MERGED-->Iran's President Said + New Situation in Middle East - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-08-2007, 09:44 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


It is widely known that given Iran's natural resources, it does not need to be pursuing nuclear power, perhaps in many decades, but its not something that would need to be one of the country's #1 objectives given its energy needs today are easily supplied from other sources and it will be one of the last country's in the world that would need to consider an alternative to oil for its energy.

Iran's energy consumption is not something that is so great as to threaten Iran's oil reserves. Iran has plenty of oil for its needs and the export market. While its technically true that nuclear power would be a way to help make such reserves last longer, the cost and lengths to which Iran is going to get nuclear power is not something such an oil rich country would go through unless there were other reasons for developing it. Syria which comparitively does not have very much oil would have a far better case for making an attempt at such nuclear development.

Israel's nuclear deterent is a weapon of last resort. With the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, the need to keep and maintain such a nuclear arsonel has never been more important for Israel.

Iraq did get 5 Billion dollars in loans from the United States, but thats a tiny fraction of the total that country's gave to Iraq during the 1980s. If there was anyone who could seriously claim that Saddam was their "bastard", it was the Soviet Union which had by far the closest and most important relationship with the Iraq during the 1980s.
Given that Iran doesn't develop.

I don't want this country to get its hands on nuclear material as well, and I'm sure they don't need atomic power plants for their energy supply.

But if you wanted this country to industrialize in the future you would better provide them with solar energy fields than with oil energy plants.

I don't want Israel to dismantle its nuclear weapons as long as there are other countries with these weapons, but I want them to open themselves to inspections by the IAEA. I think by the introduction of the Israeli state mistakes were made by every party included.
And the first Intifada resulted from the poor conditions in the tent camps provided for the Palestinian people.

It's also right that no state here can claim morale superiority, we've all our share in the situation we are in now.

To bring Stalin into play is a very poor comparison. The defeat of the Nazis was far more important than letting the Soviets without proper material.
You could only lose in that situation, but with the start of WWII there was no "win-all" possible anymore.
The priority was to kick Germany's arse, and that didn't work without Stalin's help.

You could rather name Pinochet, or Batista. Van Thieu wasn't a saint either, but who wanted Ho Chi Minh to have the whole country?
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 04-08-2007, 11:06 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 04:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

The United States used its influence to help bring an end to the Iran/Iraq war at the end of 1988, which saved hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Iranian lives, given the uper hand Saddam had at that point after years of large arms shipments from the Soviet Union and several thousand Soviet advisors on the ground in Iraq training the Republican Guard.
Please enlighten us as to how the U.S brought an end to the Iran / Iraq war. Was it before or after the USS Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iran Air commercial jet carrying 290 people? Or was it after the Tanker Wars or the War on Cities? Or after the Iraqi missile hit the USS Stark killing 37 U.S naval personnel? The U.S exacerbated this war through covert support of both countries, the Reagan administration is hardly deserving of a pat on the back for ending it. It was a U.N mediated ceasefire accepted after years of both countries being decimated by a brutal war.

Providing information for targeting the enemy for attacks including mustard gas is hardly a minor contribution. The U.S government was playing both sides of the fence tilting the war in whichever direction it deemed necessary to prevent an all-out victory by either side especially Iran. And even then the satellite intelligence was sometimes deliberately inaccurate so that neither side would gain too much of an advantage.

Near the end of the war, the Reagan administration allowed the export of dual-use equipment which were used against the Kurds later on. It wasn't just Soviets training Iraqis in Iraq. The Brits, French,Germans and CIA spooks were there all involved in selling arms, maintaining them and training. Iraqi pilots and naval officers were sent abroad to France, England, the Soviet Union and under Jordanian passports even the U.S for training. Iraqi elite troops were trained by U.S Special Forces at Fort Bragg in the event of an Iranian victory so that they could carry out a guerrilla war against an occupying Iranian force. Officers from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency were sent to Baghdad to plan strategic bombing strikes for the Iraqi air force when it was feared that the Iranians were going to launch a new offensive to cut of Basra from Baghdad.

The devil is in the details. Were France, Italy, Germany, Brazil, Egypt, Israel or the Soviets more responsible than the U.S? No, everyone had their hands deep in it for different reasons either political or economical. This was a war through proxies and designed to destroy not one but two countries for the benefit of the arms dealing countries supplying the combatants.

And ironically, after being economically wiped out by this war and not receiving promised assistance from his neighbours combined with the increased production of Kuwait's oil fields hence reducing the value of oil and Iraq's revenue source for rebuilding, this gave Saddam (in his mind) the reason to invade Kuwait. Moreso, after receiving what he perceived to be a green light from Washington.
__________________

__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 04-08-2007, 11:13 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega




To bring Stalin into play is a very poor comparison. The defeat of the Nazis was far more important than letting the Soviets without proper material.
You could only lose in that situation, but with the start of WWII there was no "win-all" possible anymore.
The priority was to kick Germany's arse, and that didn't work without Stalin's help.

