U.S. battle plan: Slip in and grab oil fields

New York Daily News ^ | 1/25/03 | RICHARD SISK

[kattracks]

WASHINGTON - U.S. troops would try to seize Iraqi oil fields before Saddam Hussein's Republican Guards could blow them up in the event of war, a senior U.S. Central Command official said yesterday.

"It's fair to say land component commanders have crafted strategies that would allow us to secure and protect those fields as rapidly as possible," said the official, who spoke on grounds of anonymity.

"Saddam has plans to sabotage the Iraqi oil industry" and blame the destruction on U.S. bombing, said the official, a top adviser to Army Gen. Tommy Franks, head of Central Command.

"We've seen military movement into the southern and northern oil fields," the official said, "and we've seen a number of indications from reliable intelligence sources that sabotage has been planned."

The official would not give details but did not rule out action by U.S. paratroopers and helicopter-borne air assault troops to protect the oil wells.

Hard to predict

Blowing up the 1,000 Iraqi oil wells in the south and 500 in the north would double the destruction caused by fleeing Iraqi troops on Kuwait's oil fields in 1991, the official said. He estimated repair costs at $30 billion to $50 billion.

The official would not estimate the impact on oil prices and supplies, and John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, said predictions were difficult.

Iraq produces less than 1.5 million barrels daily, about 3% of the world supply, and if the country goes off-line, "there's excess capacity" in other oil-producing states, Felmy said.

But losing Iraq in combination with continuing strife in Venezuela "really would strain excess capacity," he said.

[justa-hairyape]

Imagine Hitler with The Bomb. Do you really want that?

And if this was all about oil, we would have just taken it during the first Gulf War.

[Kozak]

I would like to have someone explain to me how the military can protect against that. In a matter of a few seconds comp-uter generated calls to 1500 phones and what do they accomplish? Plenty.

I'm willing to bet that within 5 minutes of the resumption of hostilities there will not be a watt of power generated, nor a phone either land line or cell, nor radio com in the entire country.....

[Petronski]

I'm willing to bet that within 5 minutes of the resumption of hostilities there will not be a watt of power generated, nor a phone either land line or cell, nor radio com in the entire country.....

Indeed, that will be the first notice that hostilities have recommenced.

[steve-b]

the howls of outrage from all over the world about the "United States comitting war for profit and the theft of other countries assets"

The world has been howling in outrage so much anyway that the administration may decide that it just doesn't matter.

That's one reason why it's a bad idea to howl in outrage over every little thing.

[sneakypete]

I see you have swallowed the Bush propoganda whole.

[WOSG]

"I see you have swallowed the Bush propoganda whole. "

That is an idiotic retort. You dont have facts on your side and so you resort to ad hominem.

More on the reality of Saddam's sponsorship of terror and Al Quaeda:

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/1/32/printer

http://www.geocities.com/republican_strategist/Iraq-Bin-Laden.html

[sneakypete]

That is an idiotic retort.

More of a factual statement than anything else. You have half the story,and are content with that.

More on the reality of Saddam's sponsorship of terror and Al Quaeda:

Why don't you write of Bush-1's sponsorship of terror and bin Laden,Al Quaeda,etc? Hell,they pre-date those of Saddam.

[sneakypete]

This foolish notion was on parade this morning on C-SPAN -- one idiotic caller after another expressed similar weak-minded sentiments.

Up is down and down is up,right? You obviously define "weak-minded sentiments" as any sentiments not pushed by the alleged Republicans in the WH,right? Do you know when Great Britain declared war on Germany in WWII? -- When Germany attacked Poland. Why was that? -- GB wasn't under direct attack from Germany at the time. Because after the German blitzkreig rolled into Poland, even the most idiotic Britainer knew that their islands would be NEXT.

And this has WHAT to do with us attacking the Iraquis over something the Saudi's are responsible for?

9-11 was not a warning from al Qaeda, it was a warning from G-d -- get our act together or be destroyed.

The Holy Ghost told me to tell you,"BOO!" Are you one of those who thinks Bubba-2 in the new Messiah,and that he is "on a mission from Gawd"?

[WOSG]

"You have half the story,and are content with that."

