OT: George Bush and Iraq

Some weeks ago I intended a meeting where were invited different independent (meaning they do not work for the government, which is controlled by the USA of course) military, political, regional experts, arabists, etc. to give readings on the Iraq crisis.

I remember a host of interesting notes:
strangely but, all the information there corresponded very well to my opinion which as you know is highly anti-US.

The only countries in the world who have interest in war with Iraq are USA and Bulgaria. Everyone else (including those supporting the war) will only loose. (Yet all think 99% war will be) Lets go by poins:

Positive:

- USA - it will establish its economical AND political influence in the region pushing out the current moderate european and the very strong russian influence (someone asked why Saddam wasnt detroned in previous war, when this would be easy? Well, the russians didnt agree on it).

It is Great Powers` games again.

USA has grown more and more unrivaled on the political scene after the end of Cold War (i.e. the surrender of USSR as the only power able to oppose to USA`s plans) through each conflict it fought - the Gulf war, the Kosovo war, the Afganistan war. The moment has come that they may no longer await for aboriginal conflict in which to involve but can now attempt to start a war entirely on its own. The precedent was Afganistan when everybody supported USA because of 11.IX.

So now the USA attempts to expand its influence in a region which has the biggest oil reserves in the world by means of war on a demand. Let me make it clear - by installing puppet government in Iraq they will be ale to obtain higher degree of control (that is apply pressure) also on its neibhours than they do now - Syria is the first to be caught for the balls, they`ll tighten their grip on the Saudi Arabia as well. Iran is also an issue.

- Bulgaria - i dont know if this interests anyone but just to show how politics works: it will secure the place in NATO (in which we were recently invited for my greatest disgust) after demonstrating as stubborn ally of USA (my only hope is that the Big guys we allied to until now always got big fuck up at the end ).

Besides currently it is certain we will not receive our billions of debts from Saddam. A future government *may* decide to not to overthrow all the old bindings and debts of Iraq.

If things really go well and more or less modern secular state is preserved in Iraq, the thousands of Iraqis educated in Bulgaria (time ago 50% all of foreigners graduating in bulgarian universities were Iraqis, all those chemical-weapons making scientists ), many of whom have bulgarian wives will work in the structures and goverment of this state so we could expect quite warming of bilateral relations. Actually they are frozen in the last decades only due to Saddam`s figure because our communist party supported their communist party with which Saddam confronted (AFAIR it is that Baas party)

The drawbacks are of course part of those bulgarian wives will be killed in the war. AND:
The bulgarian medics currently on trial in Lybia for would-to-be deliberate infecting of children with AIDS, will receive death sentence. An year ago the attitude toward them was greatly improved and the possibility to be declared non-guilty, after visits of our new goverment`s foreign minister Solomon Pasi (yes, he is a jew). It is guessed that deal was made we will defend the Palistinian cause - we are currently members of the Security council of UN, and in recent months we proposed and passed several resolutions against Israel treatment of Palestines. But we will have to vote also on USA proposed war, and then - God help the poor guys in Lybia.

Negative:

- Iraq - Despite the obvious reasons: Saddam`s rule of Iraq is actually that of the sunnite minoruty, and it is more or less educated minority, intelligentsia. It is secular state. And however bad it could be - it is ALREADY ESTABLISHED regime. The establishment of a new regime of any kind would be much more bloody than keeping the status quo.

After it is removed - Iraq is not inhabited by single people (the Brittish did their job well, as usual) who would like to be subordinated by the other. So civil war is very probable. And among the most strongest groups are the islamic fundamentalists and the fundamental communists (AFAIR). Liberal parties/movements almost dont have any support. BTW the parties and groups in opposition to Saddam are more than 100. Many of them are controlled by som Iraqi neibhour.

- Europe - its current influence (especially french AFAIR) will be lessened. Additionally its economy will be hit very badly by the rocketing oil prices during the war. BTW the military experts prognosed the war will about 2 months but for that later.

- Iraq`s neibhours - they are all freaked by fear what will happen after there is new government in Iraq. Most iraqi people are parts of the people of some neibhour (Iran, Saudi Arabia, non-existing Kurdistan, even Turkey) - yes, the Brits did their job reeeally well - and those neibhour countries in some cases also have unstable ethnical/religious constitutions and the gain of power in Iraq of certain group could turn the tables in some neibhour and provoke civil war and chaos there!

Yet they have no doubt war will be, so for months already they are playing behind the curtain trying to outmatch the competition and have as much influence and control of future Iraq goverment as possible.

- Russia - They are thrown out completely of their favorable economical positions in Iraq. But they`ll get a deal with the USA to fight the Chechens (even invasion in Georgia if they like) in exchange of voting yes on the war. And they`ll get good prices on Siberian oil during the war as well.

