I thought by far from a military standpoint Adolf Hitler was the biggest idiot that ever commanded an Army.

Congratulations to Saddam Hussein from Iraq for winning Thecurly1's 17th Annual Dumb Ass World Leader's award. With this nice statue made of melted tank parts you'll recieve a map of the middle east, an HDTV tuned to all CNN all the time, and a life time supply of Anthrax and Mustard Gas to wreack havock on your enemies as you see fit!

To my original point, this year alone I think he's tried on three seperate attempts to shoot down a British or US plane patroling the no-fly zone, which was part of the armasist he signed in '91. Ooops! If he shoots someone down, British or US either country's people will be calling for his head.

I'd love to see Bush Jr. finish his Pop's work and take this nut out sometime when he's president. Trust me if you shoot down a plane or kill an American or Brit, it's an act of war. This time we'll be marching into Baghdad.

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

It was brought out in another post that Pops knew how to pull Saddam's chain. Better the devil you know than the one you don't. In this case you wish to award Saddam for his tenacity at being dumb. Would you rather award his successor for being brighter? And the results that might come about by such? At what cost would you change the award? I would think a little thought on the subject might prove to be insightful.

He's gonna shoot down one of these planes and all hell will break loose. We aren't talking sanctions, I'm talking full on airstrikes. The only way he's getting out of office is if we invade and overthrow the government.

Bush Sr, didn't have the balls to go to Baghdad and destroy the regime.

Do you remember why we were in Iraq?

And if you do, what we were supposed to accomplish?

And what the constraints were?

Yeah we were mandated to liberate Kuwait. Don't you think we should have totally taken him out when we had the chance. This is the first time in U.S. military history we didn't go into war and try to take out the root of the problem. Granted it didn't work in Korea, but it only makes sense to get rid of Saddam then so that we wouldn't have to go back.

I hope we don't have to go back, but it looks like it, if he keeps shooting at our planes.

Hi thecurly1,

Okay, that was the official reason, now - do you really now why the NATO tried to liberate Kuwait ? Don't tell me you believe the "oh my god, those poor people will be crushed by Saddam" propaganda they shoved down our troats back then ;).

Bye!

Crisp

Starters it wasn't just NATO it was at a larger part the UN.

Obviously it was because of the oil in the region. Saddam could have invaded Saudi Arabia a long time before we got there and practically held the rich countries hostage. I agree it was about oil first and people second.

Kosovo was about people, Milosevic didn't have an army poised to invade Italy or anything like that. That time it was about people, not oil.

As for us not going to Baghdad, that would be like the Red Army, US, and Britian stopping 60 miles outside of Berlin in 1945, because we though the Nazi resistance groups could have overthrown Hitler. WWIII would have probably happened in 1966 or something goofy like that.

It's basic military docterine that you don't fight an enemy and leave the core of it alive to fight another day. Its simple logic, and sadly with that logic is that Iraq like Germany will rise from the ashes and spue horror upon the world again.

Like maybe I am wrong, but I thought the Coalition was operating under a United Nations mandate. NATO, to the best of my knowledge, played no part in the operation and the UN mandate was only to remove the Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

Saddam Hussein may not have the Iraqi people's best interests at heart - and the UN sanctions coninue to bight but...

1. He's been in power for ten years following the Gulf War, and was in power for 16 years previously. He's outlasted the original Bush, and will probably outlast his son. The man has some staying power.

2. He maintains a resonably advanced nuclear programme, despite US efforts to destroy it.

3. He humbled son of Bush just the other month in the UN, deftly out-manouvering the US and UK effort to adopt 'smart sanctions' in the UN Securty Council. Not bad for an isolated dictator. The man has some political skills.

4. He has growing international sympathy - the UN sanctions regime is crumbling.

5. He is allowed to sell as much oil as he wants.

6. He has increasing sympathy in the Arab world, and is still a hero to Palestinians. Kuwait is still the object of more hatred than Iraq.

7. If Iraq shot-down a US or UK plane, the US could do nothing more than lob a few cruise missiles and intesify air attacks. Iraq's suffered it before, it will suffer it again (there is absolutely no legal justification for the no-fly zone. If the US is so high on international law, it should try obeying it from time to time).

8. He's clearly ruined his country, but personally speaking he's had a priveleged, enjoyable life that has seen him in power for a quarter of a century. On top of that he's still a hero in some corners and has had quite a few political victories over the US.

