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.

[Cvengr]

Anybody who believes the US interests, which influence consideration of warfare in Iraq, even touch upon oil and gas are clueless regarding actual power structures and mechanics within the US government and military.

It ain't about oil.

[WOSG]

I'll say it again:


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

That Saddam bought French, German and Soviet help on his WMD programs doesnt make Saddam any less the responsible party. It does however explain why 3 particular countries keep wanting to give Saddam another chance.

[sneakypete]

Well said.

Thanks.

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

Thanks,again. It was a close call. The surgeon said that if I had waited another 1.5 hours to get to the emergency room that I would have died,and there would have been nothing he could have done to prevent it.

[sneakypete]

You are wrong. The US never gave money to bin laden nor al quaeda.

Yes,we did.

dont confuse our support for afghan rebels for support for non-afghan extremists. they are 2 different groups.

I think you are the one who is confused. Bin Laden and other radical Muslims were in Afhaginistan fighting against the Russians,and we gave them aid,support,equipment,and training,just like we did with the other groups.

The US was never an ally of Iraq.

We didn't fight along side them,but we did give them support with their war against Iran. BTW,this was one of the smartest moves we ever made. It is a win/win situation when you can get your enemies to fight against one another.

We protested the Saddam Hussein regimes genocide of kurds back in 1988.

Sure we did. We (Bush-1) also led the Kurds and other dissident factions to believe we would help them if they revolted and overthrew the Hussein regime. They took us at our word and started fighting,and we then abandoned them to the tender mercies of the Republican Guard as we again protested their treatment by the government of Iraq.

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.

This is certainly true,but we also supported him.

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?

Not as dense as you,that's for sure.

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.

Get off your high hobbyhorse. I am not giving aid and comort to any enemy,merely stating what you find to be uncomfortable facts. Like a lot of other people,you seem to have a selective memory. You remember what you like,and scream "foul" at things you don't like.

[sneakypete]

That Saddam bought French, German and Soviet help on his WMD programs doesnt make Saddam any less the responsible party.

Why are you still ignoring the chemicals and other supplies sold to him by the US during that period?

It does however explain why 3 particular countries keep wanting to give Saddam another chance.

No,it doesn't. What DOES explain their current actions is their fear that the US will end up controlling the supply of oil from the mideast,and that is where they get all their oil. Other than Russia (the Soviet Union no longer exists),the other countries don't have any domestic oil supplies. Russia is supporting Hussein in a limited way because they desperately need the income from the goods and supplies they sell Iraq to help keep their economy afloat.

[WOSG]

Repeating a lie three times doesnt make it true. you continue to lie.

Fact: US gave no money to bin laden. Al Quaeda was created after the Afghan war of liberation against USSR itself.

Fact: Saddam is the one reponsible for his own WMD programs, his own genocide against Iraqi minority peoples and his own support for terrorists.

[sneakypete]

Repeating a lie three times doesnt make it true. you continue to lie.

If anybody is a liar,it is you.

Fact: US gave no money to bin laden.

Pretty selective view,ain't it? No,we didn't give bin Laden any money. We did give him other support and training,though.

Fact: Saddam is the one reponsible for his own WMD programs, his own genocide against Iraqi minority peoples and his own support for terrorists.

Who has said any different,the voices in your head? The fact that he is responsible for his own actions does NOT mean that he did all this on his own without help or support from outside sources.

[WOSG]

Funny you mention 'selective memory', my first reply was to refute your points about saddam and his support of terrorism, and all you have done is change the subject to false allegations about what the US may have done to support bin laden way back when (well before he ever became al quaeda head) and whether saddam bought chemicals from USA (dont think so, and you havent stated any facts to support your claim; in any case, not relevent, if jacques chirac sold saddam a nuke reactor back in 1978, that doesnt mean the french *wanted* saddam to build nuke bombs)... Yet none of your verbose replies refuted my point about saddam hussein and his support of terror. you simply forgot that point. Do you acknowledge the facts, or are you trying to be a robot-poster that spews discredited junk from "The Nation" magazine? ...

---

Dittos on your answer, Chris.

What hogwash to say that Saddam, who has harbored Al Quaeda since 9/11, and who trained Al Quaeda and other terrorists before 9/11 is "no threat". Do we just forget that Saddam ordered the first WTC attack in 1993? I hope not.

