US Orders Oil Reserves Filled

PR Newswire ^ | 4 Aug 2002

[JPJ1]

NEW YORK, Aug. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- As the debate about a U.S. invasion of Iraq continues in Washington, President George W. Bush's administration is quietly getting ready for a fight, Newsweek reports in the current issue. U.S. munitions plants have put on extra shifts to rebuild arsenals depleted during the Afghan war, and a few hundred uniformed personnel are working as advance teams in Jordan and elsewhere, assessing the need for new airstrips, wider roads and the like, Newsweek reports. And even before Saddam Hussein became a priority target, the U.S. Department of Energy was working to get America's strategic petroleum reserve up to its full capacity of 700 million barrels -- enough to meet U.S. energy needs for more than 80 days in a crunch, report National Security Correspondent John Barry and Diplomatic Correspondent Roy Gutman in the August 12 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, August 5).

Story Here

[Dog Gone]

My guess is that when the attack finally occurs, it is no surprise to anyone. If Afghanistan is any indication, we saw troops and planes moving into position weeks before. Everyone in the world knew what was going on.

There was great impatience shown, even at this forum, about what the heck Bush was waiting for. You might recall that some believed he was waiting for Ramadan to end.

Well, he didn't wait, but it certainly didn't qualify as a sneak attack, either. My guess is that we'll have several weeks of troop buildup, along with many admonitions here about loose lips. However, the whole world will know that we're about to do it, and then it will still be several more days.

Just a hunch.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Aug/September too hot in Iraq unless just bombing to soften them up prior to ground campaign.

I do not believe the temperature will matter. If you wait too late in the year, you get into the rainy season. I read somewhere that the plains in Iraq are subject to flooding. Not good for tank warfare.

As I have said on earlier other threads, anytime between now and end of september.

[rintense]

Yep. It will happen. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we already have special forces on the ground in Iraq.

[eastforker]

see my post #75.

[RightWhale]

Everyone in the world knew what was going on.

Gulf War I was like that, too. Six months of buildup, with a fair amount of detail released to the press. The exact date and time of commencement was not released until the attack was underway, but it was easy to guess within a couple of days as D-day got close.

[Consort]

Moon.

[Dog Gone]

That would be a fine time, but I think it's too soon. The reason I say that is because I expect a major diplomatic and political offensive first. It's important to get the Democrats on record as supporting the action so that they can't criticize it once it begins. That hasn't happened yet.

Additionally, we'll strongarm the UN into somehow blessing what we're about to do. That gives the weenie nations (and there are many) diplomatic cover to support us, or at least not hinder us.

That hasn't happened yet, either. I would expect the diplomatic and political offensive to take at least a month, perhaps two.

I haven't seen anything more than a hint of that yet, which makes me believe that October is the earliest it could happen, and it might be as late as next March.

[RightWhale]

That's a pretty good moon phase chart. What I said was just a guess. I don't think they have to time the attack for the exact moment of the technical new moon, so they will have a few days either way. They would want to avoid the days around the full moon, although that isn't strictly necessary, either. After the first objectives are taken, they will be attacking around the clock anyway.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Bingo -- first step, take, hold, occupy, and pump for our own uses, the Iraqi fields. Don't give them back until a VERY friendly government is in place -- a government ready to our bidding and take orders from us.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

From that chart...the 6th or 7th looks real good. Wonder what dates in September are optimum???

[Clara Lou]

I'm not saying not to go after Iraq. The sooner the world is without Saddam, the better. My question was in reference to the comment The answer should be, as long as it takes to establish a secular democracy based on a written constitution. Not that that type of government is not a good thing-- but he could be talking more than billions. And, do we have the right to demand such a government for other nations? The BIG picture.

[Consort]

Wonder what dates in September are optimum???

You can plug in any dates you want on the menu provided on the web site.

[Lady Jag]

That's what I was thinking. If I were Bush I'd make sure I had my vacation, on vacation I'd take the opportunity for some private talks with significant people (homies and allies), then I'd announce I was coming back to DC on such and such a date. Everybody'd think I wouldn't launch till back in the District, they'd chill, and I'd launch just before my vacation is over.

[dixiechick2000]

"...could Saddam not be the main event ..."

I have wondered if all of the talk about Iraq isn't just a diversion. Of course, Iraq will definately be dealt with, but could it be we will start somewhere else first? Also, I do think we are helping Iran along covertly. There's a lot of unhappy young people there. They want their MTV...

[ASA Vet]

do we have the right to demand such a government for other nations?

