Yemen will be first to fall in attack on Iraq
 

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com...blast3_map.gif

Yemen may be al-Qaida's new base

The justification for controlling Yemen will be as follows:

> Osama Bin Ladin is of Yemeni descent and many of his Al Qaeda buddies are Yemeni.

> Osama Bin Ladin is implicated in the December 1992 Hotel bombings in Yemen against U.S. servicemen enroute to Somalia.

> The attack on the USS Cole was in Yemen.

> The USA is making a case that Yemen is the new base of Al Qaeda.

> The recent attack on the French tanker will be more evidence that Yemen is a country harboring terrorists.

> It was a British Protectorate until 1967 and has not had any stable government since the Brits pulled out. The Brits will be ready to get back into Yemen with the Americans.

> It is strategically important for military control of the region, both for naval fleets and airports, without having to rely on the Saudis, or even the Brits for Diego Garcia to launch its bombers in the region.


What do ya think the US Marines Expeditionary Unity is doing in nearby Djibouti?


http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications...aps/ym-map.jpg

With a permanent militarty presence in Yemen, the USA could smack down Somalia, as well.

Actually, Yemen would have been a better first target, if the issues in the Guardian article are correct. The stigma of Bush trying to exact revenge would no longer be there, and the al-Qaeda link would be more prevalent. It would deter much of the criticism. However, going after Yemen after Iraq? If the war in Iraq is any longer than Afghanistan, then public opinion wouldn't allow for it.

But then again, that could be why they went after Iraq in the first place.

And as a final note, the area of Saudi Arabia that all 15 of the Saudis involved in 9/11 came from, bordered on Yemen. The region has long been known for it's political dissidence against Mecca. Not quite sure what my point is with that, since it is way too late, but I figure I'll throw it out there anyway.

What I'm suggesting is that Yemen will be attacked before Iraq, not as a war on Yemen, but as a continuation of the coalition war on al qaeda ... and that it will be a strong base from which to attack Iraq in the spring of 2003 and control the region militarily in the longer term.

I think Yemen will be the next "Afghanistan" to the liberated from the terrorists.

Yemen does not have the strategic interest Iraq does - Oil. Don't try to tell me oil is at least a major factor in attacking Iraq. Saddam is also less likely to generate as much Islamic backlash as attacking Yemen would. Thirdly the US has officers (around 100 i think) in Yemen, training the Yemeni army so i doubt it's on the hitlist so far.

Oil is, at least, a major factor in attacking Iraq.

And as a globally important resource, a damned fine reason to go to war, if your enemies are determined to control it and reserve it for strategic purposes. "Oil" is not a swear word.

Riiiight. I'm 23, so if there was a draft, I'd end up having to go. (And don't think a protracted war in Iraq wouldn't prompt it either; there's been talk of a draft bill being written in Congress ever since 9/11.) So what that would mean is I'd be out there, fighting to protect a strategic interest that we can get elsewhere, find a replacement for, and that nearly every (I only use that qualifier in the interests of accuracy; however, I'm fairly certain that it applies to all of them) top administration official has either a financial interest or some other link to.

Fuck that. I'm not gonna fight a war for an aristocracy.

I don't know that oil is actually a factor. Left wing nuts want to tell you it is; right wing nuts want to tell you the opposite. What's the truth? I don't know, because I'm not omniscient and I can't get inside the mind of the President. I don't think anyone can say for certain that oil is a factor.

Regardless, it's entirely possible that if Hussein isn't stopped, he could be the next Hitler. I haven't made up my mind about a war with Iraq, but I'm certainly not liking the idea that the US should only step up after it's been hit. We waited long enough in WWI & WWII; I see no reason to make the same mistake three times.

Herm, sure. Now since energy prices are directly linked to the price of almost every good and service, how does massive inflation and unemployment, basically another "great depression" grab you?

