezure and sabotage of energy resources in Saudi Arabia.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 05:11 PM   #143
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
regime removal became a necessity.
Because? He had no WMD and no way of successfully invading a neighbour to disrupt oil supplies.

Again, what did the US have to gain with billions and billions of dollars (borrowed from China) and thousands of troops lives?
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 05:32 PM   #144
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
Because? He had no WMD and no way of successfully invading a neighbour to disrupt oil supplies.
Thats incorrect. He still had 2,700 tanks, 2,000 armored personal carriers, 2,000 artillery pieces, and 300 combat aircraft. As I said before, if Saddam made an all out effort, he could still probably overrun Kuwait in 2002 according to a CIA study. No one in the military or at CENTCOM acted or thought that an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was not a possiblitiy. In fact in 1994, Saddam moved multiple Republican Guard Divisions to the border with Kuwait, which caused the United States to ship tens of thousands of troops to the region. The problem is the bulk of the forces arrived 10 weeks after the incident took place. In 1999 CENTCOM came out with a specific plan for invading Iraq and removing Saddam called Desert Crossing.

In 2002, most intelligence agencies believed he had active WMD arsonal and if not, he certainly maintained the means to produce one in violation of the UN Ceacefire agreement. He also had failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD according to UN inspectors.

The issue here is compliance and cooperation. Without compliance and cooperation on these matters, invasion and regime removal becomes a necessity and the only full proof way to insure that Saddam is verifiably disarmed of all WMD.

Quote:
Again, what did the US have to gain with billions and billions of dollars (borrowed from China) and thousands of troops lives?
Again, not having to deal with the consequences of not removing Saddam in 2003 which would later prove far more costly in both money and lives than anything that has happened over the past 6 years.

The arguement that one should wait until Saddam is well equipped to conduct a multi-Corp invasion of Saudi Arabia with plenty of Ballistic missiles and WMD is absurd. How would waiting for that moment save lives and money? Waiting for Saddam to be able to repeat August of 1990 or August of 1990 on a grander scale is foolish and goes against everything the United Nations and the international community tried to do to resolve the problem in the 1990s.

Quote:
(borrowed from China)
Some of it. Plus, China would be in even worse condition than the USA or Europe if a crises blocked oil from the Persian Gulf.


Here is a little from Bill Clinton on Iraq and the need to remove him:

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 06:19 PM   #145
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Thats incorrect. He still had 2,700 tanks, 2,000 armored personal carriers, 2,000 artillery pieces, and 300 combat aircraft. As I said before, if Saddam made an all out effort, he could still probably overrun Kuwait in 2002 according to a CIA study.
And he would have faced another successful Desert Storm.

Quote:
No one in the military or at CENTCOM acted or thought that an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was not a possiblitiy. In fact in 1994, Saddam moved multiple Republican Guard Divisions to the border with Kuwait, which caused the United States to ship tens of thousands of troops to the region. The problem is the bulk of the forces arrived 10 weeks after the incident took place.
So?

Quote:
In 1999 CENTCOM came out with a specific plan for invading Iraq and removing Saddam called Desert Crossing.
If it was so urgent and critical, why did it take 4 years to act?

Quote:
Again, not having to deal with the consequences of not removing Saddam in 2003 which would later prove far more costly in both money and lives than anything that has happened over the past 6 years.
How so? You haven't provided any detail - just blanket fear-mongering.

Quote:
The arguement that one should wait until Saddam is well equipped to conduct a multi-Corp invasion of Saudi Arabia with plenty of Ballistic missiles and WMD is absurd. How would waiting for that moment save lives and money? Waiting for Saddam to be able to repeat August of 1990 or August of 1990 on a grander scale is foolish and goes against everything the United Nations and the international community tried to do to resolve the problem in the 1990s.
The argument is that in 2003, Saddam was no where close to being in a position to mount a sustainable military offensive against anyone.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 06:57 PM   #146
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
If it was so urgent and critical, why did it take 4 years to act?



because they had a national tragedy to exploit.

it was no accident that a huge percentage of FoxNews viewers thought that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. they also waterboarded to try to forge a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.

but i'm doing my best to stay out of this.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 07:20 PM   #147
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
And he would have faced another successful Desert Storm.
Eventually if Saddam had chosen to attack at that point. The problem is that the cost of having Kuwait overrun in 2002 are greater than they were in 1990 do to increasing global demand.

The more woriesome problem is not Saddam's actual capabilties in 2002, but the essential end of sanctions and the weapons embargo the conerstone of containment which was the only other possible option other than regime change in dealing with Saddam after 1991.

