Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Third Gulf War... and the inevitability thereof...

Page: (1)2

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

15:09 / 06.08.02

Apparently we (the UK) have sent the Ark Royal over. Yeah, it'll take fucking ages to get there, but, unless I'm very much mistaken, it usually signifies the fact that Britain's decided on war.

A war for which, incidentally, the reasons have been changed, and more than just the once.

Originally, Bush (and, by extension, Blair) wanted to take Hussein out because of links with al-Qaida. Which turned out not to exist (in fact, as far as I can gather, bin Laden doesn't even LIKE Hussein, seeing him as unspiritual.)

Then, it was because Iraq wasn't letting weapons inspectors in.
Which it now is.

Now, it's "regime change"... for which read, we'll get rid of this fucker no matter what.

Okay, I have no time for Hussein, he's an evil bastard. But the reason I consider him "evil" has to do with his treatment of the Kurds, an attempted genocide about which we in the West did absolutely nothing other than to use it as a ladder to get us onto the moral high ground when our oil was threatened. (Well, and to sell him guns and stuff to kill them with, of course.)

Anyone else scared? There seems to have been little discussion of this on here thus far. Am I just panicking or is everyone trying not to think about it? Or what?

15:46 / 06.08.02

Oh I've been thinking about it all right, and watching the news for more and more blatent propaganda.... such as the recent pices on how great a piece of military equipment HMS Arkroyal is.

There are SOoooo many problems with the US policy of 'regieme change' its difficult to know where to begin, but perhaps the most pertinent point is that there appears to be no clear thought as to what comes AFTER Saddam. There is little opposition to him within Iraq and when his most vocal detractors, the kurds in the north rebelled as urged on by the US the were hung out to dry when that self same US refused to aid them with arms or effective logistical support. Splinter iraqi opposition party's exist in exile around the world, but have little support at home. The only alternative would appear to be a military dictatorship...

16:08 / 06.08.02

There are so many problems with both the concept of enforced "regime change" and the actual reality of what it's going to mean in practice and what the consequences will be (all far worse than the concept itself) that I must admit I've been trying to pretend it's not happening, because otherwise I'll go insane. You know when sometimes you're stressed enough about other shit and you have to stop reading the news, or the worry will just make you go over the edge? That's me right now.

The only thing is, I can't help thinking that if I don't pay attention I may miss something really vital that will change how I think about the whole affair, some small detail that's key... probably not true in practice.

16:11 / 06.08.02

I'm just waiting for the "gulf of tonkin" incident to set it all in motion. In my more paranoid moments, I suspect that the Bush Admin. is just drooling over the prospect of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil so that they can "prove" a link between al qaeda and Iraq in order to have justification for the planned assault.

In a less speculative thought, if they are going to invade Iraq, can they let the military plan it instead of Bush and Cheney? If you aren't aware of what I'm referring to, its that, the New York Times is printing leaks/floats about possible invasion plans every week, with the plan supposedly backed by the Pentagon requiring 200,000+ troops and a full scale invasion, and the Rumsfeld-Cheney cockamanie scheme which involves massive air strikes against Baghdad, then somehow landing thousands of troops there to "cut off Saddam's head" and end the war in one fell swoop. I feel like tom Clancy should be chairman of the joint chiefs, you know? IIRC, Cheney was cock-blocked by Powell during the first Gulf War from planning any military maneuvers after he demonstrated his ineptitude. Will try to find a source on that.

16:30 / 06.08.02

Rumsfeld-Cheney cockamanie scheme which involves massive air strikes against Baghdad, then somehow landing thousands of troops there to "cut off Saddam's head" and end the war in one fell swoop.

I heard a reference to somethinng like this a few weeks back as "the Bay of Goats"

16:40 / 06.08.02

Another factor is the time frame - the pentagon plans call for a gradual marshalling of forces that would peak in January, and thereafter the attack. In contrast, Cheney-Rumsfeld are pushing for the sooner-the-better, with the not unweighty matter of a midterm elections creeping up in the near future. A "war" would temporarily unify the country behind the president and his party, while leaving any opposition without a mouthpiece in Congress, for fear of seeming unpatriotic. Consulting my magic 8-Ball, I say expect fireworks in early October.

17:02 / 06.08.02

Time magazine's infographic of the competing war "plans"

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

19:26 / 06.08.02

I had a very scary thought this afternoon... seems the war is gonna happen, and probably sooner rather than later, for largely propaganda reasons...

...hope this is just stoatie paranoia/poor taste...