It's more than the loss of soccer-mom SUVs. Think about the use of oil in, say, bringing everything together for your lunch-time BLT. Name a few products that don't include trucks somewhere in their lifetime. Look around you - everything in your field of vision required oil either to produce or to get to you. The use of alternative sources will lead to an immediate doubling of that cost which is passed along to you in the price of everything you buy.

Conservation? Sure, that will mean 95% inflation instead of 100%. It's important but it's not that big of a solution.

And what would you like to have happen to the political will to drill at ANWR? Double gas prices and watch the public head north with picks and shovels.

Those are scare-mongering words. I say conserve. It's better for the planet, our health (air pollution has been linked to a higher number of asthmatic cases in children), better on our pocketbooks in the long run (oh wait, we have the CEO president - ceos are only concerned about today and forget that tomorrow might exist) and better on our political and foreign capital. Besides that, just because a system is broken, why not fix it? Politicians need to stop listening to the scared lobbyists from GM and start taking action. Otherwise, when the inevitable day comes when we have to break our ties to oil (say, when there's none left), it will cause a Great Depression.

To say that conservation will cause 95% inflation instead of 100% - that just doesn't make sense.

Prices will rise as new technologies come into use. However, they will not stay high for long. Economics dictates that the prices of these technologies will decrease over time. Take, for example, the cost of less than 100% gasoline powered vehicles. In the mid 90s, an electric vehicle was in the $40k range. Now you can get a Honda Civic Hybrid for less than $20k.

New means of acquiring energy are going to become a necessity. The question is whether we're going to let it become one, or 'pre-emptively' skirt it? (ie. develop the technologies now)

This is more rhetoric. While Hussein has been horrible to his people, he has shown no signs of invading other nations since he was pushed out of Kuwait a decade ago. Don't get me wrong - he's a horrible man, the perpetrator of gross human rights violations - but he is no Hitler. His country is not in the economic situation that Germany was before World War II. Do you know that 4k-6k Iraqis die every month as a direct result of the economic sanctions? You wouldn't have seen any such statistics about 1930s Germany.

Besides that, it is in violation of the Un Charter (which we not only signed, we basically wrote) to attack another country without provocation. That's why Bush's only justifiable path towards war is through the UN.

Those child-killing sanctions were created by what body?

A. The oil-seeking, imperalist US
B. OPEC
C. Bush Sr. because he didn't have enough blood from the Contra thing
D. The military-industrial complex
E. The United Nations, that body all progressives worship at the feet of, which is critical to support because it prevents all the trouble in the world

Hussein built how many "presidential palaces" in the last ten years instead of buying medication for those dead children?

A. None; he's a humanitarian
B. One; government officials are entitled to public housing
C. Two; he needs a dummy house to confuse the CIA and Mossad
D. Three; but he lets his sons take their BMWs to the beach house from time to time
E. Fifty-seven, covering more than 12 square miles of area, or about half the size of Manhattan

All I'm saying is that you cannot positively tell me that a similar situation won't arise. And then suppose it does - what then?

I guess we should wait until he detonates a nuke-yoo-lar device in NYC. Or until we find out that he's gassing hundreds of thousands of his civilians. Yes.

Or perhaps we should just insist on inspections? And act really tough, like we won't back down, so that we can determine he doesn't have such weapons?

Ja, maybe the inspections are necessary, and we need to force them. So maybe we need to convince the world and Hussein that we mean business, 'cause otherwise he's just going to fuck around with us and not let inspectors in.

e. And A. blocked those sanctions from being eased, rescinded or actually changed in any way, though not because of oil-seeking, imperialistic motives. Of course, over the past decade, Hussein has made something like $11B in oil sales with other countries in anticipation of the end of sanctions - none of which were with American companies. So maybe it was because of oil?

The materials restricted by sanctions really have nothing to do with building materials required for a palace. This is not to say he should be building palaces while his people starve, but how can anyone condone the death of 50-75k people a year because the medical resources that would save them are denied for political reasons?