The Coalition were lucky in 1990 that Saddam had not gone further than just Kuwait and had gone into Saudi Arabia. Desert Storm was launched from Saudi Arabia and would not have been possible without it. The obtainment of new or improved capabilities by Saddam because of the erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo could allow Saddam's military to be able to take more than just Kuwait in a sudden offensive into the southern Persian Gulf Region. The overrunning of bases in Saudi Arabia vital to the deployment of US forces as well as the sudden loss of the oil fields would put the region could create the nightmare senerio and hinder or prevent the United States ability to quickly combat or resolve the crises.

Quote:
So?
Your the one that claimed Saddam had no ability to threaten his neighbors.

Quote:
If it was so urgent and critical, why did it take 4 years to act?
Its called contingency planning. Everyone hoped something short or regime change could be found to resolve the problem of Saddam, but it was important to have a detailed plan if action was ordered or clearly became a necessity. In 1999, Sanctions and the Embargo were still somewhat effective. It was over the next few years that they crumbled and the lack of UN inspectors in Iraq for four years also increased the urgency of needing to act.

Quote:
How so? You haven't provided any detail - just blanket fear-mongering.
With containment broken, the only option left for dealing with Saddam was regime change given his past behavior. With the sanctions and weapons embargo having just recently crumbled, the longer the coalition waited to remove Saddam, the stronger he would get. The stronger Saddam became, the more costly in lives and money regime change would become. Acting later would only allow Saddam time to accumulate more wealth and capabilities which would increase coalition casualties and financial cost once the decision was finally made to remove him.

When Saddam would obtain certain capabiliites such as being able to overrun more than just Kuwait and take the Saudi oil fields is not clear. Nor is it exactly clear when he could have produced a nuclear weapon or other forms of WMD. But what is clear, is that the means of preventing Saddam from obtaining such capabilties through sanctions and the weapons embargo was no longer possible given their erosion and unpopularity. Although Saddam only overran Kuwait in 1990, he did have the means to strike deep into Saudi Arabia as well. With sanctions and the weapons embargo gone, it would only be a matter of time before that level of capabilities was reached again or surpassed.

The overruning of the Saudi Oil fields would be a disaster for the world and could plunge the world into terrible economic depression given how vital oil is to supply the global economy. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 helped to cause the 1990-1991 recession. In the 21st century, global demand for oil has only grown and the means to try and compensate for a sudden loss of supply given demand or less today than they were back then.




Quote:
The argument is that in 2003, Saddam was no where close to being in a position to mount a sustainable military offensive against anyone.
Well, thats not the case given the size of Saddam's military forces and his ability to move them around the country. If what you said had any truth to it, Saddam would not be able to maintain control of the country. The US could have just used irregular Iraqi forces inside the country to overthrow the regime. Its precisely Saddam's capabilties in regards to use of Tanks and armored vehicles and their use to TAKE and HOLD territory that had allowed his regime to survive the opposition in the country after the 1991 Gulf War.

According to the US military and the CIA, Saddam had sizable military force sufficiently capable to such a degree that it was IMPOSSIBLE for internal opposition to overthrow him and he could still mount an invasion of Kuwait that would overrun the country.

Its also important that you understand the distances involved here. Kuwait is a very small country. It only took Saddam TWO divisions and 12 hours to overrun it the first time. Without substantial US ground forces to block an offensive, Saddam would be able to overrun Kuwait.

The Gulf states refused to have a large US military presence on the ground meaning large numbers of US forces would have to come all the way from the United States in order to respond to any invasion by Saddam. Distance and timing are also huge factors in looking at Saddam's capabilties vs. the smaller gulf states and the USA.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 07:25 PM   #148
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 11:06 PM
You do all realize it's absolutely pointless trying to have a debate with Sting on this issue, right?
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 08:37 PM   #149
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Eventually if Saddam had chosen to attack at that point. The problem is that the cost of having Kuwait overrun in 2002 are greater than they were in 1990 do to increasing global demand.
Of course, but I'm quite sure it doesn't remotely compare to actual costs since the invasion.

Quote:
The more woriesome problem is not Saddam's actual capabilties in 2002, but the essential end of sanctions and the weapons embargo the conerstone of containment which was the only other possible option other than regime change in dealing with Saddam after 1991.
The sanctions didn't end until after the invasion.

Quote:
With containment broken, the only option left for dealing with Saddam was regime change given his past behavior.
It wasn't broken, it just didn't result in regime change.


Quote:
When Saddam would obtain certain capabiliites such as being able to overrun more than just Kuwait and take the Saudi oil fields is not clear. Nor is it exactly clear when he could have produced a nuclear weapon or other forms of WMD.



Quote:
Although Saddam only overran Kuwait in 1990, he did have the means to strike deep into Saudi Arabia as well.
Yet he didn't. Because if he had, he would have been taken out. Just as he would have been at any point after Desert Storm.


Quote:
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 helped to cause the 1990-1991 recession.
The savings and loan crisis did that, not Saddam.

