POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
???
Quote from rs7:
Max, I don't want to argue with you about this (or anything). So I will concede to you that even thought the Israelis were prepared to give up most of the West Band and Gaza at Camp David II in August of 2000, no, technically the offer was not officially extended. The question becomes "why not?". And the answer, which can be debated and dissected for a thousand pages here is basically that the PA, and the Arab states that have exerted pressure on the PA made clear that the proposal was inadequate. So rather than negotiate, the PA essentially walked out.
Could they have had a Palestinian State? Yes. Under their terms 100%? No. Are they now better off for holding out for a better deal? No. Would Israel have considered more concessions if the negotiations continued? I don't know. My guess is "probably". But we all know what the results have been thus far.
In the spring of 2000, peace seemed at hand. Israel was willing to withdraw from virtually all (but not 100%) of the occupied lands beyond the "green line". But coming up short of 100% did in the effort.
Certainly there were constraints put upon the proposed "Statehood" of Palestine that could have been achieved. But, there were constraints put on Japan and Germany after they signed their peace treaties with America. That is how it goes when you lose a war. Of course, the PA does not see it that way, and the issue is a lot more complicated than this anyway.
However, the bottom line is that the Palestinian people could have had a homeland, developed it, and evolved it into whatever they were (are) capable of. So far, opportunity has not been a satisfactory solution..
The "Mandate of Palestine" did not work in 1948 either. Peace does not seem to be a priority of the PA. Only of the Palestinian people. A very sad situation.
Peace,
rs7
Sorry for going off topic Candle. But you know how threads get when they go on for over a hundred pages. There will be tangents and then the originator, in this case you....will steer the thread back to your topic. BTW I like your new American Flag signature much better than the last one. Welcome back.
No worries about the off topic, RS7... as you know, I respect Israel's right to exist, and I support Israel's security interests (as long as the Washington lobbyists do not cause a massive interference in the policies of America) ...
Its a real pity that the Palestinians did not accept the deal laid on the table by Ehud Barak... that deal was as good as it could have got and ever will get...
Sharon's victory in the forthcoming election looks assured... in my view, there can only be a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue when someone like Amram Mitzna gets in... Israel needs a leader who is brave enough to make unpopular decisions, and Amran is that sort of person...
Interestingly, I deleted the post you quoted. Apparently not quickly enough. I deleted it because it was really a response to a question from Max, and, thinking it was off topic, decided to change it to a PM to max.
Well now that it has been quoted, there is no undoing it.
So in response to what you said, yes, I agree. Israel needs different leadership. Sharon is not the guy that will make peace. Nor is Arafat (IMO).
So now, we are apparently in a whole new waiting game. Seems such a shame. Such a waste of time and lives.
An independent Palestine is an inevitability. It's just a matter of time. The Israeli people want it. The Palestinian people want it. The whole world seems to want it with only the apparent exception of some Arab states, that seem to need the conflict as an issue of distraction. (just my opinion).
I still would be interested in an explanation of what you mean by the "Jewish lobbies"....what interests do these "lobbies" have? And if there are such "lobbies", then specifically what benefit would it be to them to attack Iraq??? "Music to their ears"??? I am clueless to your meaning about any of this. Thanks in advance for the forthcoming explanation.
Peace,
rs7Well, no one seems to be currently pushing it or even mentioning it.Quote from rs7:
Interestingly, I deleted the post you quoted. Apparently not quickly enough. I deleted it because it was really a response to a question from Max, and, thinking it was off topic, decided to change it to a PM to max.
Well now that it has been quoted, there is no undoing it.
So in response to what you said, yes, I agree. Israel needs different leadership. Sharon is not the guy that will make peace. Nor is Arafat (IMO).
So now, we are apparently in a whole new waiting game. Seems such a shame. Such a waste of time and lives.
An independent Palestine is an inevitability. It's just a matter of time. The Israeli people want it. The Palestinian people want it. The whole world seems to want it with only the apparent exception of some Arab states, that seem to need the conflict as an issue of distraction. (just my opinion).
Peace,
Oil is a consideration for nations considering joining in the fight if the United States goes to war in the Persian Gulf, because the day after Saddam is removed, the Iraqi oil industry is up for grabs.
Of all of the reasons offered for removing Saddam, from terrorism to terrible weapons, oil is seldom mentioned. Yet critical to the American agenda is the fear an Iraq armed with nuclear weapons could dominate, or hold hostage a region through which flows an estimated 30 percent of the world's oil and natural gas.
Similar worries about the world's oil supply figured heavily in the 1991 Gulf War, and before that, concerns Iran might capture critical oil fields led the United States to support Iraq in the war between those two countries.
And now, oil is a consideration in the continuing drama at the United Nations. France and Russia, both with veto power in the Security Council, have extensive oil interests in Iraq.
