04-01-2003 10:46									#61
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The invasion of Afghanistan was motivated by a couple of factors: 1) Self Defense 2) Revenge 3) Justice Oil had nothing to do with it.

Then explain why we went after Afghanistan (none of the hijackers were Afghani), and not Saudi Arabia (several of the hijackers were Saudis, and Saudi Arabians helped fund the attacks, as they do many other terrorist attacks).

	04-01-2003 10:49									#62
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Ah, cause that's where the central leadership and headquarters of Al Queda was.

Secondly, Saudi Arabia is also being dealt with polictically and economically.

I hate Bin Laden with a passion, but the man was/is brilliant. Those hijakers were chosen to be specifically from Saudi Arabia to try and cause a rift between the US and Saudi Arabia.

	04-01-2003 10:52									#63
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Then explain why we went after Afghanistan (none of the hijackers were Afghani), and not Saudi Arabia (several of the hijackers were Saudis, and Saudi Arabians helped fund the attacks, as they do many other terrorist attacks).

Because Afghanistan was where the terrorist training camps and the terrorist infrastructure (and Bin Laden and the other leaders) were. Saudi Arabia certainly has connections with terrorism, but they don't like Al Qaeda any more than we do, especially as Al Qaeda wan'ts to topple the government of Saudia Arabia and replace it with themselves. And while I don't like Saudi Arabia, that doesn't mean that because 15 individuals are party to a conspiracy, the entire country is. Should we invade Britain because of Richard Reid?

And if this was just about oil, we could invade SA and Kuwait quite easily, quite quickly and have a lot more oil.

	04-01-2003 10:58									#64
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: And while I don't like Saudi Arabia, that doesn't mean that because 15 individuals are party to a conspiracy, the entire country is.

We certainly did a number on Afghanistan because of the actions of a few.

Not to mention Germany and Japan in WW2.

	04-01-2003 11:01									#65
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd We certainly did a number on Afghanistan because of the actions of a few.

Those "few" happened to be the Taliban government, who refused to hand over Bin Laden.

quote: Not to mention Germany and Japan in WW2.

There were certainly more than 15 people in the German and Japan governments and armies.

	04-01-2003 11:03									#66
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Those "few" happened to be the Taliban government, who refused to hand over Bin Laden.

So, if the US refuses to immediately and unconditionally extradite someone to, say, Canada, Canada should be able to come bomb us?

quote: There were certainly more than 15 people in the German and Japan governments and armies.

Yes, but those in the German/Japanese militaries didn't have too much choice in the matter, now did they? And in any case, is 15 your limit on number of people involved? The people in the German/Japanese governments were certainly a large minority, yet millions of people were murdered by the US/Britain/Soviet Union because of them.

	04-01-2003 11:08									#67
	Got spare money?

The 15 invlolved were not representatives of Saudi Arabia, they were representatives of Al Qaeda, who were tactitly operating under the Talibans approval.

The armies of Germany and Japan were most certainly operating under the orders of their respective governments.

	04-01-2003 11:09									#68
	Got spare money?

Why is it every child old enough to reach the key board feels they know everything about international relations and foreign policy?

Could it be that some people are over simplifing the situation so that it fits with in their narrow, bigoted views?

I'm out of this thread.

	04-01-2003 11:10									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: The armies of Germany and Japan were most certainly operating under the orders of their respective governments.

Yes, and people such as Paul Tibbets and Curtis LeMay were operating under the orders of their respective governments when they bombed civilians.

It seemed as if you were making the point that we shouldn't kill lots of innocent people because of the actions of a few. If that isn't your position, just say so.

But this is turning into a threadjack, we can take it elsewhere

	04-01-2003 11:11									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

And yes, if we were funding and harboring Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda had just murdered 3000 Canadians in a terrorist attack, and we refused to cooperate or hand over Bin Laden, then yes, I would think Canada would be justified in trying to destroy the Al Qaeda infrastructure and get Bin Laden for themselves, even if it ment war with the US.

	04-01-2003 11:12									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Well, whatever happens, I can only hope that the US military will take a massive beating. Hell, it'd be great if we actually LOST any war we start in Iraq, but that probably won't happen. That way, perhaps we'll think twice before invading people or bombing them.

Traitor, I'd like to see you take a massive beating. Might make you think twice before you spout off your mouth.

	04-01-2003 11:13									#72
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: And yes, if we were funding and harboring Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda had just murdered 3000 people, and we refused to cooperate or hand over Bin Laden, then yes, I would think Canada would be justified in trying to destroy the Al Qaeda infrastructure and get Bin Laden for themselves, even if it ment war with the US.

You don't think negotiation and compromise might be a better solution?

jimmytrick,

quote: Traitor,

That word means nothing to me, actually.

And you still haven't told me why it's OK for US soldiers to kill Iraqi soldiers and civilians but NOT OK for Iraqi soldiers to kill US soldiers. Hmmm?

	04-01-2003 11:19									#73
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd You don't think negotiation and compromise might be a better solution?

first of all, reread what I wrote. If the US refused to cooperate.

