Can Baghdad be taken quickly by the coalition forces?

[Viper]

No its not nearly over, I reckon another three weks

 

[Zargawee]

Let's get back to memory ...

Not very time ago , Russian troops tried to enter the Chechen capital , they succeeded in entering it ...
But they lost more than 2000 soldiers in action

Remember that Russia didn't suffer friendly fire while entering there ..

Entering Baghdad won't be a picnic !

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Zargawee
Let's get back to memory ...

Not very time ago , Russian troops tried to enter the Chechen capital , they succeeded in entering it ...
But they lost more than 2000 soldiers in action

Remember that Russia didn't suffer friendly fire while entering there ..

Entering Baghdad won't be a picnic !

The Russians fought for 10 years in Afghanistan, and lost. The US is not Russia.

Njorl

 

[Zargawee]

Who supported Afghanistan at that time ?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zargawee
Who supported Afghanistan at that time ?

The US. Who supports Iraq now? Russia. So it evens out. The point is we rolled over Afghanistan like a training exercise. This isn't the quagmire you want it to be.

And c'mon, PLEASE comment on my response to your picture (which by the way shows two Bradley's driving past the BUNKER they just destroyed).

 

[Zargawee]

Give me something prooves that Russia supports Iraq ...
Russia have enough problems ..

And c'mon, PLEASE comment on my response to your picture (which by the way shows two Bradley's driving past the BUNKER they just destroyed).

I Couldn't see the picture , the server seems have some technical problems .

If you have a copy of it , post it here.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zargawee
Give me something prooves that Russia supports Iraq ...
Russia have enough problems.

Um, unless I'm mistaken virtually all of Iraq's current weapons are of Russian (Soviet) origin. Those are T-88 tank carcasses and ak-47's, are they not? Also, recent aid includes the night vision goggles that Bush specifically had a conversation with Putin about.

I Couldn't see the picture , the server seems have some technical problems.

What? *YOU* posted the picture, not me. Are you saying you didn't even look at it before posting it? Your photo can be seen Here. Click "war photos," the photos from Monday, 3rd photo.

Your bias is so opaque, its blinding you. You show me a picture of a tree and claim its a dog.

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Um, unless I'm mistaken virtually all of Iraq's current weapons are of Russian (Soviet) origin. Those are T-88 tank carcasses and ak-47's, are they not? Also, recent aid includes the night vision goggles that Bush specifically had a conversation with Putin about.

Not to mention the oil trade agreements they have with them. The French as well. Why do you think they opposed the war?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by enigma
Not to mention the oil trade agreements they have with them. The French as well. Why do you think they opposed the war?

And America supports the war to grab the oil...


Let's get back on topic.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
And America supports the war to grab the oil...

Uh huh. Its always our intent to grab oil, isn't it? Why then in 1991 did we first put out 500 oil well fires, THEN give ALL of the oil wells back to Kuait and Iraq?

 

[kyleb]

lol it is always funny to see someone make up an bad argument and then try to pin it on someone else; you might as well just play with yourself russ.

 

[BoulderHead]

Uh huh. Its always our intent to grab oil, isn't it? Why then in 1991 did we first put out 500 oil well fires, THEN give ALL of the oil wells back to Kuait and Iraq?

Well, let's have a look then;

Kuwait:
State Companies:
Subsidiaries of Kuwait Petroleum Corp. include: Kuwait Oil Co. (KOC), Kuwait National Petroleum Co., Petrochemical Industries Co. (PIC), Kuwait Oil Tanker Co., Kuwait Foreign Petroleum Exploration Co. (Kufpec), and Kuwait Petroleum International (KPI, London)

Original Concession Holders:

Kuwait Oil Co. Ltd., subsidiary of BO (Kuwait) Ltd., and Gulf Kuwait Co., Kuwait Shell Development Co. Ltd., owned by Royal Dutch/Shell Group

For Kuwaiti portion of Neutral Zone:

Offshore: Arabian Oil Company Limited, Japan Petroleum Trading Co. Ltd.