The American diplomat killed in Jordan was killed by Al Quaeda operatives who had links to Iraq. interrogation led the authorities, via their killers, to a terrorist who got 'medical help' in Baghdad and has moved between Jordan and Iraq a number of times. turns out he is the #5 al quaeda leader. That same terrorist has ties to the cell that was arrested last week in London and which had some ricin poison... now where did they get that?

Did yu also know that Saddam has been funding GIA, Algerian terror group, part of which was arrested in Spain this week?

Saddam recently bought euqipment for making chlorine agents, banned equipment via India and useful for WMD chemical warfare -- vx gas etc.

Many former Taliban have been supplied by Saddam and his regime and let loose in northern Iraq to fight tthe kurds.

Time and again, Saddam has given aid and harbor to terrorists. It is said the reason he had Abu Nidal killed this year was that this terrorist didnt want to train Al Quaeda. Saddam wants Americans dead and works indirectly through terror networks to make that happen, including Al Quaeda.

Now, being a terror sponsor is part of why we must take out Saddam, but Saddam's WMB are really why it is Job One.


Saddam as far as ideology and capacity for violence is no less evil than Hitler. Saddam has killed over a million of his own people, tens of thousands killed by chemical warfare - he is a man who bombed Iraqi civilians with chemical warfare and let whole cities die of it. He tried similar with Tel Aviv during gulf war. he started 2 wars.


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

[nopardons]

I know that I'm going to be sorry I replied to you, sneaky ; however, the facts are these: the USA ( in any way, manner, or form ) didn't train bin Laden, they gave him, specifically, no support, and during the Russo/Afghan War, bin Laden just gave money to the " cause ". He, himself, unlike Omar and others, who later became members/ leaders of al Qaeda, never took any part in the conflict against Russia. Those are the facts.

Just because it suits your agenda to say certain things, doesn't make them true, factual, nor germaine.

[flying Elvis]

I agree. We have "leaked" quite a few credible yet very different strategies lately. It must be hell to be an Iraqi war planner right now.

One thing's for sure, Iraqi tank crewmen and airbase personel's life expectancies can be measured in weeks now. The memories of Desert Storm and the Highway of Death has to be haunting them right now. The smartest course of action for an Iraqi noncom to do is shoot their officers an flee away from all equipment and buildings as soon as the shooting starts.

[JasonC]

I'll take that bet. How much?

[WOSG]

Me: You are wrong. The US never gave money to bin laden nor al quaeda.


You: Yes,we did.
----

Me: Repeating a lie three times doesnt make it true. you continue to lie.

You: If anybody is a liar,it is you.

Me: Fact: US gave no money to bin laden.


Finally you: Pretty selective view,ain't it? No,we didn't give bin Laden any money. We did give him other support and training,though.

---

So, first you insist that 'yes we did' then you admit "no we didnt give bin laden money" ... now you have fallen back to the (still false) "we gave him training" ... no we didnt give Bin Laden anything.

If you havent quite grabbed the clue here and have bought the phony "blowback" stories I am sorry, but its is wrong. Bin Laden was another FUNDER of Afghan mujahadeen, not a part of it, and Al Quaeda didnt even exist during the Afghan war against USSR. Our support for the Afghan mujahideen does *not* mean we supported other funders/fellow-travellers of the Afghan resistence effort. The USA gave nothing to either Bin Laden directly nor to Al Quaeda. Nor does it mean we sponsored in any way shape or form any activities after the ejection of USSR from Afghanistan.

The original comment you made, in reply #48, was a slander against Bush-1.

You: "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."

You have yet to give even a hint of evidence for this calumny. We did not "sponsor terror" in any shape or form
wrt OBL or Al Quaeda. we gave them no money, no training, no support of any kind.

This is clearly a non-productive debate, as you are changing your story to suit whatever agenda you are
trying to peddle, which IMHO seems to solely consist of disparaging Bush and USA with defamatory comments.

[WOSG]

I know that I'm going to be sorry I replied to you, sneaky ; however, the facts are these: the USA ( in any way, manner, or form ) didn't train bin Laden, they gave him, specifically, no support, and during the Russo/Afghan War, bin Laden just gave money to the " cause ". He, himself, unlike Omar and others, who later became members/ leaders of al Qaeda, never took any part in the conflict against Russia. Those are the facts. Just because it suits your agenda to say certain things, doesn't make them true, factual, nor germaine.

Thank you for that comment! Agree 100%!

[nopardons]

You're welcome. I just refuse to sit idlly by and see lies being posted as " fact ". That's why I replied.