He's not that dumb.

7. If Iraq shot-down a US or UK plane, the US could do nothing more than lob a few cruise missiles and intesify air attacks. Iraq's suffered it before, it will suffer it again (there is absolutely no legal justification for the no-fly zone. If the US is so high on international law, it should try obeying it from time to time).

The American people would demand more of a reaction than a few cruise missiles. Yes when we go back we won't have the support of the other countries, but too bad. A dead American or Brit makes it our war, not the world's.

Heres a US-Iraqi newstory off the wire:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010814/ts/iraq_usa_strike_dc_3.html

Saddam signed a treaty that allowed US and UK planes to patrol the no-fly zone after the war. Until the treaty is nullified, he is defying law.

Are you seriously suggesting that the US would attempt to invade Iraq if one US plane was shot down? Or launch some sort of ground campaign?

1. UN wouldn't stand for it (Russia, China and France at least). It would be a breach of the same UN principle that justified the war, somewhat disingenuously, in Kuwait.

2. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would not allow a builup of US troops. Simply wouldn't. The limited number of US servicemen currently present has led to several serious attacks already. King Fahd (and the power behind the throne Price Abdullah) would not risk an uprising. No Arab country would support it. Saudi and Kuwait will go so far in their hatred of Saddam, but no further. It would be suicide for the al-Sauds.

3. The US would not risk a wider military conflict (with Israel/Palestine, Iran/Azerbaijan, Iran/Iraq brewing). Bush is a bit of an isolatinist anyway - he wants good relations with the oil producers.

4. The logistics of the operation are even more difficult now than 1990. The US would take weeks or months to build up forces. No local support, no buil-up.

5. Oil prices would go through the roof during a an economic slowdown.

Curly, it ain't going to happen, and Saddam knows it. Think it through rather than going with the knee-jerk kick-ass response.

No not nessecarily an invasion but a huge air campagin. It all depends on what Iraq does, Isreal and other countries will play a huge roll in what happens. A massive air strike campaign larger than anything since the Gulf War would cripple Iraq and hopefully knock Saddam out of power.

Hi thecurly1,

The reason I asked for the real reason (not that I doubted you knew it) was to illustrate what a ridiculous war it was anyway, and that it is even more ridiculous to continue it or restart it.

Bush wants to be independent of other countries for oil by drilling in Alaska (whole other story), why does the US still care about Kuwait or Iraq then ? Why should the US invade Iraq, spend lives and tons of money just for one plane (which costs far less than a total invasion), when there's no need for it ?

I am pretty sure that you'll agree that the reason back in 1990 was twofold: ofcourse there were the oil interests the West and Bush Jr. had/has somewhere around that time, and secondly, there's no business like war. I am pretty sure the Gulf war boosted the economy back then.

If Bush is a bit consequent in his actions, then the only reason why he would wanna invade Iraq is to boost US economy by going to war again. Or he is even stupider than I believe he is and wants to finish dad's job by wasting thousands of lives. Oil is no longer an issue, now is it ?

Bye!

Crisp

Iraq is already crippled. You can't launch a mssive air attack if there's nothing left to hit. Besides which, anything on the scale you advocate would seriously damage Bush's international standing. Believe me, UK (lapdog) aside everyone would complain. The US can't do it. And even if they did, Saddam's popularity rises each time the US bomb Iraq - why do you suppose he keeps provoking them? He looks like a pan-Arab hero standing up to neo-colonialists. He's got little left to lose, so what makes you think he'd cave in?

But, regardless, the US wouldn't do it. If it did, then old Dubya could guarantee himself one of your awards.

And by the way, Iraq had a point when it invaded Kuwait, and it was egged on by the half-witted US amabassador April Glaspie. Saddam's got a right to feel bitter, even if he is a lunatic.

Iraq had no right to invade Kuwait, weather or not he was egged on by the US. He was our friend, when they were fighting Iran but he screwed up invading Kuwait.

The next move if Iraq was smart would be to build a colition of Arab states against Isreal, and further away the US. This way most of these countries militaries would united, and he'd have exclusive control of the Persian Gulf, as well as most of the world's oil. That would be a bargining tool.

Then again that may not be too smart, the Strategic Reserves can only last the country 30 days I think. If we or anyone else ran out weapons of mass destruction could be used, which isn't good no matter what the situation.

