HoI3 or DD-Mod Proposition: Peak Oil Scenario

[himbim]

1) Here's the real situation:

I think the most probable cause for another world war or a war in general is that we're running short (not running out) on oil. The war in Iraq was only the beginning of that. The US would have also taken Iran's natural gas reserves (second largest in the world) if they hadn't had so much trouble in Iraq.

With Nato and Shanghai Organisation for Cooperation there are two big blocks that need the middle eastern and central asian oil/gas to fuel their economies. The time when it was enough for all of us are ending now, thats why the price of oil is rising fast. We want more oil, while there will be even LESS in the future, according to a geological theory, which is more and more accepted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil


2) Here's what I propose for HoI3 to rebuild that situation in the game:

Oil & Economy:
A modern Day Scenario, which starts with the invasion of Iraq, just like the already existing MDS. But the role of Oil should be more realistic, not only to fuel the war machinery itself. You should have a slider setting how much of your oil you'll give your people (the rest will be reserved for the military, like it is in the game already). If you don't give them enough oil, your IC will be decreased, and you'll also get an increasing dissent.
There should be research projects which reduce the needed amount of oil.
Infrastructure would be best divided into two numbers: First that runs on oil, like roads, and secondly that which uses electricity like electric trains. The combination of those should also determine how much oil the country needs, so for example the US will obviously need a lot.

Oil Production:
Oil production shouldn't be constant, but it should change, like it will change in reality to. For the US, and the North sea that will mean a soon decline, later for Russia and the middle east. In some regions the Oil production would increase a bit, like Alberta in Canada or Angola. Since natural Gas Reserves can be liquified and used like oil, the can practically treated like oil in a modern day scenario. For the game that would mean an increase in oil production in Iran and Central Asia (Yeah, that's why this region is so important in policy).

Another thing is coal liquification to replace a bit oil. This was used by the Nazis in WW2. The game could offer to bild these plants as province inprovements. But the can't fully solve the problem, since coal is limited as well (but nut as scare as oil).


3) Why I think that would be fun to play:

-It's the real game, that the bad guys like Dick Cheney are playing.

-In the game it would be essential to control enough oil, to maintain the full IC and polical stability. But as the sum of the oil supplies slowly starts to decline slowly from ~2012 on, most planes and tanks would only be useful if you control more of the oil, than "your share". So if you can disconnect the enemy from it's oil, it basically kicks him back to the stoneage slowly: His IC declines, his IC needs to be used more for the consumer because they get angry about having no gas, and if you hold him long enough from his oil, even his military gets paralysed.

 

[Balesir]

This is waaaay off topic but it's a topic worth discussing rationally (which the thread so far has stuck to), so I'll post a penn'orth.

To the crimes of Saddam Hussein I must say: They where already done, so when the invasion was made, it could only prevent other crimes he potentially could have comitted in the future, no ongoing genocide or similar was stopped

Tell me, do you advocate not punishing criminals when they have been tried and found guilty by a court of law? That's the logic of your argument, here - that because crimes are in the past no action should be taken against the criminal. World War Two (just to get kinda on-topic for a bit ) did not stop six million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and others being murdered - does that mean thet it was wrong to bring down the Nazi state?

(ok there where innocent people in prison but even some Nato countries like turkey or the US itself have that).

There's a key difference - in most decent countries innocent people are in jail due to mistakes made in the justice system (a few such mistakes are inevitable), but in some states they are there just because they oppose the government.

So there are of course arguments to put Saddam out of office, but with that attitude you could invade lots of countries.

Name one that is both feasible and deserving. I think Iraq was intended to work as an example - it's unfortunate that the example has not been exemplary...

So I don't believe it was a coincidence that they picked the one country which had lots of oil left in the ground (partly because of the oil embargo in Iraq). The first thing the troops secured was the oil fields, and they disappropriated the russian oil concessions in iraq. Now US and UK companies have that business.

I'm sure that oil featured in the minds of some of the strategic planners. Does that make it a decisive factor - nope.

I think they didn't see that coming when they started the war, so its a failure.
It's not my opinion that war is an efficent way to ensure energy security, but it looks like that's cheney's agenda.