You are content with being wrong and lashing out when challenged. You bring up a lie to 'retort' the truth. Pathetic.

Now you claim Bush-1 sponsored BinLaden, oh puhleeze,
YOU ARE A PATHETIC APOLOGIST FOR SADDAM AND ANTI_BUSH WEENIE.

YOu have yet to refute the fact of Saddam's sponsorship of terror:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/1/32/printer

[WOSG]

And this has WHAT to do with us attacking the Iraquis over something the Saudi's are responsible for?

---

Saddam, and only Saddam, is responsible for his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, his acquisition and use of chemical weapons, etc., and his payments and training given by Iraqi intelligence agents to terrorists.

Man, you are *blind*, it's right there in front of you. Face the facts.

[section9]

Grow up. Yeah,Bubba-2 is a bigger phoney and danger to the Republic than Bubba-1 ever was,but I would still support him if he were going to war against Saudi Arabia. The fact that he isn't,and is going to war against Iraq instead only furthers my contempt for him.

As I said, you're little more than a rabid Bush hater. Bush could invade Saudi Arabia tomorrow and you would find a reason to find fault with him, so don't try and sell me some b.s. line that you're reasoning out of principle, here.

Your eagerness to go after the Saudis betrays a surface understanding of Saudi politics that is breathtaking in its shallowness. Not all Saudis, even among the princelings, are terrorists. You don't destroy the Saudi regime because bin Laden used Saudis to attack us. Saudi Arabia and the U.S. had a reasonably close relationship before the attack. It fell apart because the Saudi Royal Family is more concerned with protecting its own rather tenous hold on power than it is looking after our security interests.

Iraq is much more of a threat to us than the Saudis ever could be. It has military resources and a population base, in addition to a nifty strategic location, that Saudi cannot have.

HorseHillary! Unlike the US,his Arab neighbors and Israel DO have very good reason to fear him,and the instant any of them suspected he was close to developing nukes,they would attack him and take them out. If the Arabs didn't do this,Israel would

The Israelis attacked Osirak in 1981 because it was easy to do. There it was, big as life, a big fat target of a nuclear reactor. It set back Saddam's ambitions about 10 years.

But Saddam learned a valuable lesson. Go underground.

Israel simply doesn't have the air resources to take out all of Saddam's disparate sites. They're good, but they don't have anything like our numbers. If you disperse your production facilities in one place, and your missiles in another, and so forth, you make it very hard for your opponent to take you out in one fell swoop.

The Arabs won't ever strike Saddam simply because they can't get their bloody act together. If they could have, they would have dealt with Saddam some time ago. Like the Eurotrash, they would rather appease him than confront him.

No,he can't. Israel is the ONE country in the region he can NOT attack with nukes. They have their own,and NOBODY is delusional enough to think they won't respond in kind to the point where he and his whole country are radioactive.

What makes you think he cares about his country?

Saddam wants to go down in history as the Arab who excised the Zionist Cancer from the Arab body politic. If millions of his own citizens should die, so be it. He would still be hailed by the Arab masses! You're assuming that Saddam thinks like someone from Kansas or Toronto. He doesn't.

The Israelis, on the other hand, could lose Haifa and Tel Aviv, and with those two cities, the heart of Israel's population. Sure they could respond, but in the end, they would have very little, if anything, to come back to. Saddam Hussein would have finished the job that Hitler began.

There is a good reason the Israelis are backing this war.

It matters to me,but not enough for our citizens to die doing the job of fighting their citizens need to do for themselves. Despite all the money we dump there that makes them borderline welfare cases,Israel ain't no redheaded stepchild,and we haven't adopted them.

That's a bit like saying Britain and France should stand idly by while Hitler invests the Sudetenland.

Which they did. The rest is history.

HorseHillary! The other Arabs are a LOT more scared of him than they are us.The first thing he would do if he ever got nukes would be to threaten his non-nukes fellow Arab nations in order to try to join them all together into one country under his domination. Saddam Hussein has been responsible for the deaths of more radical Muslims that all of the western nations combined.