Iraq has been selling cheap oil to Russia, in the event of war we may be fighting a Korea-styled conflict at worst. Russia could provide pilots, saliors, and equipment to Iraq and whoever else in return for very cheep oil.

Sound complicated? Exactly, and something like that or worse may happen if he shot down one of our planes. If he doesn't lock on to them, then we won't bomb. Its that simple.

...you've been reading too many Tom Clancy novels.

It is far more complicated than you think.

Iraq is not selling cheap oil to Russia as such. A number of smaller Russian oil marketing companies are buying Iraqi crude and paying a US$0.40 per barrel surcharge, in contrvention of the UN oil-for-food programme. The US tolerates this because it is more important to have steady oil supplies at present (the US is far and away the largest buyer of Iraqi crude - and a lot of it comes through intermediaries. You can do the math). It doesn't go to Russia.

But that's beside the point. Russia would not intervene militarily to save Iraq. They are tacitly allied, but there is no love there - just business (Russian oil firms are signing contracts all over the place for when sanctions are eventually lifted). But the situation will not develop. You seem to be talking of a ground war again - this CANNOT happen. The US WANTS Saddam right where he is - isolated, slightly weakened but in control. The nightmare for the US is if he falls from power - Iraqi civil war, Iran involved, Kuwait, Turkey, Kurds - what a mess! That would threaten oil prices (instability always does).

Why would Arab states want to side openly with Saddam to antagonise the US? Saudi Arabia and Kuwait rely on investments in US markets just as heavily as oil (they have hundreds of billions tucked away). The two countries are connected to the US - they will not go too far in this, but they cannot sever links. Egypt will not antagonise the US. Lebanon is attempting to rebuild. Syria is crawling towards reform. Trade with Iraq, yes. Hatred of Israel, yes. Sever links with the US? no.

A little snippet as well. Are you sure that Iraq hasn't already shot down a US plane? Would such a thing be advertised? Hint - check the level of 'training accidents'.

Iraq had a point with Kuwait. Kuwait was stealing oil from the Sabriya field and refusing to discuss it. Kuwait is not loved in the Arab world, and it's creation as an idependent state has always been contested (it used to be an integral part of the larger Iraqi southern province under 500 years of Ottoman rule and before. It's creation is a legacy of colonial attempts to control oil in the region by establishing tiny states whose tribal, nomadic leaders could be easily controlled.)

Wake up and smell the coffee! The US has never bought oil from Iraq after the Persian Gulf War, thats what a trade embargo does, bars trade either way from the embargoed country!

It does go to Russia, that's why Yeltsin went ape shit when Clinton bombed Baghdad in '98! The French and Russians don't want anything to do with the UN weapons inspectors because they want to appease Iraq and gobble up all the oil. The US intercepts all of those Iraqi ships coming out of the Gulf and we seize their oil, selling it on the world market to fund UN programs!

Saddam was urging Arab states to back the Palestinians against Isreal. Which would mean WWIII because we would be forced to back Isreal. Anyways, Saddam doesn't poses a threat now more than ever because his military is rebuilt, he's probably got an A-bomb, and with the Isreali stuff he's got a backing to fight the Jews and Americans.

Its all about religion. The other arab states are very Muslim, more now in someways than 10 years ago. Saddam would just use the situation in Isreal to ally all of the Arab states and over run the Middle East. This is the worst possible scenario of course.

Don't let that conspiracy crap fool you, no plane has been shot down YET. When one is we will be informed and retubution will be sougt after by the American people.

Ok, the dispute has a point but no reason to invade anyways. Kuwait became indepdent decades ago, that would be like Russian invading the Ukraine, just because it used to be part of the Old Russian empire. The world would go bannans, he killed innocent civilians in his own country, and invaded another state without being antagonized militarily.

Saddam will be a problem, how large or when is anyone's guess.

...the way the UN embargo on Iraq operates.

Iraq sells approximately 2.4 million bpd of crude oil under the terms of the UN oil-for-food programme. The money for these sales goes into a UN controlled escrow account where the revenues are distributed in the following way:divided in the following way (current phase):

72% - Funds for the humanitarian projects in Iraq

25% - Compensation Commission in Geneva

2.2% - UN costs for administering the programme

0.8% - Administration of the UN Monitoring and Inspection Commission

You can check out the programme here:

http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/index.html[/URL]

As far as the whole middle east political/economic/energy situation goes, I am 'in the business' so to speak. We may disagree over how we see things going, but I do have some knowledge of the facts.

