Ask Me Help Desk - Lets get the ball rolling!

DC anyone who denies that oil was a part of the equation is naïve . The whole purpose of Desert Storm 1990 was to prevent Hussein from taking control of the majority of the Gulf Oil.

Again ,in the 1990s there was a growing consensus (shared by Clinton and Gore amongst others ) that the sanction regime was a dead end. Subsequent events surrounding the violations of the UN 'Oil for Food 'program proved that assessment accurate . The sanction regime would continue to weaken and primarily US and GB would have to either take decisive action or withdraw.

But you are not quite correct about 9-11 ,or rather 9-11 and the subsequent attacks on the US by anthrax (still of undetermined origin ) .
The idea of terrorist with their hands on WMD is to this day a real threat. That created an urgency to resolving the deadlock .

It is a fact that Saddam was the only modern world leader who had used WMD in warfare both against foreign foes and domestic . It is also well documented his ties to terrorist organizations ;and subsequent discovery of Iraqi documents post-invasion have proven that his relationships with AQ were in the development stage throughout the later 1990s .

It is debatable I suppose if these factors justified an invasion.But to attribute the decision to a single reason is inacurate .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

DC anyone who denies that oil was a part of the equation is naive . The whole purpose of Desert Storm 1990 was to prevent Hussein from taking control of the majority of the Gulf Oil.

Again ,in the 1990s there was a growing concensus (shared by Clinton and Gore amongst others ) that the sanction regime was a dead end. Subsequent events surrounding the violations of the UN 'Oil for Food 'program proved that assessment accurate . The sanction regime would continue to weaken and primarily US and GB would have to either take decisive action or withdraw.

But you are not quite correct about 9-11 ,or rather 9-11 and the subsequent attacks on the US by anthrax (still of undetermined origin ) .
The idea of terrorist with their hands on WMD is to this day a real threat. That created an urgency to resolving the deadlock .

It is a fact that Saddam was the only modern world leader who had used WMD in warfare both against foreign foes and domestic . It is also well documented his ties to terrorist organizations ;and subsequent discovery of Iraqi documents post-invasion have proven that his relationships with AQ were in the development stage throughout the later 1990s .

It is debatable I suppose if these factors justified an invasion.But to attribute the decision to a single reason is inacurate .

My mistake, Tom, I did not mean to imply that a date had been set prior to 9/11, only that preparations were in the making for an undetermined time. I agree, 9/11 triggered the move; it was the ‘perfect storm’ that came along for cover.

I agree too that oil, or to put it differently, ‘commerce’ is not the only motive: Whoever controls the Gulf pretty much maintains a great deal of control over the global economy.

There is definitely the motive of ‘security’ for not only the US, but for our allies as well.

The first reason is just too unacceptable for Idealist and therefore Bush choose to publicly focus on the second.

Yes Bush has not been the greatest propagandist there ever was . His old man was upfront about the needs of the new world order . Back then people like me gave him grief over the sell out of the Kurds and the Shia post Desert Storm . Now many of his same critics call him a far sighted realist (not me ) .

I can only come to the conclusion that things like this are results oriented . Since GW Bush sold the country on how easy this would be he deserves a hit to a degree. I am just amused at the chorus of "I was against it from the beginning " I hear .

Hey Tom,

Thanks for your thoughts...

One note: I can list ad infinitum contrary present-day examples to your notion that "The Sunni resistance has been flipped."

A flipping of the Sunni Resistance is impossible to substantiate. Even General Petraeus still refers to the Sunni Resistance and so does the White House's own website.

What did you mean?

Do you think things will be about the same or much better this time next year?

I think the current trend points toward more positive news. General P. cannot forecast into the future so he gives wiggle room.

What Syria and Iran's continued interference will be is an unknown . Iran could react to the increased pressure of the sanctions to ramp up their meddling. Also I will grant you the possibility that if politics do not continue to enfranchise the Sunni's they could easily "flip" once more .

I think some important political developments occurred during the "vacation" that Excon mentioned. The framework for oil revenue sharing was agreed upon . I think the Sunni leaders understand they blew it big time by not participating in the first elections .

I think the situation on the ground has placed the rhetoric about civil war in it's proper place. I think there was a chance of it ,but I think it has been permanently diffused with the defeat of AQ (the instigators of the sectarian riff). I think the Shia tribes will take on the extremists like al -Sadr once they see the miserable life that they have planned for the general populace.

I also have said before that the basic structure of the Iraqi government needs tweaking . I have learned from people I know in Iraq how tribal the country really is. That should be taken into account when considering a true representative government .It should've been a consideration pre-invasion.

I cannot prognosticate any more than that . As we have seen the situation in the ME is very fluid at this time . I think we may luck out with time to politically settle the Turkey /Kurd crisis . Winter is coming and an offensive into Kurdistan would be difficult at this time. I think that is why in part the PKK has been so aggressive.

