Interesting conversation with a middle eastern man about Iraq...

[lew]

Originally Posted by Darlin

Not that great under Saddam? Not that great? Maximum Understatement.

Right or wrong, there are Iraquis today who are not being tortured, who are not a rotting body in a mass grave. Right or wrong, this country freed an entire populace from tyranny.

How spoiled we are in this country. We can afford to speak against our president, in Iraq, that might have gotten your tounge cut out and your sister raped to boot!

I don't want our troops there, maybe it was none of our business, maybe Bush lied..well, maybe Bush lied, but people are alive because of it.

Sean Hannity, I didn't know you were on this board



PS, Iraqis are being tortured, Christians are under worse persecution than under Saddam, millions of Iraqis have already died from this war (going back to the Iraq War Part 1), etc.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Darlin

And the Iraqui, strapped to a metal frame, being electrocuted, or the Iraqui, fingers and arms broken, being tossed from a building, the Iraqi girl being gang raped and beaten, yep us using war to free them sure is screwed. I know THEY must think that way.

I know it is kind of pointless to argue this, but i will anyway.

We did not invade with the premise that we were going in to fight for freedom. We invaded with our own personal interests in mind, with liberating a people as a distant last priority. Using war to solely to free them would not have been approved by our government nor the people in this country. We went to war based on the premise that Iraq was a threat to us and their neighbors. We went to war sold on it taking months not years. We were sold on the conflict by them saying their oil was going to pay for reconstruction and that it was going to be 80 billion dollars. I do not believe it was a "war for oil", but we also went in there to strengthen our geopolitical position in the region. All of those things were more significant in the run up to the war that simply liberating a population. Let us not forget we were the ones that initially provided Saddam with nerve gas, money, and other weapons. We wanted him to fight the Iranians. We didn't denounce his actions against the kurds and the use of chemical weapons because the kurds were a threat to his hold on his share of power in the region.

It should not be the policy of the united states to start preemptive conflicts. Those types of wars are against the geneva convention that we helped establish. As much as I sympathize with the cause of oppressed people the obligation to help is not on the United States particularly when it comes to unilateral action.

Cliffs: Its not our obligation to "free" people and we didn't invade Iraq on that premise.

[Viv]

I have an Iraqi friend who feels the coalition should not get out fast, as this will leave the country at the mercy of the militia forces who are hardly more than thugs and is likely to result in genocide.

He says the people in Iraq are in the custom of being led by dictatorship and this is what they prefer. His friends argue against democracy, because their leader should be sent by God.

His premise is that democracy will not suit them. They prefer dictatorship and it is what is required due to the temperament of the people.

Why the coalition went into Iraq is debated, personally ...it related to some oil pipeline...

[7960]

Originally Posted by Viv

Why the coalition went into Iraq is debated, personally ...it related to some oil pipeline...

no, it did not.

[Viv]

Originally Posted by 7960

no, it did not.

I'm putting you on ignore.

That is debatable, of course.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Viv

I'm putting you on ignore.

That is debatable, of course.

then debatable it...........show me where we went to iraq for an oil pipeline.

[Viv]

Originally Posted by 7960

then debatable it...........show me where we went to iraq for an oil pipeline.

You are bossy. I want you to know I am replying because I feel like it, not because you are bossing me.

Afghanistan was about oil too. The Taliban wouldn't let American Oil Companies build pipelines during the 90s.

This is about oil, always will be about oil. If the largest reserve of oil in the world was found in another country, America would be there to try and exploit. There are plenty of Governments around the world that produce terror and America does nothing. But if that country has oil, best be damn sure America is right there saying something.

Of course, it is proven a smart aim to have, the oil situation is worsening daily. Someone predicted it accurately.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Viv

You are bossy. I want you to know I am replying because I feel like it, not because you are bossing me.

Fuck it.

I dind't read the rest of your post. Don't bother replying to me any more.

[Viv]

Originally Posted by 7960

Fuck it.

I dind't read the rest of your post. Don't bother replying to me any more.

LMAO...don't tell me what to do twice in one thread.

[C4Casey]

For our own, selfish reasons, we should stay in Iraq. Iraq is in a far too strategical position to abandon. Look at a map. Iraq sits in between Syria and Iran, two potential future adversaries. We're already fighting a proxy-war with Iran in Iraq. Add the fact that we have forces in Afghanistan, you get a situation where, should the need arise, we could attack Iran from two fronts. The mere possibility of this could act as a deterent from Iran doing anything too drastic.