[Tom Bombadil]

Your words, not mine. I, for one, am NOT looking forward to additional profiteering and $2.00 per gallon gas.

Your view is the cynical one and it really doesn't make sense.

I assume that you feel that the profiteering and the $2 gas would be to GWB's benefit and that they are his primary motivation. If that is the case, you are then implying that GWB has low integrity and you are assuming that $2 gas wouldn't hurt him politically.

Such thinking flies in the face of reality. The personal risks in this whole thing far outweigh any personal benefit GWB might get. The truth is that he wants to do what is good for the nation and is appalled at the choices he has been given.

[steve-b]

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

Irrelevant. Not all Afgans were supporters of al-Qaeda, either, but that was also irrelevant, and for the same reason -- the rats' nest has to be cleaned out, even if not every individual rat has been gnawing at your house.

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

Frankly, the greatest geopolitical benefit of the coming war will be securing an oil supply sufficient to allow us to kick the Saudis to the curb at a time of our choosing.

[section9]

As per usual, your reasoning is shallow. The only thing you are right about in your screed is that you voted for Bush.

But let's go on to this laugh-a-minute post of yours.

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.

More tawdry bollocks. You are as isolationist as the day is long. You would leave Saddam alone to develop WMD. You would pretend that the mean, nasty world cannot come back to bite us on the ass. You do not even bother to address my contention that Saddam would be able to supply Al Qaeda with tactical nuclear "suitcase" warheads, simply because you know I am right.

This is like listening to an America-Firster in 1940.

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?

More straw man reasoning:

Minor Argument: Bush is going to War because he needs to keep his poll numbers up and because he is being manipulated by the Jewish Lobby.

Major Argument: Everything Bush says is a lie.

Conclusion: Those who support this war are suckers and are being manipulated by Bush, who is a proven liar, and the Jewish Lobby.

Creating straw men allows you to neatly sidestep the core issues of war and peace. That is both cheap and tawdry, and characteristic of the man who has neither argument nor fact, and is left to pound the table as if that will carry the debate.

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

Another cheap little straw man argument. Here you assert that I want all innocent Iraquis to die. That is a lie, and both of us know it, but you went ahead and peddled it anyway. I simply want Saddam and his Takriti Mafia to die.

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

No, you destroy the Iraqui regime because it is predatory, murderous, and a long term threat to both our national interest and those of our allies as well as to the very lives of thousands of our people. This has something to do with Al Qaeda, but only indirectly, and only in the future, should Saddam be left alone.

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.

That is minor compared to the overriding national interest of maintaining the free flow of Persian Gulf oil at market prices. Political and familial connections come and go. National Interest never changes.

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.

Done on the special request of the King of Saudi Arabia, who understood the the bin Laden family as a whole was blameless for the actions of its murderous offspring. Bin Ladens were not safe in the United States following the attack. That said, what does your story about the evacuation of the bin Ladens prove about the campaign against Iraq? Nothing, of course. But that didn't stop you from hurling innuendo against the President.

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?

Of course it does, but the Kingdom has not engaged in overt acts of war against the United States. They have tolerated the growth of radical Wahabism since 1979 because they are Wahabists. If they want "Wahabism In One Country", to borrow a phrase from Stalin, then so be it. While you can expect them to crack down on Al Qaeda (and they are, as AQ is just as much of a threat to the Royal Family as it is to us), you cannot expect the regime to attack its own Wahabist ideology. The legitimacy of the Royal Family rests on the consent of the religious leadership of the country who support the claim of the Al Saud clan to the custody of the two holy shrines of Mecca and Medina.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq will do two things:

1. Place American forces in the very center of the Persian Gulf region, able to strike out at Al Qaeda anywhere in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.

2. Create a "West German" model for the Iraqui government that will serve to undermine both the Theocracy in Teheran and the Wahabist monarchy in Riyadh. The Iraquis consider themselves to be a cosmopolitan people, not reactionary like their tribal neighbors. In the long run, this will pay off for us in spades.

This is the long range plan, aside from the immediate benefit of undoing Saddam's WMD ambitions. Pretty smart for a dumb guy from Texas, I think.

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.

We're not doing their fighting for them, but we are helping to safeguard their country in the long run from WMD attack. We're acting in our national interest, first and foremost. Israel's security is a side benefit, but an important side benefit, in my opinion.

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.