You could rather name Pinochet, or Batista. Van Thieu wasn't a saint either, but who wanted Ho Chi Minh to have the whole country?
Well, Stalin is a far better example of the United States supplying a dictator for whatever the reason. The wording often used by some to describe US aid to Saddam in the 1980s would be more accurate for US aid to Joseph Stalin in the early 1940s. The amount of aid that the United States gave to Saddam was a tiny fraction of what other country's gave to Saddam, but others make it sound like the United States created Saddam which could not be further from the truth.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-09-2007, 12:04 AM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k


Please enlighten us as to how the U.S brought an end to the Iran / Iraq war. Was it before or after the USS Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iran Air commercial jet carrying 290 people? Or was it after the Tanker Wars or the War on Cities? Or after the Iraqi missile hit the USS Stark killing 37 U.S naval personnel? The U.S exacerbated this war through covert support of both countries, the Reagan administration is hardly deserving of a pat on the back for ending it. It was a U.N mediated ceasefire accepted after years of both countries being decimated by a brutal war.

Providing information for targeting the enemy for attacks including mustard gas is hardly a minor contribution. The U.S government was playing both sides of the fence tilting the war in whichever direction it deemed necessary to prevent an all-out victory by either side especially Iran. And even then the satellite intelligence was sometimes deliberately inaccurate so that neither side would gain too much of an advantage.

Near the end of the war, the Reagan administration allowed the export of dual-use equipment which were used against the Kurds later on. It wasn't just Soviets training Iraqis in Iraq. The Brits, French,Germans and CIA spooks were there all involved in selling arms, maintaining them and training. Iraqi pilots and naval officers were sent abroad to France, England, the Soviet Union and under Jordanian passports even the U.S for training. Iraqi elite troops were trained by U.S Special Forces at Fort Bragg in the event of an Iranian victory so that they could carry out a guerrilla war against an occupying Iranian force. Officers from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency were sent to Baghdad to plan strategic bombing strikes for the Iraqi air force when it was feared that the Iranians were going to launch a new offensive to cut of Basra from Baghdad.

The devil is in the details. Were France, Italy, Germany, Brazil, Egypt, Israel or the Soviets more responsible than the U.S? No, everyone had their hands deep in it for different reasons either political or economical. This was a war through proxies and designed to destroy not one but two countries for the benefit of the arms dealing countries supplying the combatants.

And ironically, after being economically wiped out by this war and not receiving promised assistance from his neighbours combined with the increased production of Kuwait's oil fields hence reducing the value of oil and Iraq's revenue source for rebuilding, this gave Saddam (in his mind) the reason to invade Kuwait. Moreso, after receiving what he perceived to be a green light from Washington.
I did not say that the United States brought an end to the Iran/Iraq War, I said that it HELPED to bring an end to the war. The United States has no interest for such unecessary instability in area of the world that is so vital to its national security. In case you have forgotten, the United States is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and was involved in some way in the UN ceacefire.

An overwhelming victory by either side in which the other country was essentially annexed or had large area's annexed was an undesirable and destabilizing result although technically it might have ended that phase of the war earlier, but would have led to new problems. A stalemate in which the status qou of 1980 was returned to was the desired goal. To get that point though, the Iraqi military of course had to be strengthened from the difficult position it was in, in the early 1980s.

Of all the attacks that were launched during the entire Iran/Iraq war, only a fraction of them involved US intelligence. So when you look at the entire war, it is a minor contribution, perhaps important at that particular juncture, but overall its minor.

I have Iraq's total list of major weapon systems from June 1989, and I can post them here showing each equipment type, quantity as well as the country that the weapon system came from. Just as an example lets look at Main Battle Tanks, the first weapon system thats looked at when getting a quick gauge of the size and strength of any ground force.

Main Battle Tanks:

T-54/55 2,500 Supplier SOVIET UNION
T-59/69 1,500 Supplier CHINA
T-62 1,000 Supplier SOVIET UNION
T-72 1,500 Supplier SOVIET UNION

The Soviets end up supplying 78% of Iraq's Main Battle Tanks while China pick up the other 22%. I could go on to Armored Personal Carriers, Artillery Systems, Aircraft etc. While some other country's besides the Soviet Union and China start to enter the picture in other catagories, your still looking at the Soviet Union supplying the vast majority of the equipment with China and other country's making up the remainder.

Its funny, but mentioning the fact that at various times some officers from a particular agency were sent to Iraq, or that some Iraqi pilots went out of the country for training, or that some special forces were trained in the United States really makes my point. Compare that, to having over 1,000 military advisors on the ground in Iraq year after year.

