17th Annual Dumb Ass World Leaders Award

Been gone for a while.

In no ways do I want a war with Iraq or any other country for that fact. I AM saying that Saddam shouldn't be firing at our planes, or even locking on to them for that fact. Which threatens US and UK lives.

If a plane was hit, I am nearly positive that there would be air strikes against them. Oil or no oil, Bush's father still looks pretty stupid for not taking him out, and I think his son would like to see the deed finished.

Aside from ariel bombardment, there would be no ground forces there, unless something really bad were to happen. Nuke or other mass destruction device, which is unlikely. Then again it is hard to predict the future.

If Saddam dies, maybe opposition forces could overthrow him, but its difficult to say. All I know is that Hussein has done more bad for the country than good. Granted the sanctions don't help, but that is his fault as well. Maybe if he let weapons inspectors in and softened his policies than we'd revoke them.

What about the Caspian? Do I smell Russia?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would agree that should a US or UK plane be shot down the response would be airstrkes on a larger scale. This has occurred periodically througout the last ten years. But what impact has it had? Very little. Weapons inspectors have not been permitted to return and Iraq has not altered policy. The same result would come from yet another massive airstrike. Saddam will be safe, it is the Iraqi people that will suffer, and to what end?

I think it's worth looking at why the 'no-fly' zones, which I re-iterate have no grounding whatsoever in international law, still operate. Initially, it was to defend the Iraqi people from air attack. With the marsh-Arabs in the south now decimated (call for a revolution and then ignore them) and the Kurds having made a tentative peace (tanks and soldiers are still used though), why does the no-fly zone continue? The reason for its inception is now gone. What is the justification?

If we're going to blame Iraq for invading Kuwait, and then kill 100,000 Iraqis to right the wrong for the sake of international law, how is it this is not universal? Why can the US flout international law? Why can Israel ignore UN resolutions, without even a hint of sanctions?

If you're going to argue that Iraq had to be expelled from Iraq for pragmatic, realist reasons then fine. But you need to make a different argument in that case than the one talking about the sanctity of borders, because in that world, anything goes - might is right. But if you do believe in international law than you should be urging the US to launch air strikes against Israel for failing (for 37 years!) to end their ILLEGAL occupation of the West Bank. Iraq, under international law, has EVERY RIGHT to defend its borders from illegal incursion and attack. But then, it's okay to beat up on Iraq, but it's not okay for Iraq to beat up on Kuwait.

The 'new world order' is not one that is universal and just, but rather a world where the strong can ignore their own espoused principles. It is an international Hobbesian state of nature that suddenly sprouts rules and regulations when someone who's not in the gang tries to play the game. Saddam didn't fully realise this, but then no-one told him.

The reason Bush sr. didn't 'take out Saddam' is complex. First and foremost however is the fact that Pentagon planners suddenly realised that could mean the nightmare scenario. Iraq collapses into anarchy and civil war and is gobbled up by Iran and Syria. Can't have that - better to keep Saddam where he is. And on that policy goes, to the eternal suffering of the Iraqi people. Saddam's got a lot to answer for himself, but you have to feel for the Iraqi people whose misery is compounded by a deeply hypocritical international community.

As for the Caspian, everyone is now getting very testy over the failure to legally divide the Caspian Sea's oil resources among the five littoral states (Iran, Russia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan). Iran threatened to fire on an Azeri research vessel last month and tensions have continued to rise (spies, air incursions - the sabres are well and truly rattling). Iran is angered by the attempts by Azerbaijan to provide a fait-a-compli prior to a final deal. It's very messy and complicated, but the combination of oil, politics and ill-defined spheres of inluence means it is dangerous. Russia, Turkey and Iran all see themselves as the major regional power and the US is very interested. I expect it will be sorted out peacefully, but as tinder boxes go this one has some firey potential.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Much better.

No more arguing.

If indeed the no-fly zones are not needed than great, let's scrap 'em. I sure don't want to have any American's patroling another dangerous place if its not needed. Though I do think the peacekeepers are needed in the Balkans, until those countries can handel things on their own.

As for your reason not to tear Saddam out, hypothetically it makes sense, but would Syria and Iran try it if the US was occupying. Especially after seeing what we did to the larger Iraqi army? I don't think we'd like a Muslim extrimist state to control more oil than they already have. Especially when they could stop the flow and damage the world economy. Hence we should be on the lookout for a Pan-Arab colition to try to control the oil under a stricter regime. Though OPEC isn't that comforting either.

Caspian Sea, hmm never thought of that. I wonder what a war over there would look like? I would think that if the US backed anyone it would be the Russians, since they are the most powerful force in the region, and we'd like to see a better partnership with them.