I'm afraid you are wrong about the US not buying oil from Iraq. Although there is a current attmept in Congress to forbid the purchase of Iraqi oil, the US is currently THE major destination. In my regular search of the wires, this from Reuters today:

"Until early June, Iraq exported about 2.1 million barrels a day of crude oil through the U.N.-administered oil-for-food program. The 800,000 barrels a day of Iraqi oil that came to the U.S. was about the same amount as the U.S. pumped out of Alaska, and enough to make Iraq the fifth-largest source of U.S. crude imports.
Iraq then halted those U.N.-monitored oil shipments between June 4 and July 11 to protest an effort by Britain and the U.S. to overhaul U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990. The sanctions overhaul initiative died down in the face of a veto threat by Russia, Iraq's closest U.N. ally, leading Baghdad to resume its oil exports.
U.N. figures indicate that Iraqi oil exports have averaged around 2.1 million barrels a day since the restart of exports in early July.
The vast majority of Iraqi crude oil shipments since July 11 have been bound for the U.S., according to U.N. officials"

It doesn't go to Russia. There are two official export routes for Iraqi crude - pipeline to Ceyhan on the Turkish coast and the Iraqi oil terminal of Mina al-Bakr on the Gulf. Some is smuggled over land through Turkey, through the Gulf and via pipeline to Syria. These are small quantatites that go to unscrupulous marketers. Russia doesn't need it (it's a net oil exporter - one of the largest in the world), and doesn't get it.

Also check out the post I left on Israel... regarding the international system that castigates Iraq's moves.

I'm not saying Iraq is right or just or great. Just a little overly-victimised. They may be a threat, but it is honestly a mild one. And Saddam has done what he can - he's not completely dumb (misjudged the whole Kuwait thing, but he's in a corner). Give a lunatic some credit. I think Dubya is probably more deserving of the award.

In my hasty effort I'm afraid I forgot to address a couple of issues you raised.

Regarding Saddam Hussein as threat, I really don't think so. The nuclear programme in Iraq is not finished, but the Iraqis are far from developing an operable nuclear device. They do still possess chemical and biological weapons, not the same volume as prior to the Gulf War, but enough. Iraq also has an adequate delivery system. But despite the advertising, Iraq would not launch an attack against Israel - Arab coalition or not. Saddam is not yet suicidal. And a coalition aligned against Israel is still not likely for the reasons I have offered in previous posts.

It's not entirley about religion. Saddam is leader of the Ba'ath party - a secular group based primarily on tribal allegiences in the northwest of Iraq. He has invoked Islam in conflicts with the west, but is as afraid of Shari'a Islam as Saudi and the rest of the Gulf is (why do you think the Arab Gulf bank-rolled Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war?)

Syria is another example. Ruled by the Ba'ath party (a different branch) and ruled by a small clique (headed by Bashar al-Assad, son of Hafez) from the Alawis. A minority, group, and not particularly religious. Syria's problem with Israel is about territory, not religion (okay - territory is linked to religion in the sense of Israel's creation, but the key for Syria is the land - Golan heights). Egypt has to deal with Islamic opposition. It is not primarily a religious problem.

I admit I'm not certain about the US plane. I have heard it from a usually reliable source, but could be mistaken. It would in no way surprise me if it were true. Remeber the Patriot myth (and others).

Saddam is ill. He has a serious malignant cancer and rarely makes public appearances. Your guess is as good as mine as to how long he has left, but it will be soon.

Trust me, Iraq is not a threat. The US will not invade, even if a plane goes down (remember the stealth fighter and Bosnia - no invasion). You're fantasising over something that will not happen.

If you're looking for a war in the region, keep your eyes on the Caspian....

In no ways do I want a war with Iraq or any other country for that fact. I AM saying that Saddam shouldn't be firing at our planes, or even locking on to them for that fact. Which threatens US and UK lives.

If a plane was hit, I am nearly positive that there would be air strikes against them. Oil or no oil, Bush's father still looks pretty stupid for not taking him out, and I think his son would like to see the deed finished.

Aside from ariel bombardment, there would be no ground forces there, unless something really bad were to happen. Nuke or other mass destruction device, which is unlikely. Then again it is hard to predict the future.

If Saddam dies, maybe opposition forces could overthrow him, but its difficult to say. All I know is that Hussein has done more bad for the country than good. Granted the sanctions don't help, but that is his fault as well. Maybe if he let weapons inspectors in and softened his policies than we'd revoke them.