The devil is in the details which you seem to be avoiding. The details show that there is a massive disparity in the amount of supplies given to Iraq, as well as money given to Iraq by the various country's. Again, the United States monetary contribution only amounts to 5 PERCENT of the total given to Iraq in the 1980s!

The war was not designed by anyone except originally by Saddam although as always his miscaculations lead to something radically different that what he expected. The Persian Gulf Country's did not want to face the Iranian military if it achieved a victory over Iraq. The Soviet Union did not want to see its client state swallowed by Iran and Iran gaining that much power and influence in the region. The United States and the western world did not want to see the consequences of an Iranian victory because of what it would mean for the Persian Gulf, vital to the global economy.

Although Iraq came out of the conflict heavily in debt it had the 4th largest military in the world and Iraq did not suffer the casualties and level of devestation that Iran did. Given its resources, it could have easily recovered from the conflict provided that Saddam used his money to build up the oil industry and take advantage of its water resources. Saddam's reasons for invading Kuwait and risking US intervention were essentially the same as his reasons for invading Iran. An easy power grab that was obviously a serious miscalculation. Iraq's military manuvers during and following the invasion of Kuwait showed that Saddam fully expected an immediate military intervention by the United States. Despite the fact that it only took 2 Republican Guard Divisions to overrun Kuwait, Saddam sent 7 of his Republican Guard Divisions into Kuwait followed by regular Army divisions.

No matter how you stack, the Soviet Union and China supplied Iraq with over 80% of its weapon systems, and country's other than the United States gave 95% of the money given to Iraq. When compared to other country's involvement, the US level of involvement simply does not stack up. There are certainly a lot of things to list and discuss, but when you look at what other country's gave, especially the Soviet Union, the US contribution is minor.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-09-2007, 08:14 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 04:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Saddam's reasons for invading Kuwait and risking US intervention were essentially the same as his reasons for invading Iran. An easy power grab that was obviously a serious miscalculation. Iraq's military manuvers during and following the invasion of Kuwait showed that Saddam fully expected an immediate military intervention by the United States. Despite the fact that it only took 2 Republican Guard Divisions to overrun Kuwait, Saddam sent 7 of his Republican Guard Divisions into Kuwait followed by regular Army divisions.
Saddam's motivation in attacking Iran was not simply a power grab. Khomeini regularly condemned Hussein and was considered an enemy, a tyrant by Khomeini. Khomeini was rallying Shiites in the Middle East which resulted in unrest throughout the region hence the funding of the Iraqis by Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

The United States passed on intellligence reports exaggerating political turmoil in Iraq. " According to Howard Teicher, who served on the White House National Security Council, "the reports passed on to Baghdad depicted Iran's military in chaos, riven by purges, and lack of replacement parts for it's American-made weapons. The inference was that Iran could be speedily overcome"" - Web of Deceit, Barry M. Lando, pg 53

There were many behind the scenes engagements which I don't have the energy to explain too.



His decision to invade Kuwait was brought on from frustration of the economic toil of trying to support his military and rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. In his mind, there was a plot to destroy Iraq and owing billions to other countries, he saw Kuwait as the main culprit in excess oil production set by OPEC quotas. The UAE followed Kuwait's example resulting in a drop of oil from $21 to $11 a barrel. Also, he approached the U.S ambassador regarding his plans about Kuwait and unfortunately, he heard this response from April Glaspie "we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" which he perceived as a green light. Also, during this time the Soviet Union was collapsing and distracted the U.S so they didn't consider Saddam's threats to be truely serious. There was no clear statement to Iraq by the U.S condemning the invasion of Kuwait. Yes, Saddam was an evil dictator but he didn't just do things on a whim for power even though he did have aspirations to lead the Arab world. It was more complex than it appears to some.

The fact that he sent in large battalions to Kuwait could be seen as their realization that to occupy a country after defeating the military you need many forces to control the populace. A fact overlooked by the U.S upon invading Iraq in 2003 but not by General Shinseki.

I am not defending any of Saddam's actions but just pointing out that writing him off as a crazy madman and not considering the diplomacy failures and other factors is simplifying a complex time in the world's history.

Regarding more involvement of the U.S beyond just money, go here:

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

I found this today. It discusses many of the points I mention plus more.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 04-11-2007, 06:00 AM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k


Saddam's motivation in attacking Iran was not simply a power grab. Khomeini regularly condemned Hussein and was considered an enemy, a tyrant by Khomeini. Khomeini was rallying Shiites in the Middle East which resulted in unrest throughout the region hence the funding of the Iraqis by Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

The United States passed on intellligence reports exaggerating political turmoil in Iraq. " According to Howard Teicher, who served on the White House National Security Council, "the reports passed on to Baghdad depicted Iran's military in chaos, riven by purges, and lack of replacement parts for it's American-made weapons. The inference was that Iran could be speedily overcome"" - Web of Deceit, Barry M. Lando, pg 53

There were many behind the scenes engagements which I don't have the energy to explain too.



