17th Annual Dumb Ass World Leaders Award

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

thecurly1 ...

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.

 

Okay, that's the official reason

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

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.

 

Ahhhh ...

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.

 

Not That Dumb...

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.

 

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.

 

Just read this!

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.

 

The horror, the horror...

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

 

Curly

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.

 

It Sounds Like...

...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.)

 

And you've been reading too much Iraqi propaganda!!!

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.

 

I'm Not Sure You Undersatnd...

...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.

 

A Couple of Points

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....