The oil market of today is very different from that of a decade ago. The United States and other industrialized countries have more stockpiles of oil. The Gulf states are keeping oil supplies in reserve offshore, and new producers have come online in Africa, in Central Asia, and in Russia.
But none of them can compare with Iraq. The country sits on a sea of oil â with known reserves of more than 112 billion barrels.
The fundamental issue is, the day after Saddam is removed, the Iraqi oil industry is open for grabs, and it will depend upon the government of Iraq to decide how it will dispense that resource. Certainly, American companies would be in a very, very strong position to compete for the right.
Oil is such a huge prize, it could become a consideration as countries decide whether to join the fight. All five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council â Russian, China, France, Britain and the United States â have oil companies with a stake in who rules Iraq. Once the fighting starts, the countries that are not involved will be irrelevant. And it's not just because of the Iraqi oil. It's because of the oil in the entire region. Prudent parties want to be part of the postwar world in the Persian Gulf.
Even if Saddam is toppled and a pro-democracy government is installed, it will still take years before Iraq's oil industry can pump more than it does today â 1.7 million barrels a day, now 3 percent of world production. Pipelines are rusty and oil fields are in disrepair. After 20 years of neglect, it will take billions in investments to reap the returns on Iraq's reserves.
And there are other sensitive issues about the outcome of a U.S.-led invasion in the heart of the Middle East. The Arab governments are the way they are, in part, because the US hasn't pushed democracy, and one of the reasons they haven't pushed democracy is they've been willing to go along with whoever would sell the cheapest oil, however bad the government was.
Even without Saddam, instant democracy is not likely. For one thing, Saddam's iron rule has kept Iraq united â the real fear is that Iraq will splinter into rival groups once he is gone.
In contrast, the US retains a fervent hope: that a democratic Iraq would be an oil-rich ally with a government friendly to Washington.
So in summary, is it wrong for the US to aggressively pursue a course of action that is in its best interests and will promote stability to the Arab oil regions? Only a naive fool would say yes.
Yes, candle, it IS about oil. Next topic...
Of all of the reasons offered for removing Saddam, from terrorism to terrible weapons, oil is seldom mentioned. Yet critical to the American agenda is the fear an Iraq armed with nuclear weapons could dominate, or hold hostage a region through which flows an estimated 30 percent of the world's oil and natural gas.
Similar worries about the world's oil supply figured heavily in the 1991 Gulf War, and before that, concerns Iran might capture critical oil fields led the United States to support Iraq in the war between those two countries.
And now, oil is a consideration in the continuing drama at the United Nations. France and Russia, both with veto power in the Security Council, have extensive oil interests in Iraq.
The oil market of today is very different from that of a decade ago. The United States and other industrialized countries have more stockpiles of oil. The Gulf states are keeping oil supplies in reserve offshore, and new producers have come online in Africa, in Central Asia, and in Russia.
But none of them can compare with Iraq. The country sits on a sea of oil â with known reserves of more than 112 billion barrels.
The fundamental issue is, the day after Saddam is removed, the Iraqi oil industry is open for grabs, and it will depend upon the government of Iraq to decide how it will dispense that resource. Certainly, American companies would be in a very, very strong position to compete for the right.
Oil is such a huge prize, it could become a consideration as countries decide whether to join the fight. All five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council â Russian, China, France, Britain and the United States â have oil companies with a stake in who rules Iraq. Once the fighting starts, the countries that are not involved will be irrelevant. And it's not just because of the Iraqi oil. It's because of the oil in the entire region. Prudent parties want to be part of the postwar world in the Persian Gulf.
Even if Saddam is toppled and a pro-democracy government is installed, it will still take years before Iraq's oil industry can pump more than it does today â 1.7 million barrels a day, now 3 percent of world production. Pipelines are rusty and oil fields are in disrepair. After 20 years of neglect, it will take billions in investments to reap the returns on Iraq's reserves.
And there are other sensitive issues about the outcome of a U.S.-led invasion in the heart of the Middle East. The Arab governments are the way they are, in part, because the US hasn't pushed democracy, and one of the reasons they haven't pushed democracy is they've been willing to go along with whoever would sell the cheapest oil, however bad the government was.
Even without Saddam, instant democracy is not likely. For one thing, Saddam's iron rule has kept Iraq united â the real fear is that Iraq will splinter into rival groups once he is gone.
In contrast, the US retains a fervent hope: that a democratic Iraq would be an oil-rich ally with a government friendly to Washington.
So in summary, is it wrong for the US to aggressively pursue a course of action that is in its best interests and will promote stability to the Arab oil regions? Only a naive fool would say yes.
Yes, candle, it IS about oil. Next topic...