... but... if Bush decides war with Iraq will prop up his poll ratings, and justify the whole "War on Terrorism" thing... what're the odds on him declaring war on Iraq on September 11th?

19:56 / 06.08.02

An except from George W. Bush Jr.'s historic 9/11/02 speech:

"From this day on, we will make sure that September 11th goes down in history not as the day America was wrongly attacked, but the day that America defeated the last of our enemies! On this day, we declare not just for ourselves, but for the whole world, a new Independence Day! Independence from Islam!!!"

20:35 / 06.08.02

what does saddam hussein have to do with islam?

i know you're going for the satire angle here, gridley, but really.

gentleman loser

23:58 / 06.08.02

Prediction:

Airstikes (a we're doin' something about Saddam feel good operation along the lines of Desert Fox) in late October / early November, just before the 2002 elections. Cynical? You betcha!

Ground Invasion: called off due to lack of interest (though we might have some special forces pissing about in Iraq, just like Afghanistan).

Bush has absolutely no understanding of military deployment or combat. He is a draft dodger after all. No one has explained exactly where this massive invasion force is going to be based. Turkey? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? Also, it's going to take many months to set up. You can't just instantly teleport hundreds of sixty ton M1 tanks to Southwest Asia. If we're talking hundreds of thousands of troops they have to have a logistical infrastructure to be fed, housed, armed, etc. No one is going to seriously back this invasion except for Kuwait, Great Britain, Australia and maybe Canada and ninety percent of the force (at least) will have to be from the U.S.

Let's not forget that Bush is in it up to his neck. The stock market is way down (and if you're only looking at it on a day by day basis, you're a fool). People are being laid off in large numbers, at least in my town. The Energy Task Force lawsuit against Dick Cheney is going foward. His cabinet is looking more and more like the inept political toadies that they are. His "corporate reform" policies are a bad joke, given his history. The "war on terrorism" hasn't achieved any serious results. I think the "war president" bounce is soon to be over.

In other words, he's royally screwed for the time being.

I guess anything is possible, but that's my prediction. I may be wrong.

03:22 / 07.08.02

So might the Unelected President be our doom? Bless his black heart. Somehow all of this is Jack Ruby's fault, I swear. If the U.S. declares war, what will the U.N. do? From what I've read they wouldn't approve, and wouldn't that bring China's swinging dick into play? Then what?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

08:46 / 07.08.02

China is for sale. But more importantly, China is gleefully storing all this up for the next time they want to Annex someone. It seems unlikely they'll try it on with Taiwan, though the Taiwanese are obviously nervous and declaring their independence US-style as fast as possible. But Tibet won't be on the UN agenda any time soon.

And remember...China has fewer than ten nukes. That's a very small WMD dick, if it comes to a swing. Even if they're fibbing and have a few more tucked away.

06:13 / 08.08.02

>>Okay, I have no time for Hussein, he's an evil bastard. But the reason I consider him "evil" has to do with his treatment of the Kurds, an attempted genocide about which we in the West did absolutely nothing other than to use it as a ladder to get us onto the moral high ground when our oil was threatened. (Well, and to sell him guns and stuff to kill them with, of course.) <<

One of the more amusing bits of public news relating to this was on the front page of (I think) USA Today a few days ago. Seems our boy Saddam has been trying to reach some kind of neutrality agreement with the Kurds, basically "We don't fuck with you no more, you don't help the filthy Americans when they show up" kind of deal. Looks like the Kurds (who apparently are still pissed about the numerous times we've left them holding the bag) are giving him some serious consideration. One of the saner State Department dudes said something like "Hey, maybe we shouldn't have screwed them over that last time..." Ahhh, hindsight...

07:15 / 08.08.02

I thought what had happened was that the Ark Royal has gone out n on UN exercises which have been planned for some time - not that it has actually been sent to the Gulf. Of course, it will be very convenient for it to be out there if war *does* break out...

11:22 / 08.08.02

So what do people think to the rapidly emerging opposition to Bush jnr's across the board's policy of regieme change in Europe and and across the world?

11:31 / 08.08.02

Well, I think it is unsurprising that many people are unconvinced of any state's right to (pretty much unilaterally in this case, though doubtless Britain will eventually fall in line) decide that it has the right to effect regime change in countries which it feels pose a threat of some sort (a threat to what, in this case, doesn't seem to have been defined with any great clarity). That runs counter to the political morality of many states and regimes.