Yep, that's the key.
Make them a non-nation first. Works for me, Thanks.

[Southack]

We have 3 major targets for invasion: North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. All three have been publicly identified by our President (i.e. "Axis of Evil").

Of those three, we currently fly daily fighter patrols over IRaq (giving us ownership of their airspace) and board/inspect every ocean-going vessel entering/leaving Iraq's port. Iraq is so frightened by the possibility of our invasion that they are already offering to allow full WOMD inspections, even though we haven't even started up our regional troop buildup for an invasion yet. Iraq has no nuclear reactors, and it has no plans to build a nuclear reactor. Oh, and one more thing, Iraq hasn't tested ANY long-range missiles in the last decade.

Now let's look at the other two targets. Both Iran and North Korea HAVE tested long-range missiles. Both are cooperating on missile technology, and both want atomic weapons. Both North Korea and Iran have started construction on at least one nuclear reactor, too.

North Korea currently threatens only one country: South Korea, but this will change when they advance their missile program one more generation. Iran's current missiles threaten most of Western Europe. Of the two, Iran poses the most immediate threat.

Conveniently, we have Iran surrounded currently. With a little cooperation from our Russian ally, a large army could easily be prepped for a full-scale ground invasion of Iran at our whim.

Iran and Iraq are both Winter targets due to the high temperatures of their Summers (combined with the heavy anti-gas, anti-bio-war gear of our troops). North Korea is a Summer target. Its Winters are far more harsh than its Summers, and that factors in to how well our South Korean allies will perform.

Now let's look at our disposition. We're restocking our smart weapons and we've yet to move a full army. Our strategic petroleum reserve has not yet been filled and our space shuttles won't be ready to resume launches before September. One more thing: even though the House and Senate have each passed a military budget bill, they have NOT reached a consensus bill in committee, so no new money is available for our military, and won't be until some time AFTER Congress returns from its August recess.

So I'd put the chances of a U.S. attack on any of the three before September at less than 1 in a hundred. Bush has already told Congress that there will be no October surprise, so an attack before mid-November is pretty unlikely, too.

Political considerations might prevail and force a U.S. attack on Iraq first, sometime after mid-November, but if the military whiz-kids have their say, then we're probably looking at a surprise attack on Iran before we hit Iraq. A new student revolution in Iran would go a long way towards that end, especially if the students asked for U.S. help.

Bush is a very patient President. He could easily wait until 2004 to hit any of the three Axis of Evil targets. We'll have our first ABM interceptors deployed in Alaska in 2004, and that should neutralize any long-range North Korean or Iranian missile threat. So looking at the long and short of it, no attack before mid-November and the attacks could wait as long as 2004 before they happen, so that's the generic "range" of dates to consider.

The old "wait until there is no Moon" to attack is a bit outdated, too. We're flying daily fighter patrols over Iraq at high noon, and have been for a decade, and they still can't hit us. None of the members of the Axis of Evil have militaries that offer any real chance at defending their countries from us. They have a chance at putting up some ICBM's and they can engage a little asymetrical offsensive warfare, but that's about all that they can do.

So we wait. We engage in some covert activities. We see if a revolution breaks out in Iran or a convenient provocation erupts from North Korea.

We fill our petroleum reserve. We stockpile smart munitions. We setup the logistics. We begin deploying an army or two.

We guide Israel into a solution for their Palestinian problem that doesn't provoke outright hostilities with the entire Arab and Persian world, and we might even consider a blockade or two to help kill time.

And soon enough the time will come and we will smash the Axis of Evil. If we do it right, we'll have "Northern Alliance" style domestic leaderships in each of the three so that an exit plan is readily visible (because we don't want to govern these nimrods long-term).

[section9]

Basically, what is happening now is that the ducks are being set in a row.

U.S. Defense plants have been going on three shifts since early in the year. That's what gives me a chuckle as to the cluelessness of this reporter. What should have tipped folks off was the Pentagon's oil buy early this year: the most in any calendar year.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[ThePythonicCow]

Given that it is more likely that a Weapon of Mass Destruction would be fired in/on Washington, D.C., than in Crawford, Texas, I'll bet that the Secret Service would prefer Bush to be in Texas when he gives the order.

[rintense]

LOL! Add a sidearm in a holster and you've got the perfect American cliche... My brother who was in the Gulf War said that the Iraqis were expecting Americans on horseback. Why not help their stereotype along just a bit?

[meanspirit77]

Your post # 4

Brilliant in it's simplicity.