BUT by the USA economical charts after the war they`ll drop the price of oil (dont remember the numbers, say twice), while the budged of Russia is accounted on pre-war oil price. Oil export is the main financial resource of Russia keeping it on its feet, and so after the war they will enter a new devastating internal economical crisis, hyperinflation, etc.


*******
As for the accusations to Iraq, they said the biggest part of its weapons/plants were destroyed during the prev war. it currently possesses around 20 rockets able to reach Israel (out of several hundred 10 years ago) and about several hundred with range of 200km (so it is hard to threaten with them even its neibhours what to say about USA or UK). However the allowed by UN range is 150km.

All of its airplanes and rockets are in dire need ot replace parts which it menages to smuggle in very small number through Syria in the form of non-military production.

It certainly does have chemical and biological weapons on store somewhere although they are much less than they were 10 years ago. It does very probably have plants, because it is impossible to tell the difference between installations for making fertilizers and chemical weapons (it can very quickly be changed from one to another) or vaccines and biological weapons.

But Iraq`s main problems is it lacks the necessary rockets (it has to import the ingredients for their fuel for example) to deploy these weapons anywhere beyond its territory.

All attempts to make nuclear weapon were cut off. Currently it cannot supply the high tech needed to produce own enriched uranium.

So clearly war wont be fought because of any threat by Iraq - Saddam was much bigger threat in the previous decades and noone ever worried about it. On the contrary the USA and Europe did sell him weaponry. So all this stuff about threats is just a propaganda slogan for the masses

********

The war.
Iraq most probaly will built deep-echelloned defence, with its main force situated around Bagdad and other major cities in its center. The aim is:

1st: to force the US army to enter deep in territory and slowly exhaust it, hoping hi number of US casualties will produce strong enough anti-war movement in USA itself - just like Vietnam war - although today much smaller number of casualties will be enough. (BTW they said in prev Gulf war were killed 8 (!!!) american soldiers)


2nd: to draw the USA to siege and attack those big cities so cause maximal civillian casualties thus provoking very strong international resentment to the USA which will force them to cease fire.

War will start either by the end of february or in the autumn because of the hot weather in the summer. USA will most probably win in 2 months.

 

Nice post

 

Its what they do

 

Re: Don't read this

Learn bulgarian and I`ll supply you with lots of books in this style - here it is the standart for good historiography. There are some very famous historians who also write on current issues in the newspapers or the TV/radio. E.g. I`ve heard commentaries from them on 11.IX that would make the CNN to be closed down.

Dont worry - most of the world is with you, bud!
We dont have the force but we have the numbers...

 

(Western) european countries are not traditional enemies for hundreds of years.

In fact much of the time they it was ONE country - the Caroling empire, later the Holy Roman empire (ok - + several other - but they were all recognizing papal supremacy)... European countries could become true enemies only in XIX cent. when nations were invented.

That is - lick the ass of USA?

Oh, yes, the bankrupcy was result of changes. If the society in the Eastern block was the same like it was during Stalin time, it would be the USSR today who will dictate the world, not the US.


[/B][/QUOTE]

I am quite annoyed by your way of solving of problems...
And it is you, who thinks Saddam and Hitler are bad guys?...

Then why the defeated countries of WWI were willing to join the Axis? Of course the reasons are never alone. For example the innate features of German people played great role in establishing and supporting such a regime exactly there.

Er, remind me again what is the problem war with Iraq will solve?

nice way to flee from the battlefield

 

AFAIR Iraq is actually 3rd place on oil reserves in the world.
But you are right also about the region control (see my 1st post)

By possessing Iraq, USA can dictate the oil prices - it wont have to play with Russia and OPEK anymore.

But it is not only oil. General political influence of good ol XIX cent. imperialism sense also matters. Mid-East will be one more card for the USA to play with in future Great power fights.

 

huh .. who is this Rumsfeld guy .. germany and france is a problem and now .. he spoke from Germany together with Kuba and Lybia ??.. if this guy could take all decisions alone Germany would be one of his next targets

 

Gna-gna-gna!

Here's what is going to happen:

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

 

Re: Gna-gna-gna!

a cool strategy game

 

ROTFL

Is it possible to download this film ?
If yes - tell me how, plz.

 

Re: Gna-gna-gna!

Cool..... i'm sold ... looks as iron clad as the proof the yanks came up with.....

 

Trying something, Babek!!!

http://idleworm.wolffelaar.nl/nws/2002/11/swf/iraq2.swf

If I'm not mistaken: Right-click and "Save to hard-drive".....

edit: Oh, and open using MSIE.