Also, the prospect that the US will effectively be able to select the new regime and thus create a client state runs counter to the democratic ideals which it professes, which is is many ways offensive. I must say that in this case the US doesn't seem to be trying to disguise the fact that this is essentially realpolitik, but nonetheless the hypocrisy inherent in the US attitudes towards UN arms inspections and its attitudes towards the Iraqi regime leave a foul taste in the mouth.

And - creating client regimes seems to indicate a new type of post-imperialist imperialism, which is worrying to many old colonies.

I do, however, think that the outcome in terms of geopolitics would be much the same were the US to assist internal opposition groups, but ( as usual) it would look so much better... this US regime is not interested in diplomacy, and I think that makes all the difference to how it is viewed by others.

15:44 / 08.08.02

Naked Flame: "what does saddam hussein have to do with islam?"

Not sure what you're getting at. You mean besides (a) ruling a country that is 95% muslim, and (b) mentioning that he is an agent of Allah in every speech he's ever made?

Or are you questioning that America's current wars and threats of wars in the middle east are aimed exclusively at Islamic countries?

09:01 / 09.08.02

hussein is a military dictator, not a religious one. And he's clearly no Islamicist. Ask his neighbours.

as for America's middle eastern hitlist being all-Islamic... er, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Israel the only state in the region that isn't predominantly Islamic?

The Islam/Decadent Westerner dichotomy seems to me to originate with the more extreme Islamic POV, not the Western POV- and in any case, it's a smokescreen. It's about the oil.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

15:19 / 09.08.02

The oil, and the votes. Whip up some patriotic fervour? Easy. Let's go to WAR!!!

I hate being a human being sometimes.

17:42 / 09.08.02

Oh, oil's big all right, but it's not the only thing.

Just wait until Bush takes the fight to Southeast Asia, Flame, and you'll see it has a lot to do with Islam.

09:57 / 11.08.02

There is a guy who I know through work who served in the Falklands, the Gulf, Bosnia and other conflicts - and understands teh military in great detail. We were discussing Iraq earlier this year. He told me: "We will be going back there - I'm certain of that. It'll be dressed up one way or another, but there is too much oil in Iraq for the Americans to not go back to war there."

This wasn't jingoistic flag waving; he seemed pretty downcast about the idea. But it looks like he's probably right.

The new, improved, and left-wing again Daily Mirror, we will be going to war on Iraq on November 6.

They list eight pointers:

"-President Bush must have resolved the Iraq situation when his re-election campaign begins in under 18 months, and a war and clean-up will take at least a year;

- Delaying an attack will give Saddam more time to prepare his defences;

- A war in the desert would be almost impossible before October because it is too hot for troops to wear protective bio-chemical suits;

- In December and January, temperatures are low enough to freeze diesel oil, cloud hinders air visibility, and desert snow can hamper tanks;

- Elections to the US Congress finish on November 5. President Bush cannot fight a war in the month-long run-up;

- Media speculation and government leaks had all predicted an invasion in February or March 2003, so early November might have given the US an element of surprise;

- The military will have time to replenish stocks of smart bombs that were depleted by the Afghanistan campaign;

- Five US aircraft carriers will be close by, together with Royal Navy carrier Ark Royal, providing an invasion base under the cover of routine deployment."

They also mention the Global Security website, where the clock is, literally, counting down to the war.

17:46 / 15.08.02

Debka.org, sort of the "Buddyhead" for the MidEast Military Matters, claims that U.S. and Turkish special forces are already operative inside Iraq, and have captured several airports near the Northern Iraqi cities of Kirkuk and Mosul. Debak cites "Turkish and Kurdish" sources for this info. Check this out. It's very interesting even if it doesn't turn out to be 100% true.

Does anyone know anything about Debka other than the fact that they're Israeli journalists?

14:09 / 16.08.02

Sharon urges U.S. to attack Iraq "without delay".

Sharon also states that if Iraq "scuds" Israel (with conventional or bioweapons), Israel will show no restraint in responding. No surprise there.

The interesting thing about the article was that according to a recent poll, only 57% of Israelis support a military-based "regime change" for Iraq. It seems to me, if Iraq was such a threat, that number would be a lot higher.

09:53 / 17.08.02

I think I must have missed something with this whole possible-invasion-of-Iraq thing..

Have the US Gov. actually given any vaguely coherent 'official' reason for the planning of a war (that weapons inpector business happened years ago!), or are they just assuming that, post-911, they've got free reign to attack any Islamic country with next to no justification? Is their rationale just, to para-phrase something someone said on Barbelith a long time ago, "fighting in the Middle-east without hitting Iraq would be like going to Vegas without visiting the Circus Circus".

