8 sobering facts about Iraq

Originally posted by The Truth Hurts
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998: "One way or the other, we are
determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMDs and the missiles
to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use
force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat
posed by Iraq's WMD program."

- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998: "What happens
in (Iraq) matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of
a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against
us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

- Letter to Clinton signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, etc., Oct. 9, 1998: "We urge you ... to take
necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes
on suspected Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed
by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs."

- Congressman (now House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region,
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Sen. Bob Graham and other Democratic senators in a letter to
President Bush, Dec. 5, 2001: "There is no doubt that ... Saddam
Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that
biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be
back to pre-Gulf War status."

- Sen. Levin, Sept. 19, 2002: "We begin with the common belief that
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to peace and stability of the
region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is
building WMDs and the means of delivering them."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002: "We know that (Saddam) has stored secret
supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002: "We have known for many years that
Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing WMDs."

- Sen. Robert Byrd, Oct. 3, 2002: "We are confident that Saddam
Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and
that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical
and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate
that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002: "I will be voting to give the president of
the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to
disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of WMDs
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct. 10, 2002: "In the four years since the
inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his
missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given
aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm
Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime. ... He presents a particularly grievous threat
because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ... And now he
is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of
Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

These sobering facts, unknown to Americans who get all their news from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and CNBC

Fact Number 8: Iraq is the Mideast?s second largest oil producer. Although this is a fact that everyone knows, it is downplayed by all proponents of the war with Iraq. But if oil has nothing to do with the U.S. intervening in Iraq, then why hasn?t the U.S. intervened in Sudan, where 2 million Christians have been killed during the past decade? What about the persecution of Christians in Indonesia? Why hasn?t the U.S. intervened in Zimbabwe, where the Marxist tyrant Robert Mugabe has been confiscating the country?s farmland? Why has Fidel Castro ? 90 miles away from our shores ? been untouched for 40 years? Why didn?t the U.S. instigate a "regime change" when Idi Amin was killing thousands of his own black people in Uganda in the 1970s? Why didn?t the U.S. instigate a "regime change" when the Tutsis were slaughtered by the Hutu government of Rwanda in 1994? Would things have been different if Sudan, Indonesia, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Uganda, and Rwanda had significant oil reserves?

The US has its own fossil fuel supply and much of Europe does not. Oil is but one factor...from multiple factors...for the "regime change" in Iraq...and probably not even on the short list of factors. [/B]

Originally posted by Rictor
Boring.

Originally posted by RocHard
The ceasefire, put into place by the US, Iraq, and the UN, set up certain conditions such as the no fly zones and UN inpections

US ready to seize Gulf oil in 1973

by Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online world affairs correspondent



Oilfields: Essential to world economy
The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public.
The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do.

It was thought that US airborne troops would seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and might even ask the British to do the same in Abu Dhabi.

The episode shows how the security of oil supplies is always at the forefront of governments' planning.


Warning from US

The British assessment was made after a warning from the then US Defence Secretary James Schlesinger to the British Ambassador in Washington Lord Cromer.

The ambassador quoted Mr Schlesinger as saying that "it was no longer obvious to him that the United States could not use force."

The oil embargo was begun by Arab governments during the Yom Kippur or October war between Israel and Egypt and Syria, which left Israel in a strong position.

It was designed to put pressure on the West to get Israel to make concessions. The embargo was aimed mainly at the United States but many other countries were affected.

The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) assessment said that the seizure of the oilfields was "the possibility uppermost in American thinking when they refer to the use of force; it has been reflected, we believe, in their contingency planning."

This phrase indicates some knowledge of American plans.

Other possibilities, such as the replacement of Arab rulers by "more amenable" leaders or a show of force by "gunboat diplomacy", are rejected as unlikely.

Airborne troops

The JIC believed that military action would take the form of an airborne operation, possibly using bases in Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Iran (then a US ally) or Israel.

"We estimate that the force required for the initial operation would be of the order of two brigades, one for the Saudi operation, one for Kuwait and possibly a third for Abu Dhabi," it said.

Two divisions would then be flown in but the report gives a warning that the occupation might have to last 10 years. It would also alienate the Arab world and provoke a confrontation with the Soviet Union, though the JIC did not think that Moscow would use military force itself.

British role expected

There was a potential task for the British. The report speculates, again perhaps with inside knowledge, that the US might want Britain to capture the Abu Dhabi oilfields as some British officers were seconded to the Abu Dhabi defence force.

"For this reason, the Americans might ask the UK to undertake this particular operation," it says.

The prospect of the British military fighting seconded British officers is not gone into.

The assessment reflects on the danger of action by Iraq, whose vice president at the time was none other than Saddam Hussein.

"The greatest risk of such confrontation in the Gulf would probably arise in Kuwait, where the Iraqis, with Soviet backing, might be tempted to intervene," it says.

It is made clear that the invasion would probably only be contemplated if the situation in the region deteriorated to such an extent that the oil embargo went on for a long time, threatening western economies. This is called "the dark scenario."

In a follow up, a Foreign Office official noted: "Lord Carrington [the defence secretary] has suggested that some discreet contingency planning be put in hand"

In the event, there was no military action. The oil embargo faltered and was ended a few months later. Israel and Egypt went on to sign a peace agreement.

Originally posted by Pleasurepays
Who is Saddam Hussein? is he a webmaster?