I completely think Isreal is at fault for the whole peace mess in the Mid-East, that was an invasion of another country, like Germany, and Poland in '39. But we must remember that Isreal was attacked first by the other Arab nations, and then invaded. They didn't instagate the matter.

Lately, Arafat has been offered peace deals for the Arabs to govern themselves, INSIDE ISREAL but have denied it. So both of the countries are at fault. I do believe that within the next generation things will be resolved peacefully, look at Egypt and Isreal in the seventies.

One question: Middle East wars over water??????? Lakes are drying up at an astonishing rate. Isreal has made the best out of desalinating the Medditerrianian, but the other countries depend on inland lakes and rivers. Interesting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here's a new subject!! I saw something on the history channel once about a dumb admiral or captain or something that wound up bombing his own men somewhere in italy or the mediterranean (damn that's a hard word, and i've been in the spelling bee every time its run at my old school, I should be ashamed of meeself). I think he was american or british, all I remember is that he ordered the planes under his command to bomb a base that was under control of his own country. it was on 'Military Blunders.' He wasn't exactly a world leader, but he was definitely a dumb ass.
Here are some more dumb (world) leaders:
Who: That nazi senator or rep in austria the UN wanted to take down about eight months ago (I think).
Why: Need I say more?
Who: George double-ya
Why: Need I say more?
Keep in mind I'm just kiddin' around, if you could guess I'm a liberal with a shortage of info.
Now on to the US presidential candidates!
Who: Buchanan
Why: Wanted to eliminate immigrants (heard a radio commercial once where this guy called 911 and the message was in every language but english), basically your world-dictator wannabe that would have NEVER made it to the presidency and NEVER will. he's also the reason I woke up screaming and crying every night since january or february '00.
Who: George double-ya(I love saying that)
Why: Does anyone have the latest MAD? Briefly they describe the similarities between him and a chiwawa. One of them said that a chiwawa hasn't ever won a presidential election, and neither has bush. He also promised that he'd be bipartisan and not such a heavy conservative, which he obviously isn't. He also said that he would keep education a priority, and except for the very beginning of his presidency he hasn't even briefly mentioned education. I actually had the impression that he wouldn't be such a bad republican at the start of his presidency. Also, does anyone watch the Daily Show on comedy central? Whenever they mention the bush vacation they title the portion: "The Bush Vacation: Lost in America." If anyone gets comedy central I recommend watching it, it's on at 10 AM, 7PM and 11 PM I think every day. Sorry for repeating so many words.
Who: Elizabeth Dole
Why: If her husband lost in a landslide election TWICE (I think, keep in mind I haven't been 'smart' for too long folks) and to the best of my knowledge her politics were exactly the same at his it's no surprise that she dropped out of the race a month into it.
Who: That other guy, Bauer I think, that supported Bush the whole frickin time.
Why: Need I say more?
Who: Bill Bradley
Why: Proves that all basketball players aren't as smart as we thought them to be.
I think all those people deserve awards, and plus (dare i say it? Dare I go back on my democratic heritage) Gore acted like a robot, and when he necked with Tippa at the national convention
he was just doing it to be more popular. Also, in that Rolling Stone picture i don't think he had a stiffy at all, and that the picture was just doctored for the same reason as the above.
If I upset anyone I'm sorry. I don't do this for any REAL debate, just for entertainment. I'm Ian (bleeped). Goodnight, Earth (sooner or later mars). I really like my quote, and my title. Thank You.

 

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeez, I thought I was one of the only people that didn't like Bush and most Republicans.

You obviously have a huge problem with the GOP and its constituants.

Ever thought of running for an elected office???

You look new, so on my behalf I give you a belated welcome to Sciforums.com.

 

We'll Call A Truce Curly

I think we've pretty much done the Iraq thing to death, so not much point carrying on.

As for the questions you raised - the Caspian. Definitely dangerous, but I think it is worth remembering that all of the littoral state's best interests are served through peaceful exploitation of the Caspian's oil reserves, so war is still a remote possibility despite the heightened tensions. But it's not just about the division of resources (although this is important). Strategic control of oil export routes is nebver far from the surface, and this is what really interests the US.

The Capsian is thought to contain around 60-100 billion barrles of oil. That is significant. Given the anticiapted growth in oil demand, and falling production in the North Sea, Canada and the US, the Caspian is expected to be a very important source for future US energy needs. But it's landlocked, how to export?

Three competing schemes - Pipeline to Turkey (Baku-Ceyhan, favoured by the US as it means Turkey controls the route. It is expensive though and dangerous - Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are hardly safe countries of passage). Pipeline through Russia to Black Sea. Cheaper, but US is concerned that Russian control of oil reoutes fromn Caspian would give them too much leverage in the Caucuses and globally. Finally, Pipeline via Iran. Simplest and safest export route (one country, infrastructure in place, export to Gulf already a mjor shipping lane). This is the US' worst scenario for, I suppose obvious, if dubious reasons. The US would hat to see Iran wield that sort of influence.