 

BIG THANKS - WORKS PERFECTLY !!!!!!

 

Very good!!!

BTW, Babek? When is your squad-night? I think you and I need to discuss something

 

Normally its Thursday at 7pm german time. But we are also very often at other times online.

Next week I will be away for 5 days, because my brother and his wife had decided to make me an uncle on Feb 12th and I want to see the new member of my family

My email adress is babek15@gmx.de if you want to discuss some carpetbombing or other related topics

 

for all who can german

Hab das im IL2 Forum gefunden. Ist vielleicht lesenswert.


Ex-Präsident Jimmy Carter in der Washington Post vom 5. September 2002:

The Troubling New Face of America
by Jimmy Carter
Thursday, September 5, 2002


"Die Politik der Vereinigten Staaten erlebt gegenwärtig fundamentale Veränderungen - in der Frage der Menschenrechte, in unserer Rolle gegenüber den anderen Nationen dieser Welt und im Friedensprozess des Nahen Ostens. All das passiert ohne große Debatten - außer, bisweilen, innerhalb der Administration. Nach der Tragödie des 11. September musste der Präsident reagieren, und er hat das zunächst auch schnell und vernünftig getan. Aber mittlerweile versucht eine Gruppe von Konservativen, lang gehegte Ambitionen unter dem Deckmantel des Krieges gegen den Terrorismus zu verfolgen.

Früher von den meisten Ländern als Champion der Menschenrechte bewundert, beargwöhnen respektable internationale Organisationen nun, ob unser Land noch zu den Grundprinzipien des demokratischen Lebens steht. Über das Unrecht in den Ländern, die uns beim Kampf um den Terrorismus unterstützten, haben wir hinweg gesehen. Bei uns im eigenen Land wurden amerikanische Bürger als Feinde inhaftiert, ohne Anschuldigung und ohne juristischen Beistand. Trotz aller Kritik der Bundesgerichte verweigert sich das Justizministerium diesem Problem. Und mit Blick auf die Gefangenen in Guantanamo erklärt der Verteidigungsminister, dass sie selbst dann nicht freigelassen werden würden, wenn sich ihre Unschuld erwiesen hat. All das passt zu Unrechtsstaaten, die von amerikanischen Präsidenten in der Vergangenheit immer verurteilt wurden.

Während der Präsident sich noch nicht abschließend geäußert hat, wird das amerikanische Volk fast täglich vom Vizepräsidenten und anderen hohen Regierungsvertretern damit konfrontiert, dass die Massenvernichtungswaffen des Irak eine tödliche Bedrohung darstellen und Saddam Hussein aus dem Amt gejagt werden muss, ob mit oder ohne Unterstützung der Verbündeten. Wie aber die Verbündeten und auch verantwortliche Politiker früherer Administrationen immer wieder betont haben, gibt es gegenwärtig keine Bedrohung der Vereinigten Staaten durch Bagdad.

Angesichts intensiver Überwachung und einer überwältigenden militärischen Übermacht der USA wäre jede kriegerische Handlung von Saddam ein Akt des Selbstmords. So unwahrscheinlich es ist, dass Saddam Nachbarstaaten attackiert, Nuklearwaffen testet, mit dem Einsatz von Massenvernichtungswaffen droht oder sie Terroristen zur Verfügung zu stellt, so sehr ist es doch möglich, dass - im Falle eines amerikanischen Angriffs auf den Irak - diese Waffen gegen Israel oder gegen unsere Truppen als Reaktion eingesetzt werden. Wir können die Entwicklung von ABC-Waffen nicht ignorieren, aber ein einseitiger Krieg gegen den Irak ist nicht die Antwort. Unbehinderte Inspe ktionen im Irak sind dringend. Aber genau das ist offenkundig gar nicht gewollt, wie insbesondere der Vizepräsident mehrfach angedeutet hat.

Wir haben unsere Missachtung der restlichen Welt auch gezeigt, indem wir aus mühsam vereinbarten internationalen Abkommen ausgestiegen sind. Verträge über Rüstungskontrolle, Konventionen über biologische Waffen, Umweltabkommen und Vereinbarungen, mit den die Folterung und Bestrafung von Kriegsgefangenen verhindert werden soll - all das haben wir nicht nur abgelehnt, sondern auch all jene bedroht, die an diesen Abkommen festhalten. Diese ganze einseitige Politik isoliert die Vereinigten Staaten immer mehr von den Nationen, die wir brauchen, um den Terrorismus zu bekämpfen.