[C4Casey]

Oh, and there is no f-ing oil in Afghanistan. We went there because Bin-Laden was there. Duh.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by C4Casey

Oh, and there is no f-ing oil in Afghanistan. We went there because Bin-Laden was there. Duh.

well, motives are rarely clearcut or 'single' but just FYI

source: US govt http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Afghanis...yOverview.html

Between the 1960s and mid-1980s, the Soviets had identified more than 15 oil and gas fields in northern Afghanistan. Only three gas fields -- Khwaja Gogerdak, Djarquduk, and Yatimtaq – were developed in the area surrounding Sheberghan, which is located about 120 kilometers west of Mazar-i-Sharif. Afghan natural gas production reached 275 million cubic feet per day (Mmcf/d) in the mid-1970s. The Djarquduk field was brought online during that period and boosted Afghan natural gas output to a peak of 385 Mmcf/d by 1978. About 100 mmcf/d of this amount was used locally in gas distribution systems in Sheberghan and Mazar-i-Sharif as well as at a 100,000 mt/y urea plant located near Mazar-i-Sharif. One oil field, Angot, was developed in the late 1960s, but aside from production tests, oil production was intermittent, with daily outputs averaging 500 b/d or less.

Northern Afghanistan has proved, probable and possible natural gas reserves of about 5 Tcf. This area, which is a southward extension of the highly prolific, natural gas-prone Amu Darya Basin, has the potential to hold a sizable undiscovered gas resource base, especially in sedimentary layers deeper than what were developed during the Soviet era. Afghanistan’s crude oil potential is more modest, with perhaps up to 100 million barrels of medium-gravity recoverable from Angot and other fields that are undeveloped.

Outside of the North Afghan Platform, very limited oil and gas exploration has occurred. Geological, aeromagnetic, and gravimetric studies were conducted in the 1970s over parts of the Katawaz Fault Block (eastern Afghanistan – along the Pak border) and in the Helmand and Farah provinces. The hydrocarbon potential in these areas is thought to be very limited as compared to that in the north.

At its peak in the late 1970s, Afghanistan supplied 70 to 90 percent of its natural gas output to the Soviet Union's natural gas grid via a link through Uzbekistan. In 1992, Afghan President Najibullah indicated that a new natural gas sales agreement with Russia was in progress. However, several former Soviet republics raised price and distribution issues and negotiations stalled. In the early 1990s, Afghanistan also discussed possible natural gas supply arrangements with Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and several Western European countries, but these talks never progressed further. Afghan natural gas fields include Djarquduk, Khowaja Gogerdak, and Yatimtaq, all of which are located within 20 miles of the northern town of Sheberghan in Jowzjan province. In 1999, work resumed on the repair of a distribution pipeline to Mazar-i-Sharif. Spur pipelines to a small power plant and fertilizer plant also were repaired and completed. Mazar-i-Sharif is now receiving natural gas from the pipeline. The possibility of exporting a small quantity of natural gas through the existing pipeline into Uzbekistan also is reportedly being considered.

Soviet estimates from the late 1970s placed Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves at 95 million barrels. Most Soviet assistance efforts after the mid-1970s were aimed at increasing natural gas production. Sporadic gas exploration continued through the mid-1980s. The last Soviet technical advisors left Afghanistan in 1988. After a brief hiatus, oil production at the Angot field was restarted in the early 1990s by local militias. Output levels, however, are thought to have been less than 300 barrels per day (bbl/d). Near Sar-i-Pol, the Soviets partially constructed a 10,000-bbl/d topping plant, which although undamaged by war, is thought by Western experts to be unsalvageable.

Petroleum products such as diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel are imported, mainly from Pakistan and Uzbekistan, with limited volumes from Turkmenistan and Iran serving regional markets. Turkmenistan also has a petroleum product storage and distribution facility at Tagtabazar (Kushka – on the Turkmen side) near the Afghan border, which supplies northwestern Afghanistan.

Besides oil and natural gas, Afghanistan also is estimated to have 73 million tons of coal reserves, most of which is located in the region between Herat and Badashkan in the northern part of the country. Although Afghanistan produced over 100,000 short tons of coal annually as late as the early 1990s, as of 2000, the country was producing only around 1,000 short tons.
[snip ..]

Also it might be worth noting the importance of A'stan as a pipeline route
I'm unsure how up to date this map is
Oil - Central Asian Pipelines
but heres more EIA overview on this aspect
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Afghanis...gyTransit.html

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by C4Casey

For our own, selfish reasons, we should stay in Iraq. Iraq is in a far too strategical position to abandon. Look at a map. Iraq sits in between Syria and Iran, two potential future adversaries. We're already fighting a proxy-war with Iran in Iraq. Add the fact that we have forces in Afghanistan, you get a situation where, should the need arise, we could attack Iran from two fronts. The mere possibility of this could act as a deterent from Iran doing anything too drastic.