So while the current dispute is about the legal division of the Caspian, lurking under the surface is the geopolitical aspect. Iran is trying to throw it's weight around to get the pipeline.

With the Turkish economy tanking, the Iran route has come back in to favour as Baku-Ceyhan may now have serious difficulties. Who would the US back? Well Turkey would support Azerbaijan, Russia wouldn't be able to stay out and Iran would have serious problems with its local Azeri population. It would be a messy conflict. The US would back Turkey and Azerbaijan, but shy away from direct involvement and conflict with Russia. It's all a bit unlikely though.

Just one thing about Israel (I do have a real thing about Israel). To say they didn't start it is slightly unfair (though arguable). Without getting bogged down in the history, the Zionist Congress decided in the late 19th Century that they needed a Jewish state. The UK offered (believe it or not) Argentina and Kenya as possibilities. The Zionists though had their hearts set on Palestine and began an organised immigration policy to boost Jewish numbers in the country. Previously, Jews had lived peacefully and with full religious rights in Palestine as a small minority. Once immigration started getting extreme (they were buying up all Arab property and 'ethnically cleansing' the place in a financial sense), Palestinians began to complain that they were being pushed out, a typical response to immigration I suppose. Anyway, the situation carried on and during the second world war, the Jewish minority (still a minority) began to attack the British colonial rulers in what could well be considered the birth of terrorism. While the UK was fighting Germany, Jews in Palestine were killing British soldiers in an effort to wrest control of the place, bogging down a large number of British soldiers.

Anyway, the rest followed, UN creation of Israel, Israeli ethnic cleansing in a violent way, Arab attacks etc. And here we are today. All Israel has to do is fully hand over the West Bank. That's it, that's peace. And that's been enshrined in a UN resolution dating back to 1967. Under the terms of the Israeli offering, they would annex chunks of the West Bank. And this would be the result of conquest. That cannot be right. I call for sanctions. Then air strikes. After all, that's the way agrgression is now met in this world, isn't it?

 

We really should start a new thread on Isreal.

Anyways, I think Israel should stop the violence first and formost. Even if they are fired uppon, they shouldn't strike back. This would make the Palestinians look even worse if they continued violence against Israel. With that done there would be a better climate to pound out a peaceplan between the two.

If the West Bank was returned, there would be instant peace. The only problem is 100,000 to millions of Jews now live there. This wouldn't work unless all of these Jews left, which would be political suicide for everyone in their government.

A more reasonable offer would be to set up a dual system of government or something along those lines where the Arabs could rule themselves, while living in Israel. As long as they don't lash out against the Jews.

Relocating any one won't fix the problem.

 

ALERT, ALERT, ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I WAS RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Saddam is going to try some shit really soon, this backs up my claim of him trying to get involved with Israel.

Radical posted this link, and everyone thats interested should click and read the story. It's about half-way down the page.

If this is true, by the end of the year there could be the Second Persian Gulf War.

 

Sorry the link is:

http://www.debka.com/

go to middle east it's half way down the page

 

Saddam

Don't know that he's up to any more than he usually is. The chances of widening the Palestinian conflict to Syria and Iraq grows each day, but must remain very slim. I'm very wary of the Debka site, it looks highly biased (also check the dates and archives - not much of what is said is backed up in reality - but they may get good information from time to time). Stratfor are generally, in my opinion, alarmist.

As long as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict escalates, public opinion will place enormous pressure on Arab governments. The danger for Israel is Egypt. Syria and Iraq would not be a problem, but Egypt is a different story. The chances of Egypt becoming militarily involved are about one in a thousand, but they have quite an arsenal. Half a million men, M1 tanks, Apcahe attack helicopters - they are by no means a pushover. But I would bet my house that there won't be a war (beyond guerrilla tactics).

More air strikes on Iraq by the US? Quite possibly, but this occurs on an almost daily basis. The media is so bored with it though, they can't be bothered to report it.

 

I would hope so.

I would hope that there isn't a war but Saddam has moved forces, commandos in particular into Jordan, which is next door to Israel. Maybe a direct attack wouldn't happen, but the commandos could back the Palestinians and ignight things between Israel and the PLO. Enough violence would finally give the rematch that the Arabs have wanted with Israel for 35 plus years.

Egypt could pose a threat, but so could Iraq. Never know there could be an odd alliance between the two or other countries to push the Jews out. If that happens the closest US ally in the region is gone, than all hell would break loose.

This doesn't smell good.