So...by that logic...even though Hussein has made no attempt to detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil, and that it would be politically disastrous for him to do so, we should attack just because he might have the materials and has a beef with us? Well, then, we'll have to start lining up the countries. India, as a leader in the Non-Aligned Movement during the Cold War, wouldn't join our side against the Communists. So let's take them out. There are a lot of Muslim extremists in the Pakistani army, and they've got nukes...China was in our face about that whole plane thing a while back, so let's oust them. And you know what? The French are being pretty uppity about the whole Iraq thing, so let's knock them out too. That will give us strategic bases on every continent that has a nuclear presence, and then we'll be safe. We'll still have to build a missile defense system though...the President promised his friends in the defense industry that he would deliver it - and he's a man of his word, ready to return integrity to the office. Or some such outright lie.

I am not sure if you are doing so intentionally, so as to put words in my mouth, or unintentionally and I was just not clear enough. Allow me to re-phrase:

Consider that the threat of force is a means to getting inspectors in to make sure Iraq is clean, WMD-wise.

I never said that we should attack Iraq. As a matter of fact, I have been quite clear in stating that I am not convinced that we should. What I <b>am</b> saying is that a return of weapons inspectors is absolutely necessary if we hope to avoid possible situations like those mentioned in my previous post.

Dave - shaddup :p ;)

Ut - I base my oil opinion on comments made by the head of the CIA in the washington post, they if anything confirmed it.

Secondly if the US feels it has a right to invade any soverign nation beacuse it contains a resource they feel they would like i think we have alarger misunderstanding on our hands.

I agree with dave on the weapons inspections, invading Iraq is insanity.

Many of the palaces have gold-plated plumbing and large fountains.

Any kind of plumbing would do for the children, for whom clean water would solve half their problems.

Sorry dave, I didn't mean to be putting words into your mouth. It seems we are generally of the same opinion.

UT, on the other hand... :)

Iraq, surprisingly, is one of the most modern countries in the Middle East. It has a thriving, educated middle class that is far removed from the poor, urban class you probably picture. The issue is not whether or not plumbing would help children, but whether or not those children can actually get some medical attention. I can guarantee you that gold-plated pipes aren't on the sanctions list.

I'd read that about 50% of the population would be considered impoverished, which would be 90% if not for the oil-for-food program.

I'd read that dysentery was a major problem and that clean water and sanitation were not available.

But perhaps what I read was merely UN propaganda.

I think that's part of the problem. Our media wants everyone to see Iraq as this terrible country where people are living in fear every night and barely have enough food. When in reality no one really knows. We have no reports coming out of Iraq that are first person knowlege, everything is either directly from Baghdad or from the UN.

Most of the UN stuff is pretty grim, i'm sure the situation on teh ground outside the cities is. From the stuff i've seen coming rom there now - as in recent reports, it doesn't seem all that bad, at least in the cities. But exactly how free the journos are to take shots, who knows. One thing you can bank on is that they might not love Saddam but they sure as hell don't like hte US either.

Yep, that's pretty much it. I'd say his "beef" with us is much stronger than the other countries you list.

You say "even though Hussein has made no attempt to detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil", as though the fact that he hasn't tried is good enough reason not to attack. So, in your eyes, does he have to make such an attempt before war is justifiable?

Look at the docs, look at the analysis, its not in his national interest to attack the US.

Ashleigh Banfield was doing her show from Iraq a few weeks before 9/11. They seemed to give her pretty open access, although some government official had to be with her and the crew any time a camera was on.

Most of the people she talked to were like, "We don't hate America, we hate the American government." And, "Saddam Hussein is a great leader...we are happy with him." Also, "We won the Persian Gulf war."

However, from what Banfield noted, they don't have access to any outside media (unless they tune their radios to the VOA in secret...that's my own personal guess).