I think you've been swallowing somebody's propaganda.

 

[dermeister]

I think Iraq was intended to work as an example - it's unfortunate that the example has not been exemplary...

Oh it did work. When between 2001 and 2003 the US had invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq, every tin-pot Islamo-fascist dictator was shaking in his Baathist boots. Gaddafi unilaterally abandoned his nuclear project. The conception was that they had finally awoken the sleeping Giant. Unfortunately every war has initial failures. The Union took a few years to figure out how to beat the Confederacy after abject losses. The Operation Overlord planners didn't consider the effect of the hedgerows in Normandy. The pacific campaign was costing thousands of casualties per Island captured. All wars start off with a "learning-curve". Similarly, the Americans went in with too few troops, didn't keep cleared areas, didn't interact with the populace (under the Rumsfeld "low-footprint" doctrine), disbanded the Army at once, who promptly turned into killers-for-hire, and failed to block infiltration efforts from foreign fighters and win the confidence of tribal leaders. As soon as the war went bad, the Democrats went from full-support to saying they were tricked. Once this happened, the Iraqis started hedging their bets - what if the Americans leave? All who cooperated would be killed. It has now taken a lot of effort to reverse the tide and win the confidence of the Iraqi people. What happens in Iraq depends on factors we can't predict, the unknown unknowns as Rumsfeld put it. But it certainly seems that we have reached a tipping point, with the Iraqi Army taking the lead and fighting head on, and AlQaeda et al on the ropes and given no room to regroup and recuperate.

The Iraqi experiment may yet work out.

 

[unmerged(38037)]

But look where the worlds largest oil and gas reserves are and look where the US military is. Even the German "Bundeswehr" is in Usbekistan. I think the "war on terror" is a masquerade for the war for energy supply. If you don't believe that give me better explanation what the Iraq war was for.

To try and bring this back on topic. One a war over peak oil would never be in the Middle East.

1) Most of the US's oil supply is not from the Middle East. Its Canada and Venezuela and even Africa and itself.

2) If the US switched to nuclear energy it wouldn't need to import oil or as much.

3) Darfur would be a better excuse to take oil from Sudan. Chavez would be a better excuse to take oil from Venezuela. Heck go and invade Canada for oil its where the US gets its most.

4) People just cannnot admit sometimes war are fought truly to try and help people. They said we fought the Persian Gulf War for oil too. And nope. Oh I suppose we liberated France for wine? And Germany for sausage?

5) From an economic standpoint free trade come at a lot cheaper price than colonizing a country. Just ask the British after the American Revolution.

6) The world said we would reach peak oil during Carter. And they repeated the same thing before.

7) If anything China and India would go to war for oil. Especially India since they have a net increase in population now. And it would mostly be a war between Russia, China and India. Billions of people for billions of barrels. Kill a few millions, get a few millions (money). Its a win win.

8) Alternative energy and drilling at home would be the cheaper and most common sense solution. We already have a war for oil. It was WW2. Japan attacking the US and Germany attacking Russia. That failed. Again they saw that FREE TRADE works better.

 

[unmerged(38037)]

But look where the worlds largest oil and gas reserves are and look where the US military is. Even the German "Bundeswehr" is in Usbekistan. I think the "war on terror" is a masquerade for the war for energy supply. If you don't believe that give me better explanation what the Iraq war was for.

To try and bring this back on topic. One a war over peak oil would never be in the Middle East.

1) Most of the US's oil supply is not from the Middle East. Its Canada and Venezuela and even Africa and itself.

2) If the US switched to nuclear energy it wouldn't need to import oil or as much.

3) Darfur would be a better excuse to take oil from Sudan. Chavez would be a better excuse to take oil from Venezuela. Heck go and invade Canada for oil its where the US gets its most.

4) People just cannnot admit sometimes war are fought truly to try and help people. They said we fought the Persian Gulf War for oil too. And nope. Oh I suppose we liberated France for wine? And Germany for sausage?