Pray tell, rocket scientist, why the hell should we wait for him to attack us with nukes, then?! We are concerned about Saddam because we know he has dealt with Al Qaeda in the past and will do so in the future. You don't just sit and wait until you're attacked by a mystery nuke that came out of nowhere and whose responsibility was claimed by noone.

I mean, this doesn't take a physics degree to figure this stuff out, fella.

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.

Oh, so we shouldn't mind if all those Israeli Jews are killed off. They can be replaced by the non-Israeli Jews who will be drop-dead willing to move to a radioactive desert. I mean, I don't want to build a straw man argument here, but you're not leaving me much choice in the matter.

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 mean, you just go through this making my points for me without knowing it.

You assert that the Saudi Government ("the Saudis") was responsible for the attack on our country. This must, of needs be, be based on an assumption that AQ and the Royal Family and its intelligence apparatus work hand in glove. That is a questionable assertion, at best.

You then proceed to assert that we are fighting for the survival of the Saudis. But I thought you said earlier that Bush was being manipulated by the Jews? Make up your mind!

Besides, if your contention that everything Bush says is a lie is true, than how do the Saudis and the Jewish Lobby know that they're not being lied to?

See where this kind of Rhesus Monkey reasoning leads to?

If it's all lies, how do you know where the truth begins. Or, as a UFO wag once commented, "If the Truth is Out There, What's in Here?"

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.

If he gets WMD and runs us out of the Middle East, then he's the Big Dog on the block. He doesn't need to invade his neighbors. They will come to him as supplicants. That's where appeasement leads you. Then he can deal with the Jews in his own good time. Or he can deal with us.

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.

Okay, thanks for agreeing with me. By so agreeing with me, you have indicated that there is a valid connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. That's called a casus belli in any law dictionary.

The U.S. supported Saddam only with enough weapons to keep the Iranian Army off Iraqui territory. Saddam started his damn war in 1980. We didn't.

We never supported bin Laden with big time dollars. Binnie was his own man. We supported Ahmad Shah Massoud and the Northern Alliance crowd during the Anti-Soviet War. Bin Laden was a creature of his own money, that of interested Saudis and other Arabs, and the Pakistani Army Interservices Intelligence bureau (who also helped create the Taleban). We had contacts with him, but we didn't create the sumbitch.

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

I dunno. Why not ask the Bush family?

Once again, a cheap canard that has no application to the argument at hand. Unless, of course, you are willing to regale us with the "proof" that Bush and Al Qaeda are working hand in glove?

The World Wonders....

If Saddam can use Al Qaeda, he will.

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

Okay, this is where I get p'od. What business do you have being against this war when you've admitted not once, but twice, of a possible connection between Saddam and AQ and the probability that he will use such a connection to our disadvantage in the future?

So far, you're not doing too good. This is called "whipping the scalded dog" in argument.

Now the following chain of reasoning simply reveals how thin is the reed on which your whole belief system hangs:

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.

See, this is where your whole belief system collapses. Most of the people have to be either knavish, foolish, suckers, or blind dreaming Bush-bots because they trust this guy.

But not you! No sir. You have a lock on the Truth!

For you to be right, everyone else has to be wrong. For you to be right, Saddam has to be of no conceivable threat to the United States. For you to be right, the Bush Family and the Al Qaeda have to be working hand in glove. For you to be right, Bush has to be manipulated by both the Jews and the Saudis. However, for you to be right, Bush has to be a liar of monumental proportions, so the Jews and the Saudis can't be all that sure that he is not lying to him?

So how can you be right when you are so maddenly wrong about so many things?

The rest of your rebuttal doesn't even deserve a response, so far off the mark is it. Your entire screed is one descent into Straw Man Argument with Ad Hominem thrown in for good measure.

Further argument with you is pointless, as it would be a waste of both FR bandwidth and my time. I shall therefore ignore you from here on in, secure in the knowledge that I have soundly horsewhipped you.

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.

That statement, from the beginning of your rant, is not only deeply contemptible, but a fine example of circular reasoning:

I hold Bubba-2 in Contempt.

Why?

Because he deserves to be held in Contempt.

Calling this President "Bill Clinton without the blowjobs" is deeply offensive, and a lie. But since you've done nothing but peddle falsehoods and shoddy argument masquerading as outrage, one should not be surprised at the level to which you are willing to descend.

You sir, are an intellectual charlatan, and have been exposed as such.

Now go away. I shall not bother with you again.

Be Seeing You,

Chris