Also Turkey has an interest in the economic development of Kurdistan especially in the booming construction industry,and they would be reluctant to lose the ties. Also Turkey still has ambitions to joining the EU . That could be a motive for restraint on their part.

I think the PUK ;the ruling party in Kurdistan ,has got to take the initiative to stop PKK from ruining a good thing they have . Right now they proclaim solidarity .But PKK's aggression could kill the goose that lays the golden egg. The Kurds finally have reason for optimism . I do not think PUK will permit PKK to continue their senseless attacks in Turkey .

As you know ,the Democrat candidates have almost to a person refused to commit to a withdrawal deadline so I think once they strip away the moveon rhetoric they realize that a counter-insurgency is a long term commitment . They realize the biggest folly would be premature departure . The Brits in Basra have shown what that could lead to.

All I'm saying is I don't think the Sunni insurgency has flipped.

I'm much more optimistic about Iraq than you, Tom. Iraqis remember a time, little more than three decades ago. A time when their cultural heritage, and their oil wealth earned Iraq a respected place in both the Arab world as well as the international community.
The generation that has grown up since Saddam Hussein took power may have no personal memories of such a time, but they have all heard the stories from their families who have recounted a time before Saddam consumed their nation and transformed the history of a people into the biography of a tyrant.

Many times I have heard Iraq compared to Afghanistan, but that is a mistake because Afghanistan lacks that culture that Iraq holds.

ET

What the media doesn't report much is what the Administration has done outside of Iraq to assist in a rebirth of Iraq.
To help the Iraqi people prepare for the transition to a free Iraq, the United States has supported the creation of a series of Iraqi working groups known as the Future of Iraq Project, which bring together free Iraqis — those living outside the country and those in northern Iraq who are protected by coalition forces. The Future of Iraq Project gives them an opportunity to discuss and plan transition issues ranging from democratic principles and practices and rule of law, to the economy, oil and energy, and health and education matters.

Building a Future for Iraqis

If you guys want to hear something weird, Ralph Nader was giving a speech to the public in a city near mine 1 year before the 9/11 attacks and he was saying that if we vote for Bush, there will be a major war in Iraq. He was also preaching that we need steel reinforced cockpit doors on our airplanes. Everyone there thought he was nuts, but now, not so much.

To keep this civil I am not going to get into a link versus link battle for days :-)
Here's some info to start.

I welcome dialogue but I trust you don't consider other viewpoints a personal affont. I am just sharing info - and it may help you/us understand what we are doing here.
I want this to be over - and won, but I don't want propaganda to drown out dissent an reality for all those invloved at home and overseas.

September (A month later than your first article) - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/wo...hp&oref=slogin

September - Talking Points Memo | Insurgency? What Insurgency?

October 28: Bloomberg online
Basra fight pointless, says British commander

One of the most senior British commanders in Iraq has claimed that there is no point in fighting on in Basra, likening British troops in the city to “Robocop” and admitting that innocent people were hurt as a result of their actions. The officer, who spoke to The Sunday Telegraph on condition of anonymity, said commanders had concluded that a military solution was no longer viable.

“We are tired of firing at people,” he said. “We would prefer to find a political accommodation.”

And a shiite news item - NPR : In Iraq, October Death Toll Hits 101 for U.S. Forces
Lest we forget that as we grab the tail, the head still can bite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gallivant_fellow

If you guys want to hear something weird, Ralph Nader was giving a speech to the public in a city near mine 1 year before the 9/11 attacks and he was saying that if we vote for Bush, there will be a major war in Iraq. He was also preaching that we need steel reinforced cockpit doors on our airplanes. Everyone there thought he was nuts, but now, not so much.

Definitely G. It was in the works long before the election. But it sounds unpatriotic and conspiratorial to trace the seeds of fact and rebellion (even though our forefathers thrived on it to make us a country) among those wrapped in the flag and praying we give a green light to all things that make us "safer" in our military experiments an Empire... which as history shows, is the last thing you want to do without many allies - and how we outlive our own bad habits.

I'm all for spreading good and information and freedom, but let's call a spade a spade. We are not as good at it as we think we are... But I hope we, and the rest of the globe - get better... GOP and DEM's and Independents and... whomever ;)

I WANT VICTORY AND PEACE IN ALL WARS THE US FIGHTS IN. BUT FIGHT THEM HONEST AND FIGHT THEM RIGHT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash123

One of the most senior British commanders in Iraq has claimed that there is no point in fighting on in Basra, likening British troops in the city to “Robocop” and admitting that innocent people were hurt as a result of their actions. The officer, who spoke to The Sunday Telegraph on condition of anonymity, said commanders had concluded that a military solution was no longer viable.

“We are tired of firing at people,” he said. “We would prefer to find a political accommodation.”

And a shiite news item - NPR : In Iraq, October Death Toll Hits 101 for U.S. Forces
lest we forget that as we grab the tail, the head still can bite.

Well now, if his anonymity is a reflection of his bravery it is no wonder the Brits failed the citizens of Basra; cowards for leaders usually fail.:)