What about the Caspian? Do I smell Russia?

I would agree that should a US or UK plane be shot down the response would be airstrkes on a larger scale. This has occurred periodically througout the last ten years. But what impact has it had? Very little. Weapons inspectors have not been permitted to return and Iraq has not altered policy. The same result would come from yet another massive airstrike. Saddam will be safe, it is the Iraqi people that will suffer, and to what end?

I think it's worth looking at why the 'no-fly' zones, which I re-iterate have no grounding whatsoever in international law, still operate. Initially, it was to defend the Iraqi people from air attack. With the marsh-Arabs in the south now decimated (call for a revolution and then ignore them) and the Kurds having made a tentative peace (tanks and soldiers are still used though), why does the no-fly zone continue? The reason for its inception is now gone. What is the justification?

If we're going to blame Iraq for invading Kuwait, and then kill 100,000 Iraqis to right the wrong for the sake of international law, how is it this is not universal? Why can the US flout international law? Why can Israel ignore UN resolutions, without even a hint of sanctions?

If you're going to argue that Iraq had to be expelled from Iraq for pragmatic, realist reasons then fine. But you need to make a different argument in that case than the one talking about the sanctity of borders, because in that world, anything goes - might is right. But if you do believe in international law than you should be urging the US to launch air strikes against Israel for failing (for 37 years!) to end their ILLEGAL occupation of the West Bank. Iraq, under international law, has EVERY RIGHT to defend its borders from illegal incursion and attack. But then, it's okay to beat up on Iraq, but it's not okay for Iraq to beat up on Kuwait.

The 'new world order' is not one that is universal and just, but rather a world where the strong can ignore their own espoused principles. It is an international Hobbesian state of nature that suddenly sprouts rules and regulations when someone who's not in the gang tries to play the game. Saddam didn't fully realise this, but then no-one told him.

The reason Bush sr. didn't 'take out Saddam' is complex. First and foremost however is the fact that Pentagon planners suddenly realised that could mean the nightmare scenario. Iraq collapses into anarchy and civil war and is gobbled up by Iran and Syria. Can't have that - better to keep Saddam where he is. And on that policy goes, to the eternal suffering of the Iraqi people. Saddam's got a lot to answer for himself, but you have to feel for the Iraqi people whose misery is compounded by a deeply hypocritical international community.

As for the Caspian, everyone is now getting very testy over the failure to legally divide the Caspian Sea's oil resources among the five littoral states (Iran, Russia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan). Iran threatened to fire on an Azeri research vessel last month and tensions have continued to rise (spies, air incursions - the sabres are well and truly rattling). Iran is angered by the attempts by Azerbaijan to provide a fait-a-compli prior to a final deal. It's very messy and complicated, but the combination of oil, politics and ill-defined spheres of inluence means it is dangerous. Russia, Turkey and Iran all see themselves as the major regional power and the US is very interested. I expect it will be sorted out peacefully, but as tinder boxes go this one has some firey potential.

No more arguing.

If indeed the no-fly zones are not needed than great, let's scrap 'em. I sure don't want to have any American's patroling another dangerous place if its not needed. Though I do think the peacekeepers are needed in the Balkans, until those countries can handel things on their own.

As for your reason not to tear Saddam out, hypothetically it makes sense, but would Syria and Iran try it if the US was occupying. Especially after seeing what we did to the larger Iraqi army? I don't think we'd like a Muslim extrimist state to control more oil than they already have. Especially when they could stop the flow and damage the world economy. Hence we should be on the lookout for a Pan-Arab colition to try to control the oil under a stricter regime. Though OPEC isn't that comforting either.

Caspian Sea, hmm never thought of that. I wonder what a war over there would look like? I would think that if the US backed anyone it would be the Russians, since they are the most powerful force in the region, and we'd like to see a better partnership with them.

I completely think Isreal is at fault for the whole peace mess in the Mid-East, that was an invasion of another country, like Germany, and Poland in '39. But we must remember that Isreal was attacked first by the other Arab nations, and then invaded. They didn't instagate the matter.

Lately, Arafat has been offered peace deals for the Arabs to govern themselves, INSIDE ISREAL but have denied it. So both of the countries are at fault. I do believe that within the next generation things will be resolved peacefully, look at Egypt and Isreal in the seventies.