Onshore: American Independent Oil Co., joint venture of Phillips Petroleum, Signal Oil and Gas, Ashland, J.S. Abercrombie, Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co., Globe Oil and Refining Co., and Pauley Petroleum Inc.

Major Foreign Oil Company Involvement:

British Petroleum Co. Plc

Chevron

Getty Oil Co.

Gulf Oil

Japan's Arabian Oil Co. (AOC)

Mobil Corp.

Royal Dutch/Shell,

Shell International Petroleum Co. Ltd.

Texaco

Taken from; http://www.virginia.edu/igpr/apagoilcompany.html

 

[FZ+]

Can you clarify this point please.
Let's just say for a moment that you are right, that France etc are in it for the oil or other self interest. Why the hell would this mean they are opposed to the war?
It was obvious that the US was going into war. What would opposing it achieve? It seems to me that their economic interests would be best served if they supported the war, so that they can benefit from (a) trade incentives from the US and UK, (b) security for their existing agreements worth 100s of billions of dollars, (c) a say in the formation of the new iraqi government hence giving opportunities for a renewal of any past deals, (d) a slice of the billion dollar reconstruction contracts and (e) the preservation of their international diplomatic position. Since it's pretty clear the coalition is (eventually) going to win, how can they expect to preserve their (alleged) old weapons contracts? As they opposed the war, they are denied all that and are now undeniable worse off.

In terms of economic and diplomatic arrangements, opposition to the war is apparently sheer lunacy. I doubt all five anti-war nations are struck down with that simultaneously.

 

[Njorl]

FZ,
You are discounting the possibility that the anti-war nations might have been successful.
Njorl

 

[enigma]

Yes, now in hindsight that certainly appears to be the case, doesn't it?

Before the US gave up on the UN, war wasn't certain though.

Don't get me wrong: I'm sure that the French and Russian (and others) oil contracts were not the only reason they were opposing the war... but I'm also sure that they were a factor, just as much as I'm sure that oil contracts for the US is also a factor.

Stability is good for industry and business. Before the war started and before the sabres started rattling, there was stability (of a sort). Will the region be more stable in the future? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[kyleb]

Originally posted by enigma
Before the US gave up on the UN, war wasn't certain though.

well it was no less certain then than your speculation as to why they did oppose the war is now; so i don't really see where your argument is.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by kyleb
well it was no less certain then than your speculation as to why they did oppose the war is now; so i don't really see where your argument is.

If I could figure out what this means I might argue with it.

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Well, let's have a look then;

Thats all very nice, BoulderHead, but what that proves is that we BUY oil from Kuait. The others here are implying that we intend to STEAL it from Iraq.

lol it is always funny to see someone make up an bad argument and then try to pin it on someone else; you might as well just play with yourself russ.

Have you given up making rational arguments, Kyleb? If there is something wrong with my reasoning, please do point out the flaw. I know we're the same age, Kyleb, but "...play with yourself..."? We're not in junior high anymore. Grow up.

FZ+, you are right that France gains nothing from continued opposition to the war except: the problem of the catch-22. France believes the war is bad for them economically. So they opposed it. Were they to now do an about face and support it they would come off as two-faced. Catch-22. They are currently pursuing the only reasonable course of action left to them: petitioning to have the post-war reconstruction administered by the UN. That way they can ensure that they get (get back) their piece of the pie. They tried to keep the game from being played, but now that it has started they want to share in the victory party. This is why I believe the US and UK should take the lead in the reconstruction.

 

[BoulderHead]

Thats all very nice, BoulderHead, but what that proves is that we BUY oil from Kuait. The others here are implying that we intend to STEAL it from Iraq.

Then I would disagree with them. I think it is about business.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Then I would disagree with them. I think it is about business.

Heh. Glad we're agreed. And let me amplify slightly: I certainly *DO* think we stand to gain economically through this war (which is PART of the reason, imo, for fighting it): Lower oil prices and new contracts for our companies. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

 

[BoulderHead]

I'm not opposed to business, I'm opposed to killing for the sake of it.