Quote:
The Gulf states refused to have a large US military presence on the ground meaning large numbers of US forces would have to come all the way from the United States in order to respond to any invasion by Saddam.
That's almost as good as the Honda saleswoman who told me the new vehicle delivery charges were so high because the car (manufactured 30 minutes north of my house) was being shipped from Japan.

At least we've established that Saddam didn't pose a military threat in 2003.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 09:30 PM   #150
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
Of course, but I'm quite sure it doesn't remotely compare to actual costs since the invasion.
In a $15 Trillion dollar economy, a 5% decline in GDP is a huge loss, and far exceeds the initial invasion and to remove Saddam and is comparable to what has been spent since then on rebuilding Iraq. But again, the case for removing Saddam is not based just on his capabilities in 2002.

Quote:
The sanctions didn't end until after the invasion.
The sanctions did not officially end on paper until after the invasion. But for all practical purposes they were nearly gone. Syria was actively letting anything through the borders by 2002. Much of Saddam's black market sales of oil which reached $5 billion by 2002 was through sales by way of Syria. Iran and Turkey were even letting violations go unchecked by that time. France, Russia, and China, members of the UN Security Council were violating sanctions by that time as well. China's work on Iraq's air defense system after the year 2000 was total open violation of the sanctions regime.

Quote:
It wasn't broken, it just didn't result in regime change.
If that were the case, Saddam would not be making $5 Billion dollars on the black market in 2002 from the illegal sale of his oil. Again, Syria, France, Russia, China, Iran, and even Turkey all did things or let certain things go that violated the sanctions regime against Iraq.

Quote:
Well, if you read the next line instead of just cherry picking your way through some one elses post you would know that the key here is means of preventing Saddam from obtaining such capabilities through sanctions and the weapons embargo had eroded. Given that fact, its only a matter of time before Saddam would acquire new wealth and capabililites.

In addition, intelligence is not some perfect science and is often inaccurate. The intelligence one what Saddam had in the WMD area prior to the 1991 Gulf War was proven inaccurate in the inspections right after the war. It showed that Saddam was a lot further a long in his capabilities with regard to WMD than had been previously thought.

The problem is that from the outside, intelligence can be correct or could be wrong, but wrong in either direction. The results of US intelligence from the before the 1991 Gulf War and before the 2003 Gulf War only highlight that one could never rely on intelligence to know when action would or would not need to be taken. Rather, compliance with the resolutions and and a strong sanctions regime would be the only possible other option instead of regime change to insure that Saddam could not threaten the region again. Unfortunately, Saddam failed to cooperate and the sanctions and weapons embargo eventually fell apart making regime change a necessity.

Quote:
Yet he didn't. Because if he had, he would have been taken out. Just as he would have been at any point after Desert Storm.
As I already tried to explain before, Desert Storm required secure basing area's for the United States to set up its forces in order to re-take Kuwait. The staging area to do that was Saudi Arabia. If Saddam takes Saudi Arabia, the United States has no place to mount such a massive operation. The United States is then looking at an amphibious operation from the Gulf or a much longer and difficult deployment onto other area's of the Arabian pennisula, all the while the nightmare senerio has materialized the Iraq in possession of Saudi oil. All the key roads cities, and basing area's, airfields were in Saudi Arabia's northeastern area near the Gulf. Without that, your looking at far more difficult ways to get into the region as well as a logistical nightmare for the military given the large forces that were required.

Its generally recognized that Saddam's biggest mistake in his 1990 invasion and annexation of Kuwait was not moving into Saudi Arabia immediately and allowing the coalition to slowly build up its forces in Saudi Arabia over the next 6 months.

Quote:
The savings and loan crisis did that, not Saddam.
Well, so much for trying to explain to you the impact of oil has on the economy.


Quote:
That's almost as good as the Honda saleswoman who told me the new vehicle delivery charges were so high because the car (manufactured 30 minutes north of my house) was being shipped from Japan.
Wow, I can see your really after a mature discussion of a policy issue with a statement like that.


Quote:
At least we've established that Saddam didn't pose a military threat in 2003.
Well, where was that established? It certainly was not in any of the brief comments you made in this post.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How likely do you view a US and/or Israeli attack on Iran before end 2008? financeguy Free Your Mind Archive 31 09-28-2007 09:10 AM
U.N. Sanctions on Iran......bark worse than bite? AchtungBono Free Your Mind Archive 10 12-28-2006 05:03 AM
iran doesnt back off on nuclear tech all_i_want Free Your Mind Archive 9 08-11-2005 11:10 PM
Bush Pushes for New Nukes sulawesigirl4 Free Your Mind Archive 26 07-10-2003 09:18 PM
nuke iraq till they bleed american Flag Pole Pear Free Your Mind Archive 214 02-08-2003 10:39 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com