[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. - Page 48

solops · #**471** March 21st, 2003, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TerranC:
Goddamn it, solops, It's North Korea, not Korea. Look at my location (the "From" below my post) to see why that matters.

Also, a question to all you war buffs: can you tell me how the Iraqis managed to get french mirages?

Edit: typing mistakes...

North Korea, yes. I would point out that the two Koreas together comprise the two largest parts of a single, ongoing Korean problem, as far as I am concerned. Besides, I want our people watching both sides of the DMZ. Some of the South Koreans seem to be acting strangely. I was gratified to see that Rumsfeld was pulling US forces back from the DMZ. Now the paltry 37000 US troops in SOUTH Korea will not get overrun in the initial rush of the North Korean offensive.

As far as the Mirages go, the French sold them to them :-) Actually, Iraq had some in the first Gulf war. Maybe some of those that were flown to Iran to escape the Allies were given back? I do remember that the Iraqi air defense system was French built and was back in operation shortly after the first Gulf war. Those French outfits must give really good maintenance service, eh?

[ March 21, 2003, 05:39: Message edited by: solops ]

Kamog · #**472** March 21st, 2003, 07:44 AM

I wonder why the stock market has been going up these Last few days? Before the war started, the market was dropping and it was thought that this was because people were worried that there's going to be a war. Now that it has begun, the market is going up, I don't understand. They're saying that it's going up because people think that the war is going to be short. The stock market seems to make no sense. Oil prices going up and down don't seem to make sense either?

solops · #**473** March 21st, 2003, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:

quote:
Originally posted by solops:
I was thinking more in terms of assassination via sniper or smart bomb. Perhaps even a bounty or bribe. Fomenting unrest in a police state like Iraq is futile.

As far as the rebellions after the first Gulf war, that was a no-go. The US's allies did not want Saddam out due to fear of the Iranians. Therefore Iraq proper was not entered and the Republican Guard was allowed to escape so that it could maintain Saddam in power. I guess they hoped he'd be chastened.

I would expect that in a year or three Saddam could be eliminated, if the US was both serious and secretive enough. Or perhaps not.

They weren't paying for a quiet arrest, you know. The idea was exactly what you suggest, to foment a military coup. Guns, grenades, shrapnel. Nasty stuff. And every officer they recruited was caught. Some Colonel in the Iraqi intelligence services would pick up the fancy encrypted satellite phone they had given their chosen 'covert operative' to keep in touch with and tell them he had been arrested. *click* End of coup attempt. The Iraqi intelligence services are good. After many attempts they have decided to get rid of Saddam the hard way.

Oh, I don't disagree. But I think a military coup or popular uprising are both low probability events, for the reason you give. Assassination by anyone (sniper, son, whatever) or death by smart bomb, much better odds over a longer term, especially given the intel surveillance we have now. Clinton never really tried. I think all of the above should have been pushed longer and harder....much cheaper and more justifiable (or deniable)in all ways than a war.

[ March 21, 2003, 06:09: Message edited by: solops ]

solops · #**474** March 21st, 2003, 08:02 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
[qb]The USA had a hand in the making of Saddam, just like France (which you like to target) and other countries. If your going to rave about how the French gave him this, and the French gave him that then you have to acknowledge the US's part in making of the Frankenstein.

Askan

Well, sure, what's to argue? After the USSR cut off aid to Iraq, we had to support Saddam in order to satisfy our regional Arab allies (Saudi, Kuwait, et al) who saw Iraq as a bulwark against the fundamentalist Muslim regime in Iran (just a bunch of imperialistic Persians, as far as the Arabs were concerned). Saddam was a tyrant with germs and chems, but he was on our side...sort of. Then he made nice with the Iranians and went shopping in Kuwait and everyone agreed that it was sad that he was now a Bad tyrant. But, I suspect that the reticence of our regional Arab allies in the current situation is still due to fear of the Persian Iranians and the hopes that Iraq could be maintained as a buffer. That hope is dust and it will be interesting to see how we handle the Iranian-Arab tensions that will surface after this is over.

solops · #**475** March 21st, 2003, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kamog:
I wonder why the stock market has been going up these Last few days? Before the war started, the market was dropping and it was thought that this was because people were worried that there's going to be a war. Now that it has begun, the market is going up, I don't understand. They're saying that it's going up because people think that the war is going to be short. The stock market seems to make no sense. Oil prices going up and down don't seem to make sense either?