One question: Middle East wars over water??????? Lakes are drying up at an astonishing rate. Isreal has made the best out of desalinating the Medditerrianian, but the other countries depend on inland lakes and rivers. Interesting.

Here's a new subject!! I saw something on the history channel once about a dumb admiral or captain or something that wound up bombing his own men somewhere in italy or the mediterranean (damn that's a hard word, and i've been in the spelling bee every time its run at my old school, I should be ashamed of meeself). I think he was american or british, all I remember is that he ordered the planes under his command to bomb a base that was under control of his own country. it was on 'Military Blunders.' He wasn't exactly a world leader, but he was definitely a dumb ass.
Here are some more dumb (world) leaders:
Who: That nazi senator or rep in austria the UN wanted to take down about eight months ago (I think).
Why: Need I say more?
Who: George double-ya
Why: Need I say more?
Keep in mind I'm just kiddin' around, if you could guess I'm a liberal with a shortage of info.
Now on to the US presidential candidates!
Who: Buchanan
Why: Wanted to eliminate immigrants (heard a radio commercial once where this guy called 911 and the message was in every language but english), basically your world-dictator wannabe that would have NEVER made it to the presidency and NEVER will. he's also the reason I woke up screaming and crying every night since january or february '00.
Who: George double-ya(I love saying that)
Why: Does anyone have the latest MAD? Briefly they describe the similarities between him and a chiwawa. One of them said that a chiwawa hasn't ever won a presidential election, and neither has bush. He also promised that he'd be bipartisan and not such a heavy conservative, which he obviously isn't. He also said that he would keep education a priority, and except for the very beginning of his presidency he hasn't even briefly mentioned education. I actually had the impression that he wouldn't be such a bad republican at the start of his presidency. Also, does anyone watch the Daily Show on comedy central? Whenever they mention the bush vacation they title the portion: "The Bush Vacation: Lost in America." If anyone gets comedy central I recommend watching it, it's on at 10 AM, 7PM and 11 PM I think every day. Sorry for repeating so many words.
Who: Elizabeth Dole
Why: If her husband lost in a landslide election TWICE (I think, keep in mind I haven't been 'smart' for too long folks) and to the best of my knowledge her politics were exactly the same at his it's no surprise that she dropped out of the race a month into it.
Who: That other guy, Bauer I think, that supported Bush the whole frickin time.
Why: Need I say more?
Who: Bill Bradley
Why: Proves that all basketball players aren't as smart as we thought them to be.
I think all those people deserve awards, and plus (dare i say it? Dare I go back on my democratic heritage) Gore acted like a robot, and when he necked with Tippa at the national convention
he was just doing it to be more popular. Also, in that Rolling Stone picture i don't think he had a stiffy at all, and that the picture was just doctored for the same reason as the above.
If I upset anyone I'm sorry. I don't do this for any REAL debate, just for entertainment. I'm Ian (bleeped). Goodnight, Earth (sooner or later mars). I really like my quote, and my title. Thank You.

Jeez, I thought I was one of the only people that didn't like Bush and most Republicans.

You obviously have a huge problem with the GOP and its constituants.

Ever thought of running for an elected office???

You look new, so on my behalf I give you a belated welcome to Sciforums.com.

I think we've pretty much done the Iraq thing to death, so not much point carrying on.

As for the questions you raised - the Caspian. Definitely dangerous, but I think it is worth remembering that all of the littoral state's best interests are served through peaceful exploitation of the Caspian's oil reserves, so war is still a remote possibility despite the heightened tensions. But it's not just about the division of resources (although this is important). Strategic control of oil export routes is nebver far from the surface, and this is what really interests the US.

The Capsian is thought to contain around 60-100 billion barrles of oil. That is significant. Given the anticiapted growth in oil demand, and falling production in the North Sea, Canada and the US, the Caspian is expected to be a very important source for future US energy needs. But it's landlocked, how to export?

Three competing schemes - Pipeline to Turkey (Baku-Ceyhan, favoured by the US as it means Turkey controls the route. It is expensive though and dangerous - Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are hardly safe countries of passage). Pipeline through Russia to Black Sea. Cheaper, but US is concerned that Russian control of oil reoutes fromn Caspian would give them too much leverage in the Caucuses and globally. Finally, Pipeline via Iran. Simplest and safest export route (one country, infrastructure in place, export to Gulf already a mjor shipping lane). This is the US' worst scenario for, I suppose obvious, if dubious reasons. The US would hat to see Iran wield that sort of influence.