Tragisch ist auch, dass unsere Regierung substantielle Verhandlungen zwischen Palästinensern und Israelis nicht länger aktiv unterstützt. Offensichtlich besteht unsere gegenwärtige Politik darin, jede Aktion der Israelis in den besetzten Gebieten zu begrüßen und die Palästinenser zum Ziel unseres Krieges gegen den Terrorismus zu erklären, während die Israelis ihre Siedlungen ausdehnen und die palästinensischen Enklaven zusammenschrumpfen.

Innerhalb der Administration scheint es eine Auseinandersetzung über eine schlüssige Nahostpolitik zu geben. Die klaren Positionen des Präsidenten, wichtige UN-Resolutionen nach wie vor zu unterstützen und einem palästinensischen Staat nicht im Wege zu stehen, sind vom Verteidigungsminister negiert worden, der von den "sogenannten besetzten Gebieten" spricht, in denen sich "irgendetwas schon etablieren werde". Solche Stellungnahmen von Rumsfeld sind eine radikale Abkehr von der amerikanischen Politik, die seit 1967 immer den Rückzug Israels aus den besetzten Gebieten und einen wirklichen Frieden zwischen Israel und seinen Nachbarn forderte.

Stimmen des Krieges und der Spaltung scheinen Washington zu dominieren, aber bislang haben weder der Präsident noch der Kongress oder die Bundesgerichte abschließende Entscheidungen getroffen. Die historischen und wohl begründeten Verpflichtungen Amerikas müssen die Oberhand gewinnen: Für Frieden, Gerechtigkeit, Menschenrechte, Umwelt und internationale Kooperation."

 

Saddam, Sadam or Sidam.... Do you think I care that I spelt the assholes name wrong? Well I don't cause I'm not going to run around the House to find the right spelling for Mr Dick Wad. Call it a typo if you want

I never said that Saddam Was the one that was responsible for the WTC. I said that this was where all this shit started and America is going to make damn sure it wont happen again.


Yes if every countries was like Canada the World would be a much better place, But sadly their not.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:

Only what righteous Americans cannot see on CNN, is that instead of the "dragon", USAF kills other innocents, but since they are not Americans then it's "collateral damage" and it is OK, for you were aiming at the "dragon"...

End Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I will say that not all war crimes committed by OTHER countrie America included are dealt with properly. And I will also say I don't Like to see War BUT Saddam is very much in the wrong here. I do agree with a lot of what you say except your last comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
All I can say is thank God we have Bush

I'm sorry, but, I seriously doubt the inteligence of a man who can say such a thing.
end quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I said was. All I can say is thank God we have Bush and not Gore as Our president.

If your going to quote someone quote the full sentence!

I voted for the lesser of the two evils. Remember the BS about AL gore and the Vote...Do you think he would be able to handle the politics here...Hell no. He would just Go dropping bombs every where. The guy is a Mad(IMHO)


But if you think you are right in your opinions then maybe you should put yourself in my shoes. I too think that I'm right so I guess we all lose.

Sorry but seeing that politics were brought up in here I felt I too hade the right to voice my opinion.

And by the way...Its the afternoon here and not early hours in the morning so this post might make more sense than my last one...

Politics in the early hours in the morning are not my strong point . Well there not my strong point anyway.

 

@Dustin,

Well, I guess it's positive enough that you even have an opinion (no matter how wrong it is) since all you have to worry is how some things price is raised from 99.95$ to 99.99$...

I had, quite innocently, (and luckily i might add) lived thru one of USA's humanitarian bombings, so my opinion is from on-the-spot point of view.

A friendly advice: don't trust US gov. , CNN, and so on... Always THINK for yourself, and have a dose of suspicion for everything that is served to you.

If I believed Milosevic's TV, like you do CNN, I would think that Americans are not really humans, that they are animals in human skin, and so on... (i over done it a bit, don't take it litteraly).

 

never discard the possibilities!

(if i wasn't a moderator, you would've seen the first quadruple post)

 

.. bzw .. the united states are only 5% of the humons on this earth but need´s 25%!!! of the whole oil on it ...
What cost Gasoline in the Us somwhat around 0,50 $ ? here is it 1.12 ?
and bzw the Iraq has 10% of the world oil reserve...
not to mention Saudi Arabien .. wich has at least 15 %

and yes of course this war has nothing to do with oil

Kuwait has much more oil around 25% why do you think USA help them in GW1
Before u look how u can get more oil than build first cars witout 4 or 5 litre engines
We can deal with this oil if nothing new is found maybe 20 - 25 years and then its price is raising very fast ..
1970 in the oil crisis the price raisd x3 when the arabic states dont what do sell the oil in the other countries ... and now the price is x9 higher as in 1970 ..
What was it exactly what bush said .. thos who are not with us are against us ... well then im on the other side..
If u ask me its not much different to germany in 1938..39 today in the usa ..
sorry my english is very bad