5) From an economic standpoint free trade come at a lot cheaper price than colonizing a country. Just ask the British after the American Revolution.

6) The world said we would reach peak oil during Carter. And they repeated the same thing before.

7) If anything China and India would go to war for oil. Especially India since they have a net increase in population now. And it would mostly be a war between Russia, China and India. Billions of people for billions of barrels. Kill a few millions, get a few millions (money). Its a win win.

8) Alternative energy and drilling at home would be the cheaper and most common sense solution. We already have a war for oil. It was WW2. Japan attacking the US and Germany attacking Russia. That failed. Again they saw that FREE TRADE works better.

 

[telesien]

To try and bring this back on topic. One a war over peak oil would never be in the Middle East.

1) Most of the US's oil supply is not from the Middle East. Its Canada and Venezuela and even Africa and itself.

2) If the US switched to nuclear energy it wouldn't need to import oil or as much.

3) Darfur would be a better excuse to take oil from Sudan. Chavez would be a better excuse to take oil from Venezuela. Heck go and invade Canada for oil its where the US gets its most.

4) People just cannnot admit sometimes war are fought truly to try and help people. They said we fought the Persian Gulf War for oil too. And nope. Oh I suppose we liberated France for wine? And Germany for sausage?

5) From an economic standpoint free trade come at a lot cheaper price than colonizing a country. Just ask the British after the American Revolution.

6) The world said we would reach peak oil during Carter. And they repeated the same thing before.

7) If anything China and India would go to war for oil. Especially India since they have a net increase in population now. And it would mostly be a war between Russia, China and India. Billions of people for billions of barrels. Kill a few millions, get a few millions (money). Its a win win.

8) Alternative energy and drilling at home would be the cheaper and most common sense solution. We already have a war for oil. It was WW2. Japan attacking the US and Germany attacking Russia. That failed. Again they saw that FREE TRADE works better.

cool. it is great to see someone using his own brain for a change instead of crackpot theories and popular myths. all thumbs up!!!

 

[himbim]

@Blacksquare: Thanks for bringing us back on topic.

1) Most of the US's oil supply is not from the Middle East. Its Canada and Venezuela and even Africa and itself.

-It doesn't matter who get his oil from where, because oil has e very high energy density the transportation costs are a minor factor. So who gets his oil from where can change within a minute if necessary. What matters is who produces how much oil and who needs how much.

2) If the US switched to nuclear energy it wouldn't need to import oil or as much.

There sure is enough uranium in the world for the ~400 existing powerplants. But to replace the oil you would need them to multiply by ~10 or ~20, because oil is the energy supplier nr. one, and nuclear energy dilivers 20% of the US electricity (only electricity, not the whole energy which includes heating, driving cars . . .). So with 1000 or 2000 nuclear powerplants in the US there would be an uranium problem. Not to mention that the production capacity to build so much of the doesn't exist, and to build one nuc. powerplant normally takes about 10 years. So even if there was enough uranium that would take one or two decades longer than there is left.

I don't know if nuclear energy will be part of the problem or part of the solution, but in pretty sure it will not be "the solution". For that it's just to small.

However in therms of the games: In a MDS which includes Peak Oil you could have events that allow to build some more nuclear plants which help a bit.

3) Darfur would be a better excuse to take oil from Sudan. Chavez would be a better excuse to take oil from Venezuela. Heck go and invade Canada for oil its where the US gets its most.

That are great ideas for events in the game, where you get a casus belli to open another front playing the US. But compared to the oil that lies in Iraq that's just pupikack.

Canada can't reserve it's oil for itself due to NAFTA. The EU tried to get Russia to sign something similar, but they didn't succeed. A war against Canada would also be a big deal because the people there are white an not communists.

5) From an economic standpoint free trade come at a lot cheaper price than colonizing a country. Just ask the British after the American Revolution.

At the moment it appears that way. But there is a trend that says otherwise:
The oil producing countries have rapidly rising domestic oil usage due to the higher oil price they finally can afford lots of cars and other things that use oil. Their policymakers have no choice but to give the oil to the people for much less than it could be sold. Even slight steps to rise that price often lead to riots, that recently happened in Iran for example. So with declining oil production and rising domestic demand there may not be so much oil on the free market anymore.