As far as oil prices go, the problem now is primarily due to the unsettled situation in Venezuela. The Iraqi situation simply exacerbates it. Once the Iraqi war is settled prices will probably drop a bit. Until they do, there is little incentive for the Venezuelan government to completely settle the strike, since they are making more money with less production given the high prices. When lower prices result from increased Iraqi production, the Venezuelans will probably settle up the strike completely to raise production and maintain cash flow. Then oil prices will really drop some. There will be no relief from the US domestic industry. Prospects are scarcer than ever and those that are drilled have lower reserves and shorter lives than ever before, on average. Also, the industry could mobilise 4100 rigs in 1981. Now we bust a gut to field 900. To get 1300 in operation means some real junk is deployed and costs skyrocket.

Mephisto · #**476** March 21st, 2003, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The US is not overly picky about who we sell to, but we do not supply advanced weapons to despots.

I wonder who sold the Stinger Ground to Air missile system to the Taliban against the Soviets...

geoschmo · #**477** March 21st, 2003, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto:

quote:
Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The US is not overly picky about who we sell to, but we do not supply advanced weapons to despots.

I wonder who sold the Stinger Ground to Air missile system to the Taliban against the Soviets...

Technically we didn't supply anything to the Taliban. They pretty much hated us from the start. We did supply a lot of weapons to the Mujahadeen and I'm sure many of them were still laying around when the Taliban came to power. And certainly a lot of former Mujahdeen members joined the Taliban and took their US supplied weapons with them. That's the thing about supplying weapons to your allies. Sometimes they don't stay your allies.

Geoschmo

tbontob · #**478** March 21st, 2003, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The Stingers are not all that advanced, and it should also be noted that without maintenance, they spoil in storage. This was built into them from the start.

I didn't know that.

And there I was, thinking that all those stingers were floating around in the international scene, just waiting for someone to use them against civilian aircraft.

When the US first started giving them to the Afgan freedom fighters almost two decades ago, I felt the stingers would become a serious problem.

Now I understand why remarkably few civilian aircraft were destroyed by stingers.

Kudos to the U.S. for realizing their potential danger in the long term.

Mephisto · #**479** March 21st, 2003, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The Stingers are not all that advanced,...

Go tell the Soviets. They will like to hear how they lost against inferior weapons�

Quote:

Back then we armed lots of people, but not with frontline aircraft, and not with advanced chemical plants and reactors.

Of course not, the Iranians build their own F-14s I guess.

Thermo, any major power in the world sells weapon to other states and the US does not deserve more bashing for it then other weapon selling nation. But saying the US does not sell high tech weapons to dictators and 3-World-nations is just plain wrong.

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
What we are saying is that the US did not do it for direct profit. Our interests were always strategic.

And you think that's any different for France? Please!

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
What were the interests of France, beyond lining there pockets with Iraqi cash?

I'm not Chirac so I cannot tell you but I can guess: Keeping the only remaining superpower from gaining the oil of the Iraq which could be used to blackmail France, Europe and every industry nation (think Japan) into anything if they want to avoid economic havoc. Limiting the US influcence in the middle east. Arming Iraq to counter Iran, Turkey and Jordan. Gain influence on Saddam to get his oil instead of the US. Just out of my head, there may be many more interests.

Quote:

Originally posted by Perrin:
France was trying to hide their mistakes by blocking the military action.

Huh? It is public knowledge! France never ever said they did not sell weapons to Iraq. Not even once. Everybody knows it! It's only stupid to deny something everybody knows and the French are really not stupid.

Perrin · #**480** March 21st, 2003, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto:

quote:
Originally posted by Perrin:
France was trying to hide their mistakes by blocking the military action.

Huh? It is public knowledge! France never ever said they did not sell weapons to Iraq. Not even once. Everybody knows it! It's only stupid to deny something everybody knows and the French are really not stupid.

I was speaking of their suspected violations of the UN sanctions. Which was inferred by the references of doing things for Iraqi cash.

[ March 21, 2003, 13:49: Message edited by: Perrin ]