So while the current dispute is about the legal division of the Caspian, lurking under the surface is the geopolitical aspect. Iran is trying to throw it's weight around to get the pipeline.

With the Turkish economy tanking, the Iran route has come back in to favour as Baku-Ceyhan may now have serious difficulties. Who would the US back? Well Turkey would support Azerbaijan, Russia wouldn't be able to stay out and Iran would have serious problems with its local Azeri population. It would be a messy conflict. The US would back Turkey and Azerbaijan, but shy away from direct involvement and conflict with Russia. It's all a bit unlikely though.

Just one thing about Israel (I do have a real thing about Israel). To say they didn't start it is slightly unfair (though arguable). Without getting bogged down in the history, the Zionist Congress decided in the late 19th Century that they needed a Jewish state. The UK offered (believe it or not) Argentina and Kenya as possibilities. The Zionists though had their hearts set on Palestine and began an organised immigration policy to boost Jewish numbers in the country. Previously, Jews had lived peacefully and with full religious rights in Palestine as a small minority. Once immigration started getting extreme (they were buying up all Arab property and 'ethnically cleansing' the place in a financial sense), Palestinians began to complain that they were being pushed out, a typical response to immigration I suppose. Anyway, the situation carried on and during the second world war, the Jewish minority (still a minority) began to attack the British colonial rulers in what could well be considered the birth of terrorism. While the UK was fighting Germany, Jews in Palestine were killing British soldiers in an effort to wrest control of the place, bogging down a large number of British soldiers.

Anyway, the rest followed, UN creation of Israel, Israeli ethnic cleansing in a violent way, Arab attacks etc. And here we are today. All Israel has to do is fully hand over the West Bank. That's it, that's peace. And that's been enshrined in a UN resolution dating back to 1967. Under the terms of the Israeli offering, they would annex chunks of the West Bank. And this would be the result of conquest. That cannot be right. I call for sanctions. Then air strikes. After all, that's the way agrgression is now met in this world, isn't it?

We really should start a new thread on Isreal.

Anyways, I think Israel should stop the violence first and formost. Even if they are fired uppon, they shouldn't strike back. This would make the Palestinians look even worse if they continued violence against Israel. With that done there would be a better climate to pound out a peaceplan between the two.

If the West Bank was returned, there would be instant peace. The only problem is 100,000 to millions of Jews now live there. This wouldn't work unless all of these Jews left, which would be political suicide for everyone in their government.

A more reasonable offer would be to set up a dual system of government or something along those lines where the Arabs could rule themselves, while living in Israel. As long as they don't lash out against the Jews.

Relocating any one won't fix the problem.

I WAS RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Saddam is going to try some shit really soon, this backs up my claim of him trying to get involved with Israel.

Radical posted this link, and everyone thats interested should click and read the story. It's about half-way down the page.

If this is true, by the end of the year there could be the Second Persian Gulf War.

Sorry the link is:

http://www.debka.com/

go to middle east it's half way down the page

Don't know that he's up to any more than he usually is. The chances of widening the Palestinian conflict to Syria and Iraq grows each day, but must remain very slim. I'm very wary of the Debka site, it looks highly biased (also check the dates and archives - not much of what is said is backed up in reality - but they may get good information from time to time). Stratfor are generally, in my opinion, alarmist.

As long as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict escalates, public opinion will place enormous pressure on Arab governments. The danger for Israel is Egypt. Syria and Iraq would not be a problem, but Egypt is a different story. The chances of Egypt becoming militarily involved are about one in a thousand, but they have quite an arsenal. Half a million men, M1 tanks, Apcahe attack helicopters - they are by no means a pushover. But I would bet my house that there won't be a war (beyond guerrilla tactics).

More air strikes on Iraq by the US? Quite possibly, but this occurs on an almost daily basis. The media is so bored with it though, they can't be bothered to report it.

I would hope that there isn't a war but Saddam has moved forces, commandos in particular into Jordan, which is next door to Israel. Maybe a direct attack wouldn't happen, but the commandos could back the Palestinians and ignight things between Israel and the PLO. Enough violence would finally give the rematch that the Arabs have wanted with Israel for 35 plus years.

Egypt could pose a threat, but so could Iraq. Never know there could be an odd alliance between the two or other countries to push the Jews out. If that happens the closest US ally in the region is gone, than all hell would break loose.

This doesn't smell good.