Your point Number 5 is only true until the price of oil reaches a certain level. Maybe 200$ a barrel ?

6) The world said we would reach peak oil during Carter. And they repeated the same thing before.

Yes there has been a lot of guys making false prediction. Does that prove it isn't going to happen some day ? There is lots of fact that do not prove but suggest it's going to be very soon. But the real trouble will begin when the sum of oil and gas production has peaked. For that, there's a few years left.

7) If anything China and India would go to war for oil. Especially India since they have a net increase in population now. And it would mostly be a war between Russia, China and India. Billions of people for billions of barrels. Kill a few millions, get a few millions (money). Its a win win.

I didn't say the US would have to be the only "bad guy" in that scenario. But who do you think needs the oil more urgent ? The US which is entirely build for cars, or the chinese who are just starting to accustom to it?

8) Alternative energy and drilling at home would be the cheaper and most common sense solution. We already have a war for oil. It was WW2. Japan attacking the US and Germany attacking Russia. That failed. Again they saw that FREE TRADE works better.

I wouldn't say that WW2 was about oil, but it played an important role.

I totally agree that a shift to renewable energy and saving oil in order to be able to pay a much higher price per unit is the better way. But among some peak oil freaks there is a saying: "Did you ever see a general cutting plates of styrofoam?"
So we don't know what is going to happen, and making a game of a bad opportunity seems a good idea to me.

 

[dermeister]

I still think this mod is impossible to do other than it being fantasy - you yourself have no idea when oil will "peak", or when the chinese and americans will tap their own oil and make the peak of current reserves irrelevant.

You might as well make a mod about peak water.

 

[himbim]

Lol, no the water isn't that big of a deal, but maybe at some point it will become necessary for agriculture to invest in better irrigation systems.

But yes i have an idea, buts I don't know for sure. At the moment it looks like peak oil was ~2007, and peak of the sum of oil & gas, which is more important maybe around 2010.
And of course such a Mod would have to be fantasy because it plays in the future.

If you think those "unproven reserves" (by the way i doubt even some of the "proven" ones) can be tapped, don't you wonder when it's going to happen? We have 5 years of rising oil prices now and I don't see a huge investment boom from the big oil companies even though their oil production recently started do shrink.

 

[dermeister]

Lol, no the water isn't that big of a deal, but maybe at some point it will become necessary for agriculture to invest in better irrigation systems.

But yes i have an idea, buts I don't know for sure. At the moment it looks like peak oil was ~2007, and peak of the sum of oil & gas, which is more important maybe around 2010.
And of course such a Mod would have to be fantasy because it plays in the future.

If you think those "unproven reserves" (by the way i doubt even some of the "proven" ones) can be tapped, don't you wonder when it's going to happen? We have 5 years of rising oil prices now and I don't see a huge investment boom from the big oil companies even though their oil production recently started do shrink.

The american environmental movement is blocking drilling in ANWAR and the continental shelf. Furthermore, the US Federal Government owns vast territory and it is illegal to even take a shovel to it, let alone drill. Basically the amount of petrol in the US is staggering.

 

[Stahler]

Himbim-I just wanted to say that i think a peak oil scenario would be very interesting.

You seem to have a good grasp of the realities.
Most other posters in this thread dont. But this is a gamers site so I leave the argumentation for sites that deal with reality. Im here to game.

/S

 

[General Guisan]

I say there won't really be a serious issue with oil actually going tight. I guess we get at least another 20 years of oil flowing at 90% and more of current level, probably even 100%... so car companies go currently broke who had too big cars eating too much petrol, and smaller cars are replacing the big cars, and in a few years we'll have electric cars going "broad", probably replacing current "fuel" cars in 20 years.

Oil will be available for the industry (plastic) and for some other uses where you can't replace it that easily, but with the burden of mass-traffic gone, oil will keep much longer. Just have the american usage drop to EU-level, and you can have the Chinese having EU-level as well, with the same usage.