Second of all, there are times when cooperise and negotation are no longer an option. Should England and France, Checkoslovakia and Poland have negotiated with Germany after it's attacks? Should the US have negotiated with Japan after its?

quote: And you still haven't told me why it's OK for US soldiers to kill Iraqi soldiers and civilians but NOT OK for Iraqi soldiers to kill US soldiers. Hmmm?

While I don't want to speak on behalf of him, I know I have less of a problem with Iraqi soldiers attacking and trying to kill US soldiers (using the rules of war, at any rate), than that you apparently derive pleasure in the prospect of their being succesful in killing US soldiers. I don't get any pleasure in seeing anyone killed, soldier or civilian, with the exception of Saddam.

	04-01-2003 11:24									#74
	Got spare money?

quote: Should England and France, Checkoslovakia and Poland have negotiated with Germany after it's attacks? Should the US have negotiated with Japan after its?

Most certainly, if at all possible.

quote: I know I have less of a problem with Iraqi soldiers attacking and trying to kill US soldiers (using the rules of war, at any rate), than that you apparently derive pleasure in the prospect of their being succesful in killing US soldiers. I don't derive any pleasure in seeing anyone killed, soldier or civilian, with the excpetion of Saddam.

Neither do I. I don't find pleasure in the deaths of American soldiers. I would just RATHER the US lose than Iraq lose, simply because of our overconfidence and aggression against smaller countries, in the hopes of being dissuaded from future military action.

Oh, and your comment about "the rules of war"? Well, if the US can use fuel-air bombs, massive bunkers busters, even tactical nukes, then why can't Iraq use chemical weapons on US military targets?

	04-01-2003 11:36									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi I am growing more and more skeptical that a war will actually break out. The inspectors don't seem to be finding anything, and it's questionable whether UNSC approval can be gained. Without either of the two polls show support for a war at only 20%, which is just too low support. I think it is likely war will be averted.

Shi, Several months ago, in August or September I believe, we had a poll here on Apolyton on when the war in Iraq would begin. I objected at that time that the poll was flawed because it did not include an option for "never." I thought at the time that Bush would go to the UN, that the UN would be effective in sending the inspectors back into Iraq because of the threat to use force if this did not happen. The inspectors would then either demostrate that Iraq had no WoMD, or that the inspectors would be effective in disarming Iraq if they did. Everything went as I thought it would.

So long as Iraq continues to fully cooperate with the inspectors, I think there is no case for war. However, I may be wrong for I am not in full possession of the facts that have caused the five permanent members of the Security Council to express concern over Iraq's Dec. 8 report.

But going only on the facts as I know them now, war is improbable.

	04-01-2003 15:23									#76
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Iraq 2 Intention -- to be honest I have no damn idea what the hell is going on.

Domestic politics, I think is the most reasonable explanation. Shrub wants to secure his power.

	04-01-2003 18:58									#77
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker It's not about oil. US gets all its oil from ourselves and South America. Japan and the EU, on the other hand, are dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

It doesn't really matter that the US doesn't import directly from these contries. The oil market is global, so lack of supply will raise prices everywhere, and so cost the US money on the oil they import.

	04-01-2003 20:13									#78
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Hell, it'd be great if we actually LOST any war we start in Iraq, but that probably won't happen.

Don´t be so sure

I remember a military exercise last year (I think it was "Millenium Challenge") which brought an interesting result.

Paul van Riper, who took the Role of Saddam Hussein used orthodox tactics and wreaked Havoc on the US-Troops.

For example, he didn´t use Radio-Communication für fear, that it would be intercepted (which was of course the case) and instead he relied on coded Transmissions which were shouted by the Imams on their Minaretts and on Messengers on Motorcycles.

He also used Suicide-Attacks on American Battleships and Carriers with small fast civilian Boats, packed with Explosives.

After the US-Forces lost a couple of Ships and Carrier with some thousand Troops on Board, the Leadership of the Exercise told Paul van Riper to transmit his Orders via Cellphone and Sattelite-Communication so the US-Trops could intercept the messages.
They also reactivated the sunken ships and dead troops as if they have never been Dead.
But van Riper went still harassing the US-Troops and at the end the Leadership of the Exercise told Ripers subordinates, not to listen to his orders, but issued them different Orders instead.
This was the Point where Van Riper resigned from his Post as Leader of Team Red.
At the End the Exercise was (of course) declared a big victory for Team Blue (the US-Troops)

Here is a good source:
http://www.thepowerhour.com/iraq/mi...-games-iraq.htm


Seems like Saddam could stand a chance, cos it seems if confronted with unusual tactics the Leadership of the US-Military just tries to alter the Rules (which is difficult outside of an exercise) rather than question their own tactics

	04-01-2003 20:49									#79
	Suffering from ads?

Well, I don't think the US will have much of a problem handling Iraq, considering how depleted they are. The bigger problem is what happens when Iraq is "liberated", to use Shrub's parlance.

We can't even keep our ducks in a row with afghanistan and the provisional government there, which barely has power outside of Kabul. And now we propose to nation-build yet another country in a similar manner, expecting different results?

I just don't get it. We're gonna dump up to 100+ billion dollars to prop up quasi-democracies in distant corners of the globe, with a domestic economy that's suckin' major wind and little, if any, direction on domestic policy in general.