I would argue that Saddam would be seen as the big guy on the block, willing to take on the Israelis. The Arab masses would gravitate to him like flies on horse manure. He wouldn't have to threaten anybody.

You want to give an ass-clown like that a chokehold over the entire Persian Gulf oil range? Go right ahead. But don't expect the rest of us to agree with you.

As to his relationship with Al Qaeda and the others, I can see that you've swallowed the liberal cause and effect argument hook, line, and sinker ("Saddam is a secularist. Saddam Must hate Al Qaeda. Ergo, Saddam never had anything to do with Al Qaeda and never would.").

Why fight Al Qaeda when you share an interest with them?

Why fight Al Qaeda when you can use them to further your ends: removing America from the Middle East in order to beat the life out of the Zionist foe?

If Saddam can use Al Qaeda, he will. AQ are filled to the brim with millenialist fanatics. They'd be more than willing to be used; not only against the Israelis, but also against us. Of course, Saddam can afford their retainer, which is another reason to go and terminate the bastard.

And of course a president would never lie,right? Especially not Ali Bubba Bush.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Leave it to a Brigadier to build a straw man. Look, I know you're all bent out of shape because Buchanan-Foster's support amounted to the population of a telephone booth on a rainy day, but you shouldn't let that fact cloud your thinking.

Straw man argument is thus:

Minor Proposition: You believe what Bush said in last year's State of the Union.

Major Proposition: Everything Bush says is a lie.

Conclusion: You are a sucker.

This is the foundation of your argument: that everything George W. Bush says is a lie. George W. Bush cannot be trusted. Everyone who believes that he is an honorable man pursuing a hellish, if necessary war, is either a knave, a sucker, or a fool.

No wonder you clowns don't win elections. You have nothing but contempt for those who think differently from you.

HorseHillary! You are the one wanting to put them at risk fighting a war for Saudi Arabia and Israel,not ME!

First and foremost, I want to put them at risk to pursue a decidedly American national interest. Preventing Saddam Hussein from obtaining nuclear weapons is in our national interest. Seeing to it that he does not use said weapons against an American ally, Israel, is in our national interest. Preventing him from controlling the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf is in our interest. Seeing to it that he does not slip Al Qaeda one or more tactical nuclear weapons is in our interest.

If people in the West had thought like George W. Bush back in 1938, we wouldn't have had a Second World War. But they didn't, with the exception of three people, Winston S. Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and a brigadier general named George S. Patton, Jr..

Unfortunately, most everyone on the Continent, in Britain, and in America thought then as you do today. Which reminds me of the only thing Karl Marx wrote that made historical sense: History repeats itself: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[nunya bidness]

Do you know when Great Britain declared war on Germany in WWII? -- When Germany attacked Poland. Why was that? -- GB wasn't under direct attack from Germany at the time. Because after the German blitzkreig rolled into Poland, even the most idiotic Britainer knew that their islands would be NEXT.

And don't forget the GB naval blockade created by Churchill's "Orders in Council" had little to do with the German's response of sinking the Lusitania. Which drew the US in to the war.

Any time a country takes out its aggression on the civilian population it makes an enemy for generations. The case with Iraq hasn't degenerated to that level yet but if we try to "disarm" Saddam by airstrikes you can bet most of the marginal Iraqis will be running to Saddam for cover. After all, it's not like we've abandoned them before.

[sneakypete]

YOu have yet to refute the fact of Saddam's sponsorship of terror:

You have yet to refute Bush-1's sponsorship of terror,and his support of bin Laden and Al Queada. You can't,because the US provided them with money,weapons,and training while the Russians occupied Afhaginistan. You also haven't refuted the FACT that Hussein was supported by the US when he was fighting with Iran.

See how the old "guilt by association" game is played?

[sneakypete]

Saddam, and only Saddam, is responsible for his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, his acquisition and use of chemical weapons, etc.,

Who is responsible for the chemicals and tooling he received that were neccessary to make chem and bio weapons during the Iran-Iraq war? Could it have been the US and Germany?

and his payments and training given by Iraqi intelligence agents to terrorists.