They are not really going to ever be adversaries. They have a long, long, long way to go before they are even a threat. Their navy when compared to ours consist of a 20' flat bottom fishing boat with a 40hp mercury outboard. They have no means to transport a large army any great distance. The Iranian airforce (ironically) is made up of our retired F14's with antique radar systems. If syrian planes are up and they find Israeli fighters, they almost always land immediately because they know they will get shot down. They are a threat to their region, and possibly europe at most.

As far as nuclear capability, they are still well in their infancy or not doing anything at all assuming they are telling the truth. It will take years and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a nuclear warhead, and then additional years to make one small enough to fit on a missile. Then it takes more millions to develop a missile that will even make it to the united states, and more millions for a guidance system. Overall it would cost them billions and even their friends like the Russians would not be terribly fond of the idea that they would have nuclear capability. All of that development requires testing...and it would only take 1 test for the world to condemn their actions and force them to stop.


We are there to keep a thumb on a region with a large amount a certain natural resource. And as bill maher asks, isn't it cheaper just to buy it from them instead spending 140 billion a year keeping a military presence in the region?

[Viv]

avsp, you saved me posting a reply.

I wonder... if the reason for every conflict and political act in the world is just to control oil, why the US goes for the Middle East conflict?

Venezuela is in your back yard. Has few defences comparatively speaking. Is politically stating intent to challenge the power of the evil empire of the US.

If it were purely about oil, why would you not target Venezuela? Is it not a softer target?

You cannot say the Middle East offers less resistance. Iraq is one issue, but now you are looking at the possibility of intervention in Iran. Is it a long-term aim to subjugate the Middle East as a whole then? One country at a time, until the US has all of them occupied?

[avsp]

Although I think that Iran may well be fairly close to a nuke bomb I agree that its almost suicidal for them to use it, ..., but then thats not what such weapons are for is it?

The American 'thumb' may be there to stop others using access to the oil as a geo-political lever, ..., in this sense all the nations in the region are 'potential adversaries'

Suppose Iran gained control of Iraqs oil, ..., they'd then, possibly, be able to rival SA as a 'swing' producer, ..., especially if SA reserves are much much lower than claimed. Either way the cash could fund a sizable armed force fairly quickly.

Also Syria/Iran can threaten by proxy thru terrorism

Who wants Venezuela's oil anyway its very poor quality, wrecks refineries & besides which the terrain is a complete bastard to fight in

[Smull]

Originally Posted by C4Casey

For our own, selfish reasons, we should stay in Iraq. Iraq is in a far too strategical position to abandon. Look at a map. Iraq sits in between Syria and Iran, two potential future adversaries. We're already fighting a proxy-war with Iran in Iraq. Add the fact that we have forces in Afghanistan, you get a situation where, should the need arise, we could attack Iran from two fronts. The mere possibility of this could act as a deterent from Iran doing anything too drastic.

I don't think that it being in a good strategic position is a good enough reason to stay there. We're spending far too much blood and treasure there to justify it on those terms, and we don't NEED Iraq as a strategic base to attack Iran. If we wanted Iran gone we could plow through them and topple their government just as easily as Iraq's and Afghanistan's.

The only justification I can see for staying at this point (I really don't see any for going in) is that we're close to establishing a stable Iraq. There are signs that this may be occurring and once your as committed as we are to this thing I'm beginning to wonder if its worth it to just stay in and see if we can pull this thing together. That said I feel we should leave pretty soon regardless, I dont like McCain's idea of just hanging out for the next few decades.

Originally Posted by Viv

I wonder... if the reason for every conflict and political act in the world is just to control oil, why the US goes for the Middle East conflict?

I find it very hard to believe that the whole thing is just about oil. the whole thing is just too large and too expensive to justify solely on the grounds that we like cheap oil (though i definitely think thats a factor)

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

...he said the people...do take their freedom seriously but they're used to living under oppression and they do not have a firm grasp on how to run their lives without government threatening them. He said they have to do it in their own time....freeing people from oppression is a noble cause.

Isn't that a problem the Russians faced as well?

[Smull]

No, its a problem Russia faces
Russian opposition leader steps down | FP Passport

If foreign NGOs were the only ones who voted for Russia's leaders, Yabloko would probably have taken over the legislature in a landslide, but in the real world it has recently been unable to crack the 7 percent threshold needed for Duma membership or expand its membership beyond well-off, educated urbanites.
...
In short, it is a very normal political party with a sensible platform in a political environment where such entities are increasingly obsolete. Yavlinsky may have decided that 15 years of pretending was enough.