His decision to invade Kuwait was brought on from frustration of the economic toil of trying to support his military and rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. In his mind, there was a plot to destroy Iraq and owing billions to other countries, he saw Kuwait as the main culprit in excess oil production set by OPEC quotas. The UAE followed Kuwait's example resulting in a drop of oil from $21 to $11 a barrel. Also, he approached the U.S ambassador regarding his plans about Kuwait and unfortunately, he heard this response from April Glaspie "we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" which he perceived as a green light. Also, during this time the Soviet Union was collapsing and distracted the U.S so they didn't consider Saddam's threats to be truely serious. There was no clear statement to Iraq by the U.S condemning the invasion of Kuwait. Yes, Saddam was an evil dictator but he didn't just do things on a whim for power even though he did have aspirations to lead the Arab world. It was more complex than it appears to some.

The fact that he sent in large battalions to Kuwait could be seen as their realization that to occupy a country after defeating the military you need many forces to control the populace. A fact overlooked by the U.S upon invading Iraq in 2003 but not by General Shinseki.

I am not defending any of Saddam's actions but just pointing out that writing him off as a crazy madman and not considering the diplomacy failures and other factors is simplifying a complex time in the world's history.

Regarding more involvement of the U.S beyond just money, go here:

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

I found this today. It discusses many of the points I mention plus more.
Saddam's invasion of Iran was actually mainly focused on one area, Khuzestan, a province in southwestern Iran that has the majority of Iran's oil reserves. While Saddam always had many unrealistic fears about the potential of an internal revolt caused by outside elements, its clear given the actions of the military, that the main intent of the invasion was the complete occupation and annexation of Khuzestan and its oil reserves.

Iran's military was not in the best of shape at the time, but Saddam's military was not at all ready for the type of cross border invasion that he pressed them into. Iraq's failure to completely succeed early on is do far more to Iraq being unprepared for the operation than Iranian defenses.

Saddam obviously saw Kuwait as an easy target and a way to get what he had been after in the Iran/Iraq war but failed to actually get. Saddam went into Kuwait with the intention of permanently annexing it, and he had also considered a move into Saudi Arabia as well. The temporary fluxuation of the price of oil would not be a reason to risk war with the United States given that Iraq had much larger oil reserves and given time, would eventually be able to repay its debts and be in a very handsome position in the Gulf. This was an invasion for Saddam's delusional dreams of power and control that were so tempting to him considering so much of the planets oil is located in area extending form Khuzestan in Iran, through southern Iraq and Kuwait, and then into Northern Saudi Arabia.

The "diplomacy" and April Glaspie's statements are irrelevant since Saddam fully envisioned a war with the United States in which the United States would rapidly send in a couple of light infantry divisions which he felt the Republican Guard could easily defeat inflicting thousands of casualties and causing wide spread protest in the United States. Saddam often remarked to advisors during this time that the United States had been "defeated" by a less well armed force with only 50,000 killed. In contrast, Iraq had suffered 50,000 dead in a single campaign during the Iran/Iraq war. The general feeling was of course that he could crush any rapid US response to his moves inflicting enough public protest within the United States to pursue some type of peaceful settlement where he kept Kuwait and its oil.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was easily accomplished by 2 Republican Guard divisions. Given that Kuwait was only a country of 2 million people, 1.1 million of them ex-patriots from outside the country, the fact that most civilians were not armed, meant that the two Republican Guard divisions with 30,000 troops was more than enough to successfully occupy and control the small country.

The fact that Saddam sent in another 5 Republican Guard divisions plus began to move the majority of the worlds 4th largest military into Southern Iraq and Kuwait just shortly after the first day of the invasion clearly shows his intention to fight what he believed would be a sudden US military response to his moves. Saddam had a total of 1,000,000 troops in the total Iraqi military, more than there were actual Kuwaiti citizens. The majority of this force was moving into Kuwait or Southern Iraq in the days after the invasion. The invasion force itself was enough to occupy the relatively small and thinly populated country that had little means of resistence outside of its armed forces that were defeated in under 12 hours.

Saddam indeed proved through his actions to be an incredible miscaculater and risktaker. No set of diplomatic measures or other factors would have stopped Saddam's actions. History has shown that the only language Saddam ever understood was the language of force, even as late as the spring of 2003.

As for the article, I read it eons ago, and its filled with many inaccurate claims which would simply take to long to go into.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:29 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