I don't think polls tell half the story. Most "barstool" surveys I conduct among people I know indicate serious cold feet about what we are about to undertake.

[/end liberal rant]

	05-01-2003 01:03									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Proteus_MST Here is a good source: http://www.thepowerhour.com/iraq/mi...-games-iraq.htm Seems like Saddam could stand a chance, cos it seems if confronted with unusual tactics the Leadership of the US-Military just tries to alter the Rules (which is difficult outside of an exercise) rather than question their own tactics

Very interesting link. van Riper sinks the US fleet by attacking first with suicide attacks and missle-armed small boats. He (Saddam) wins. They refloat the fleet, and it looks like van Riper is winning round two as well using his unorthodox techniques.

So they simply remove van Riter and provide a scripted defense.

What did the US planners learn from this? They should have learned that they may have a hard time beating an innovative defense against a determined opponent.

Somehow, I just do not believe Saddam can have an talented and innovative generals on his staff. He rules his people by terror and has probably long ago eliminated anyone in the general staff with talent.

	05-01-2003 01:38									#81
	Suffering from ads?

Bush was against 'nation building' during the elction, but now is doing it.

	05-01-2003 01:42									#82
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Most certainly, if at all possible.

Diplomacy made the situation worse with Nazi Germany, not better.

quote: even tactical nukes

When did the US use nukes in Afghanistan?

	05-01-2003 03:28									#83
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Thue It doesn't really matter that the US doesn't import directly from these contries. The oil market is global, so lack of supply will raise prices everywhere, and so cost the US money on the oil they import.

THANK YOU!!!!

Why do so few people grasp this? It's not that hard a concept.

	05-01-2003 05:43									#84
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: It doesn't really matter that the US doesn't import directly from these contries. The oil market is global, so lack of supply will raise prices everywhere, and so cost the US money on the oil they import.

That's a very simplistic view, and completely ignores secondary markets. First off it ignores transportation costs. Is it alot easier to transport oil from the Gulf of Mexico (next door), than from halfway around the world (Iraq).

Secondly, a supply problem in one region can be offset by an increased production in another region(s), and level out the supply numbers or price problems.

Both the Mexicans and Saudis have done this in the past, by increasing their supply to combat these problems.

Thirdly, this completely ignores unilateral trade agreements that countries have between each other.

Here's a recent example of a trade agreement on the secondary market:

quote: Buenos Aires, Jan 3 (EFE): The Argentine government is worried that the first fragile signs that the economy is coming out of a five-year coma could be steamrolled by inflationary pressures caused by the latest spike in world oil prices. To counter that, it got two major oil companies to agree to sell their product at a fixed price of $28.50 per barrel for the next 90 days, providing that the going word price for a barrel of benchmark West Texas Intermediate stays at between $22 and $35.

http://hoovnews.hoovers.com/fp.asp?...086000d278572a7

Finally, you just made the case that this is not a US problem but a problem to the ENTIRE WORLD. It is already apparent that the non US part of the world is just as, if not MORE, dependent on oil than we are.

Please tell us how a motive of an invasion of Iraq specifically ties into the world oil markets. I have yet to see a case of how a US invasion leads to some sort of magic elixur. Iraqi oil is already on the market anyway.

Might I also just mention Royal Dutch Shell in passing as well Thue.

	05-01-2003 05:47									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Unless there's a strike in Venezuela . . . oops.

The US doesn't want to control oil for it's own oil costs. It wants to control oil in order to control others. The ME is Eupope's and [/i]Asia's[/i] supply. If the US control's the ME's oil, it controls its chief economic rivals.

Too many people underestimate the US.

	05-01-2003 05:49									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The truth is U.S. multinationals have been increasing their control over world oil suppplies for years. In the past countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Mexico have been able to nationalize foreign owned oil assests and amagamate them into state owned enterprises but for the last ten years they've been forced to privitise much of their holdings meaning they've had to go to U.S. and E.U. multinationals for money to continueing developing their claims.

	05-01-2003 05:55									#87
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Yep. I don't deny its in US best interest to smooth out oil supply until we can get our dependence off of it. After all, this has caused major economic problems. (Again, for the entire world by the way).

But the idea of an invasion to secure an oil supply is outright absurd, and has to be the most counterproductive idea I've ever heard. The same thing (finding new supply) is being done on a much quieter, easier, and more profitable level, as I have pointed out numerous times, through Central Asia.

	05-01-2003 07:24									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker But the idea of an invasion to secure an oil supply is outright absurd, and has to be the most counterproductive idea I've ever heard.

Especially with the very real possibility that Iraq will destroy it's own oil wells, and fire missiles at the oil wells of the surrounding countries.

	06-01-2003 00:16									#89
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Unless there's a strike in Venezuela . . . oops. The US doesn't want to control oil for it's own oil costs. It wants to control oil in order to control others. The ME is Eupope's and [/i]Asia's[/i] supply. If the US control's the ME's oil, it controls its chief economic rivals. Too many people underestimate the US.

Could this also explain the UK's steadfast support?