And thank goodness we all know for absolute certain that Hussein will never ever act irrationally.

So by that same argument, the Taliban never would have housed al Qaeda, because it wasn't in their national interest to do so.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm hmmmmmmmmm.

Housing Al Qaeda was completely different then an all out attack on another country. However, whether or not the Taliban knew that Al Qaeda was going to attack the US is something we will probably never know for sure. Saddam is content with things as they are, he has nearly unlimited resources for his personal pleasure, and his citizens do not seem likely turn on him. Why would he attack another country especially one as powerful as the US? It would be committing suicide.

Al Queda honestly believed that, on their own, they could bring down the US. They executed phase one. Unfortunately for them they were rudely interrupted before phase two.

Hussein honestly believes that, if the US invaded, he would win.

Who's to say he can't come up with a strategy whereby he honestly believes he can bring down the US? The problem is, we don't really even want him to *try*.

Hussien is ambitious, nto stupid, look at his pervious actions 'irrational' no, ambitious, yes. I think Cam has illustrated my point.

Actually it was in theri national interest, by the stage Al Queda virtually controlled the Taliban.

Syc - I've seen a mix of things. I think the most accurate quote i saw which was from a video was froma street stall owner "You'll find plenty of people here who dislike Saddam, but noone here likes the US".

You're not being logical. There is no reason for him to attack the US, and don't even try the rather silly ' he's a madman because he used chemical weapons ON HIS OWN PEOPLE' line, it's equally silly. Saddam's forces are half what they were at the start of the gulf war, war is not what he wants. Yes, he misestimated US forces in Kuwait, the same way the US misestimated Vietnam, Somalia et al. I don't see you calling the US army irrational.

Perhaps because we're not discussing Vietnam or Somalia. <b>You</b> are not being logical. You're intentionally attempting to mislead the reader by bringing up a wholly irrelevant side-argument.

Yes, it was in their national interest. Which explains why they are now simply "pockets of resistance" instead of "the ruling Taliban". It simply wasn't in their national interest to house al Qaeda, because that's what got them a good ass-fucking by coalition forces. Get real.

You are thinking <b>rationally</b>. There is no guarantee that Hussein will do the same.

Tony touched on it, but allow me to expand. Hussein honestly believes that he could take the U.S. if they invaded. He honestly believes that the mightiest military in the world would be toppled if they attempted to remove him from power. This notion, if he believes it to be true, falls into one of two categories.

The first is the "irrational" category. It is not a clear line of thinking. He is well informed of the U.S. military's technology and their strengths, but he is convinced that Allah will ensure that he is victorious (or all other Arab nations will rise up in support, or... choose your reason). However, it is simply not true. The U.S. military will not lose any more wars because of their technological advantage over any adversaries. Yes, there will certainly be ground casualties, but we will not be sending in half a million ground troops for hand-to-hand combat. Wars these days are waged from far away, with computers and smart bombs. The U.S. will not risk so many casualties as to do a full invasion of the territory.

The other is the "grossly ignorant" category. This would be the case if he thought the U.S. was going to invade with paintball guns and throwing stars. It is possible (though not likely - I believe the first case is the correct one) that Hussein does not know the extent of the U.S. military's arsenal and is confident that he could take a conventional military. This may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter, because he wouldn't be fighting a conventional army. This isn't Vietnam and U.S. troops aren't digging in to sand dunes to fight. Computers, smartbombs... that is how this altercation (if one does occur) will be fought.

So, that being the case... the question is, can we trust that Hussein will act in a wholly rational manner for the rest of his reign? I think that we can't, because he has previously demonstrated he is capable of irrational thought when it comes to an altercation with the United States.

That, my friends, is why we need to get weapons inspectors back in Iraq as soon as possible.