Speaking of the money and training given to terrorists,how about the money and training WE gave to bin Laden and crew? Maybe we should attack ourselves?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST

[sneakypete]

As I said, you're little more than a rabid Bush hater. Bush could invade Saudi Arabia tomorrow and you would find a reason to find fault with him, so don't try and sell me some b.s. line that you're reasoning out of principle, here.

Wrong yet again. I am ashamed to say I voted for Ali Bubba,hoping he would be better than I suspected he would be. I was never even tempted to vote for Buchannan,and wouldn't if he were to run again. I am not a isolationist,and he is. I know this is a strange concept to you,but sometimes people hold Bubba-2 in contempt because he deserves to be held in contempt. He IS Bubba-1 without the blowjobs.

Your eagerness to go after the Saudis betrays a surface understanding of Saudi politics that is breathtaking in its shallowness.

Unlike YOUR "deep understanding" that "The US MUST go to war against Iraq because Israel wants us to,and because Bubba Bush needs to keep his poll numbers up.",right?

Not all Saudis, even among the princelings, are terrorists.

No kidding? On the other hand,EVERY Iraqui citizen deserves to die because they are all joined at the hip with Hussein,right?

You don't destroy the Saudi regime because bin Laden used Saudis to attack us.

But you DO destroy the Iraqui regime because bin Laden used the Saudis to attack us?

Saudi Arabia and the U.S. had a reasonably close relationship before the attack.

Based on elite political families like the Bushs,the Gores,the Kennedys,the Rockefellers,and others owning a LOT of stock in oil companies and other connected companies.

It fell apart because the Saudi Royal Family is more concerned with protecting its own rather tenous hold on power than it is looking after our security interests.

When did it fall apart? Certainly not right after the attacks on 9-11. The Bush administration allowed the family of bin Laden that was living in the US to take a charter flight out of the country at the same time all other flights were grounded.

Iraq is much more of a threat to us than the Saudis ever could be.

The Saudis themselves are not a military threat to us,and never will be unless they can hire enough Philapinos to fight for them that a war would be possible. What Saudi Arabia provides are funds,a safe haven,and promotion of radical Islan through all the Mosques they are building all over the world. Yet,we are about to expend our wealth and our youth in a war to defeat the biggest threat Saudi Arabia faces,Iraq. HOW does this make any sense?

Israel simply doesn't have the air resources to take out all of Saddam's disparate sites. They're good, but they don't have anything like our numbers.

They should just do the best they can do,then. Why the hell should we do their fighting for them? As far as that goes,we could sell them the equipment they need to do the job.

If you disperse your production facilities in one place, and your missiles in another, and so forth, you make it very hard for your opponent to take you out in one fell swoop.

True. I wish the US military would learn to understand this concept,as they close bases and shift forces to central locations.

What makes you think he cares about his country?

Did you notice the words "he and" right before "his country"? While it is certainly true that he cares very little about his countrymen,he surely cares about his own carcass and that of his family. And I know that you are as aware as anybody that the Jews would specifically go after him and his family. Saddam Hussein is also aware of this. They have a spotless record of going after people who have harmed or threatened harm to Israel,and they don't allow anyone or anything to get in their way. My hat is off to them on this!

Saddam wants to go down in history as the Arab who excised the Zionist Cancer from the Arab body politic. If millions of his own citizens should die, so be it. He would still be hailed by the Arab masses!

Yes,but in MY opinion,formost is his desire to go down in history as only figure other than Mohammed to unify the various Arab tribes. His only hope of doing this is through intimidation. THAT is why he wants nukes,bragging rights and intimidation. He can't use them agaiNst Israel or the US because either would take Iraq off the map if he did. While it is true that the US has developed a "big wuss" reputation on the international stage,this would change the instant any country or leader attacked us with nukes. We would respond in a unbelievably violent way.

You're assuming that Saddam thinks like someone from Kansas or Toronto. He doesn't.

No,I'm not. I'm assuming he thinks like a madman who has unlimited power within his country,and wishes to expand his power.

The Israelis, on the other hand, could lose Haifa and Tel Aviv, and with those two cities, the heart of Israel's population. Sure they could respond, but in the end, they would have very little, if anything, to come back to. Saddam Hussein would have finished the job that Hitler began.