It really frightens me the way they don't seem to even bother thinking up stories to justify war planning etc. anymore - it's like the Wag The Dog spin doctoring stuff is out of the window, and now they just do what they like, and fuck anyone who doesn't like it..

The way that just about everyone now recognises that this is all about the oil, and many of them don't care or consider that a good thing..

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

10:12 / 17.08.02

I dunno... they half-heartedly floated a couple of excuses, but when were both found to be just plain dumb, they just went "aaahhh... fuckit."

Thing I find more worrying is Prescott's intimations that this isn't a decision that's even gonna be put before the Commons?

"War? Naah. That's not important enough to put before the House..."

Question is, how far up Bush's arse does Tone's tongue go? (apologies for crude metaphor.)

Will he, on realising that there's a substantial amount of disagreement to it, give in and at least let SOMEONE else give him their opinion?

Or will he exercise his power, gamble lots of lives and his own position (the latter of which probably means more to him right now) and drag us all into some really bad shit?

I fear the second option. I hope I'm wrong.

11:39 / 17.08.02

I think i saw a phone-in poll (usually the bastion of really crap, scary opinions) on a news show last week that said two thirds of British people were opposed to involvement in a war with Iraq, so hopefully there'd be some pretty substantial opposition to it if Blair & co. just went ahead without asking anyone.. in this country at least.

12:32 / 06.09.02

*Bump*

100 U.S. and British Jets take part in air raid on Western Iraq air defense installation*

The article speculates that the raid is a prelude to "Special Forces" actions.

Q: The general consensus on Barbelith (and the view I hold) is that a full scale invasion of Iraq (on the "evidence" already public of their pursuit of WMDs) is a Bad idea. However, what about limited "covert" action in Iraq? Do people have a problem with commandos running around blowing up installations in Iraq, giving Saddam the death of a thousand cuts rather one big chop? Is this a practicable or effective way of causing "regime change"? Could limited military action cause a revolt against Saddam?

* I don't know if the Telegraph is a liberal, conservative, or what-have-you type paper. Could someone please enlighten me as to its leanings?

Our Lady of The Two Towers

16:17 / 06.09.02

Pretty unpleasantly Conservative, though only a scintilla or two to the left of the Murdoch papers like the Times or the Sun...

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

18:14 / 06.09.02

Often known as the "Torygraph"...

Okay. We (the citizens of the "free" world, and most of our elected representatives)'re not allowed any opinion on whether to go to war or not (against a nation who, as far as I know, we haven't been at war with for about five years, BUT HAVE STILL BEEN BOMBING FOR THE WHOLE FUCKING TIME) get told today that, pending a whole "whether we're at war or not" thing, that "our" (and by "our", I mean we're paying for this shit) planes have done a massive fucking airstrike on Iraq. Biggest in four years, apparently.

yeah, they were military targets.

But someone please enlighten me on how you can *not* be at war with someone, and legally bomb them?

18:28 / 06.09.02

How does the "no fly zone" thing work, anyway? I presume that there's some sort of UN mandate where U.S. planes are allowed to "engage" Iraqi jets if they stray into the restricted zone, and that this bombing raid was somehow justified under that, but what's the dilly-yo? (Officially?)

Harold Washington died for you

04:37 / 07.09.02

If I am not mistaken the no-fly zones are part of the UN Security Council resolution from the end of the first gulf war. They thought Saddam would get pissed and start offing Kurds and others not with his party. Yes we have been bombing anything that disrupts the feng shui of the Iraqi desert for like 11 years, but at least this was agreed upon by the international community.

Any military type will tell you planes cannot take and hold land and therefore cannot win a war. The US will ahve to get tanks and troops in place before the real fighting begins. I am praying Bush does not do that until the US Congress gives their blessing.

There is nothing wrong with a pre-emptive strike if it really is a pre-emtive strike. I am not satisfied with the evidence so far but if a good case is made lets do it. would be foolish to let Saddam make the first move.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

09:38 / 07.09.02

Also begging the question- what happens if Saddam's ousted? Afghanistan, say, hardly seems the most stable of regions right now.

13:37 / 07.09.02

According to Tom Clancy, Iran would take over Iraq or bits thereabouts.

14:47 / 07.09.02

An autonomous Kurdish region would be bad news for our friends in Turkey.

Page: (1)2