My point is that people over and under estimate in conflicts, including the US. Doing so does not make Saddam irrational. I do not believe Saddam can be classified as irrational, look at his career, he is smart, ambitious and calculating, he has survived the first gulf war, circumnavigated the sanctions and basically defeated them in Europe and is making it very difficult for Bush to actually find any basis whatsoever to attack Iraq. His war with Iran was well planned, the Kuwait operation was overambitious, but from his perspective at the time, makes perfect sense. Say what you will but he is a survivor (look at his rise to power) and a smart one.

I think you are misunderstanding national interest - it is decided by the nation, not what you or anyone else thinks is best for the nation. Secondly as it was controlled by Al Queda, it not in the interest of the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden.

Your answer to cam is mostly answered in my first point, which you attempted to butcher with all the finesse of a chainsaw.

As for US casualties, it's worth noting that all the US tech comes to buggar all when it comes to street to street conflict, the US's own wargames in a custom made town showed around a 60% casualty rate, and that in a city, smart bombs are utterly useless.

On a side note this article that appeared in the Australian today does a better job of articulating my arguments to do with the impact of any war on Iraq on the International COmmunity as a whole better than I could, gets a bit Australia-centric though.

the US's own wargames in a custom made town showed around a 60% casualty rate,

The purpose of wargaming is not to "win" but to develop strategies and tactics. If you "win" you haven't learned anything and your training is for nothing.

and that in a city, smart bombs are utterly useless.

Snort. Listen, don't worry about what strategies the US forces will use if they go in. I'm absolutely certain they have guys who know more about this stuff than you do.

Remember how many people were absolutely convinced that Afghanistan was gonna be a severe rout, an endless morass, because the Russians couldn't do it and even The Princess Bride advocated against land war in Asia?

57 US casualties so far.

I don't think the point of this argument is whether we would win or not, I think it's whether or not we should invade. I hope there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam would fall. The point is should we really be spending our resources on something that isn't necessary at the moment. Our countries economy is in dire need of help. and a war with Iraq isn't going to help that.

2 quick comments -

1) If we don't force inspections, are we going to end up with another Hitler?

2) War always helps the economy.

Gah, ill dig up the article later, put it this way - this was nto considered a good thing by the generals, at all. Sweet, found it. "The mock battle, conducted admi 1000 buildings in the biggest urban-war exersise the US ever had, confirmed what the Pentagon already knew: America may have the worlds most fearsome military but it is ill equiped to wage war in cities" it goes on to say basicly that the tactics used in the gulf war would not work, casualty rates amoung marines were often +80% and allot of the high tech gear they carry was useless.

It als goes on to point out that the tactic of using local resistance would be extrememly hard to use in and a signifigant ground force would be needed in the initial invasion.
Jolly good then. Just thought i'd point that out.

That's probably becasue it's rather hard to be taken out with an Ak-74 at 16000ft. If you need to take a city like Baghdad and there is signifigant resistance or an underground resistance forms after the fall the casualties are going to be high. Also worth noting the amount of assassinations and attamepts against the new government, which is still extremely weak, and he US has no exit plan for Afghanistan.

That is the assumption both political parties labor under but it is debatable. It is economic cocaine. A quick, temporary (hopefully) rush, followed by the realization that you just crammed your future up your nose instead of investing in your infrastructure or better yet leaving it in the productive sector. You try to use it as a little pick me up but eventually... "oak tree yer in my way."

Are we not at war right now?

The economy killed Bush Sr...and that was less than 2 years after Desert Storm I: The Saga Begins.

Cam: *laughs* We had this discussion in another thread. Are we at war? By definition, yes. Officially (as in declared by Congress, last done during WW2)? No.