More HorseHillary. While you may be right (and probably are) about the results of a attack on the country of Israel,this wouldn't exterminate Jews. There are more Jews living outside Israel than there are inside Israel. There is a good reason the Israelis are backing this war.

Of course there is,the best reason of all,self-defense and survival. The same reasons the Saudis are supporting the war,although nobody wants to talk about them. I guess it's kind of embarrassing to admit we are fighting to protect the very people responsible for the attacks on us.

I would argue that Saddam would be seen as the big guy on the block, willing to take on the Israelis. The Arab masses would gravitate to him like flies on horse manure. He wouldn't have to threaten anybody.

Are you saying the leaders of countries like Iran and Syria would willingly step aside so Saddam Hussein took over control of their countries and political systems? Why would you think they would do this? They are all pretty much dictators on the same level he is. You want to give an ass-clown like that a chokehold over the entire Persian Gulf oil range?

No,I want the people threatened by him to fight their own damn wars,instead of relying on the US to do it for them,while they run around trying to stick knives in our backs.

As to his relationship with Al Qaeda and the others, I can see that you've swallowed the liberal cause and effect argument hook, line, and sinker ("Saddam is a secularist. Saddam Must hate Al Qaeda. Ergo, Saddam never had anything to do with Al Qaeda and never would.").

HorseHillary! I never made this claim. He has no doubt supported some elements of Al Queda and other terrorists organizations at various times,just like the US supported HIM and bin Laden at one time. Why fight Al Qaeda when you share an interest with them?

I dunno. Why not ask the Bush family?

If Saddam can use Al Qaeda, he will.

Of course. Just like we used them and others when they were fighting against the Russians.

AQ are filled to the brim with millenialist fanatics. They'd be more than willing to be used; not only against the Israelis, but also against us.

You betcha,and their primary source of funding and support comes from Saudi Arabia.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Leave it to a Brigadier to build a straw man. Look, I know you're all bent out of shape because Buchanan-Foster's support amounted to the population of a telephone booth on a rainy day, but you shouldn't let that fact cloud your thinking.

Again,I am not and never have been a Brigadeer.

This is the foundation of your argument: that everything George W. Bush says is a lie.

No,just most of it.

George W. Bush cannot be trusted.

That is a absolute certainy!

Everyone who believes that he is an honorable man pursuing a hellish, if necessary war, is either a knave, a sucker, or a fool.

Or a blind dreamer,much like the Clint-Roids were with him.

No wonder you clowns don't win elections.

Well,this "clown" certainly feels like he "lost" the last election.I voted for Bush.

You have nothing but contempt for those who think differently from you.

Unlike the Bush-Bots whose usual response to any suggestion that Bubba-2 might not be the next Messiah is "traitor","communist","fool","Brigadeer",etc,etc,etc,right?

If people in the West had thought like George W. Bush back in 1938, we wouldn't have had a Second World War. But they didn't, with the exception of three people, Winston S. Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and a brigadier general named George S. Patton, Jr..

Bubba-2 as "Karnac,the Magnificent",the all-seeing and all-knowing? Please.

Which reminds me of the only thing Karl Marx wrote that made historical sense: History repeats itself: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

Are you comparing Ali Bubba's upcoming invasion of Iraq with Hitler's invasion of Poland? I agree there IS a lot in common there,but don't think I am ready to go quite that far.

[nunya bidness]

Well said. Glad to see you alive and well Pete. Don't fly too close to sun again, ya' here?

[WOSG]

You are wrong. The US never gave money to bin laden nor al quaeda. dont confuse our support for afghan rebels for support for non-afghan extremists. they are 2 different groups.

The US was never an ally of Iraq. We protested the Saddam Hussein regimes genocide of kurds back in 1988. As for who supplied Iraq, Hussein was more a client of Soviet union than any other country, although some German and French companies are not blameless.

"See how the old "guilt by association" game is played?"

Saddam is not "associated" with these evils (WMD, genocide of kurds and Shia, totalitarian regime, terror sponsorship), he is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for them. How dense can you be?

It is grotesque of you to parrot anti-USA lies that serve no purpose other than to give aid and comfort to our terrorist enemies.