 

[FZ+]

You are discounting the possibility that the anti-war nations might have been successful.

Do you believe that? Is there any reason for them to? Even before France declared their veto, the US declared that a second resolution is not essential for a war. I don't think the France would risk the certainty of their loss for an uncertain gain.

Diplomatic loss of face? What can they lose now that according to you was not a factor in the first place? They only thing they can lose is the support of the public, but then you paradoxically believe that this support of the public did not influence their prior opinion to oppose the war. It seems you are ignoring half the facts to get your way.

You already accuse France of being two faced. Hell, the US already accuses france of being two faced. Nothing to be lost there. France's primary case was to extend the period of the weapons inspectors. They could easily have backed down from that position.

Let's get down to specifics. That veto. What did France hope to achieve by placing that veto? Chirac heard the speechs saying war with or without a second resolution. He could have backed down then. You, the world all expected him to back down so no loss of face there. By vetoing the resolution, France could only force the US outside the process, and permanently deny itself the results. The probabilities there were clearly that war would happen. So you accuse France of selective foolishness.

Another point: France in fact stands to gain economically MORE from supporting the war than from successfully opposing the war. The food for oil scheme is worth under 100 million dollars to the french. The reconstruction scheme is worth alone over 100 billion dollars.

Lemme see. You say that the oil was not a factor for the US, though the US is clearly going to benefit for the oil. You say the reconstruction contracts was not a factor, yet the US and UK are clearly intending to benefit from it. You say oil was a factor for France, but France is clearly not going to benefit from it. You say the opinions of the French nation was not a factor, but now the continued behaviour of the French is precisely to appease that public. You say the French didn't care about breaking up the UN etc, but now you say the French are doing whatever they do to save face abroad. You say the French are naive enough to think war was not inevitable, but then they are suddenly realists and hypocrites.
And not one point is proven with a shred of evidence.

 

[kyleb]

Originally posted by Njorl


If I could figure out what this means I might argue with it.

Njorl

war was not certainty before the US gave up on the UN, but the reasons France opposed the ware are not certainties either. hopefully that gets though to you, and i hope you don't really want to argue it either.

 

[kyleb]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Have you given up making rational arguments, Kyleb?

not at all, i was just calling it how i see it.

Originally posted by russ_watters
If there is something wrong with my reasoning, please do point out the flaw.

well i think you know damn well that it is not always our intent to grab oil, so i am not going to waist my time explaining such things.

Originally posted by russ_watters
I know we're the same age, Kyleb, but "...play with yourself..."? We're not in junior high anymore. Grow up.

i was not speaking in a sexual sense directly but rather that making up a bad argument and then trying to pin it on someone else it reminds me of something children do; like when they zone in on their toys and get lost in their own little world, so grow up yourself.

 

[BoulderHead]

I hope you guys aren't trying to tell me you don't engage in that activity, haha. I'd have to stop believing everything else you say if that were the case.

 

[kyleb]

well i should be going on my fourth or fifth time before nightfall, but that is not the point.

seriously though, we are all human; be we are not always obsessive and egotistical freaks.

 

[Alias]

Can you people keep it down! I'm trying to concentrate!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by kyleb
well i think you know damn well that it is not always our intent to grab oil, so i am not going to waist my time explaining such things.

Kyle, maybe you missed this from Zero:

And America supports the war to grab the oil...

Or are you saying that it is SOMETIMES our intent to grab the oil?

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Duncan
I would go for about three weeks. In the previous three weeks, things have gone well for the 'Coalition', now they have their hardest part.
In three weeks time I will look back to see how wrong I was.

Give that man a seegar! Now, double or nuthin' --- how long 'til the 4th Inf. enters Damascus?

 

[kyleb]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Kyle, maybe you missed this from Zero:
Or are you saying that it is SOMETIMES our intent to grab the oil?

or rather part of the intent, sometimes.