1. How? Iraq has no industrial capacity. It has no access to raw materials. It has no money to by arms. It can barely feed its people let alone some none productive army on some forgein adventure. It's military is primarily Infantry fighting with little ground cover. There is no air force. There is little armor left. If Saddam has a nucular bomb he'll have to send it UPS. Is he an evil dictator? Well yes, but we really don't mind evil dictators as long as they do what their told. (Cf. Samosa, Noriagia, and Pinochet) Does he kill his own people? Yes, but we don't mind that either. We were perfectly happy to help in that endevor 13years+ ago. Has he attacked other neighbors besides Kuwait? Well ya, but again we were very happy about that and helped him in that endevor as well, suppling him with Anthrax and chemical weapon materials. By the way he didn't exactly roll over Iran when he had a functioning military, did he?

2. Well we are at war now while the economy tanks. Sure it will help cluster bomb makers. But 44 million people without health care may as well figure that they'll be with out another decade or two.

It's also worth noting the new CIA report which states that there is little danger from Iraq and that an attack makes the use of Chemical and Biological weapons far more likely. Well i may not have access to secret whitehouse briefings but i seem to be in sync with the CIA.

Here
Here

I love google news.

Refer to other threads and posts where Hussein's spending has been talked about. In short, he's spending money on what he wants to, not what is necessary. He barely has money to feed the people because he's building palaces.

I'm not saying he <b>will</b> end up another Hitler - I'm simply posing the question. I am neutral on an attack at this point, but I certainly believe we need to force inspections.

Our war right now is small enough that we haven't had to ramp up production yet. If we got involved in a full-fledged war, I'm willing to bet not insignificant sums of money that the economy would begin to recover. Jobs would be created, people would spend money, consumer confidence would go up...

I really didn't mean to ask the question, though it would look that way to those who don't know me personally. I was pointing out the fact that we are at war using ineffective sarcasm. Something I'm terrible about doing. My fault.

Once again though I want to thank you for pointing me toward an interesting thread I hadn't stumbled on.

Ok so I somehow missed the fact that Dave had just posted, he obviously answered my post. Damn I hate it when that happens.

True. Also the dollar would be devalued making low interest saving counter productive so more money is pumped into anything which may hold value, eventually leading to stock speculation... oops we just did that didn't we? Heavy government spending prevents the market from punishing malinvestment in a timely manner, causing the collapse to be longer and harder when it comes. Of course, I'm a history guy not an economics whiz... UT could weigh in here.

The question is moot. The economy is NOT in the shitter. The stock market is.

Ahh, true, something most people, including me fail to realize, mostly becuase the Media continues to say the economy is in the shitter.

Unemployment is 5.7%. That's worse than it has been, but 10 years ago the government felt that 5% was "full employment" and practically unreachable.

Economic growth is 1.5%. That's worse than it has been, but it's not recession, and over the late 70s-early 80s it was 0.7% during periods that were not felt to be recession.

And the stock market isn't part of the economy? What are you missing here? Look at unemployment. Every day there are notices of job cuts, but job creation remains at an all time low. Besides that, the level of unemployment is not representative of the whole issue. Household income fell 2.2% in 2001. So people may be working, but they're working crap jobs and not getting paid what they're used to (note the Fortune article that says members of Gen X have already hit their peak income rate). The stock market is on a downward spiral - at this rate, the Dow will be below 7000 by election day. A decreasing stock market naturally leads to a lower level of business investment confidence, and from there, it is a short jump to a decrease in consumer confidence. And then the economy isn't in the shitter; it's flushed down the drain. Even conservative pundits generally don't try to say the economy isn't going bad, they just try to ignore it, avoid it, or change the topic to invading Iraq.

Then again, maybe my understanding of economics is flawed. Maybe my real-life experiences of knowing that 70% of my college graduating class is still unemployed. It's been known to happen before.

(Nodding wildly)

:angel:

I don't think you can ignore the state of the stock market, it'll keep interest rates very low and could lead to a market ripe for poachers. At the same time i don't thik you can say the economcy is in the shitter, but it's not exactly booming either.

And the fact that it isn't booming is what's causing the problem. And low intrest rates are fine with me, I hope they stay that way until I have a job and can afford the down payment on a house.