So, the current and further oil prices will hurt mostly the US, and force them for better energy standard with their houses, as well as better efficency on other things related to oil usage (Car, AC, cooking etc.)

Petrol here in Europe might have gone up 20% in the last few years, but it didn't doubled like in US. People in Europe might get their heating bill up 100 €, but they'll be able to heat their homes. US population, who were used to have extremely low oil prices, will take the heavy hit. Of course, US gouvernment tries pretty much everything to get the oil price down and secure enough oil for the us at cheap rates, but most things went bad (Invading US over weapons of mass destruction, when the utterly lie was laughed by everyone changed to "Freedom for the people" and now instead of getting millions of cheap oil, they get thousands of death soldiers...or drilling in nature reservates..)

The US get only around 15 years left to massivly change their whole living habits. Current bancruptions of airlines etc. are just the top of the ice, I say most american car builders won't survive the next 5 years (or will be bought by Japanese companies) as well as people will have to get used to mass transit instead of using cars etc.

So, only when the US take the chance now, get some smart guys to rule their countries instead of another prezel-is-too-dangerous guy, they'll be able to slow down the decline. In 2050, China will have become the new global number 1 no matter what, with the Americans either stay an important global factor (like EU is today) or going to become something like todays Russia.(Big in size, relatively important, but highly inefficent)

 

[dermeister]

I say there won't really be a serious issue with oil actually going tight. I guess we get at least another 20 years of oil flowing at 90% and more of current level, probably even 100%... so car companies go currently broke who had too big cars eating too much petrol, and smaller cars are replacing the big cars, and in a few years we'll have electric cars going "broad", probably replacing current "fuel" cars in 20 years.

Tight supply causes prices to increase as a rationing mechanism. 90-100% consumption is serious. Please refer to an Econ-101 equivalent for more on that.

Oil will be available for the industry (plastic) and for some other uses where you can't replace it that easily, but with the burden of mass-traffic gone, oil will keep much longer. Just have the american usage drop to EU-level, and you can have the Chinese having EU-level as well, with the same usage.

The "burden" of mass-traffic disappearing is laughable. Will Jet-planes be replaced by electric planes? Give me a break. The internal combustion engine is the engine of freedom and economic growth, and it is here to stay for the long haul. No burden here.

So, the current and further oil prices will hurt mostly the US, and force them for better energy standard with their houses, as well as better efficency on other things related to oil usage (Car, AC, cooking etc.)

Supplying energy to homes is easy: nuclear power. Unfortunately, the American left thinks Nuclear Power="ATOM BOMB RADIO EXPLODE KILL", and so it blocks all that. It also blocks clean-coal plants. Go-figure.

Petrol here in Europe might have gone up 20% in the last few years, but it didn't doubled like in US. People in Europe might get their heating bill up 100 €, but they'll be able to heat their homes. US population, who were used to have extremely low oil prices, will take the heavy hit. Of course, US gouvernment tries pretty much everything to get the oil price down and secure enough oil for the us at cheap rates, but most things went bad (Invading US over weapons of mass destruction, when the utterly lie was laughed by everyone changed to "Freedom for the people" and now instead of getting millions of cheap oil, they get thousands of death soldiers...or drilling in nature reservates..)

WMDs were one reason to invade out of many. 550 TONS of Yellowcake were haulled out of Iraq this week, by the way.

The US get only around 15 years left to massivly change their whole living habits. Current bancruptions of airlines etc. are just the top of the ice, I say most american car builders won't survive the next 5 years (or will be bought by Japanese companies) as well as people will have to get used to mass transit instead of using cars etc.

No, nobody has to massively change their lifestyles. Sorry, but it's not for you to decide how people live. Americans are already reacting to high prices by pressuring Congress to lift the ban on domestic drilling. Your fantasies of altering people's lives by dictate and fiat will remain just that, fantasies.

So, only when the US take the chance now, get some smart guys to rule their countries instead of another prezel-is-too-dangerous guy, they'll be able to slow down the decline. In 2050, China will have become the new global number 1 no matter what, with the Americans either stay an important global factor (like EU is today) or going to become something like todays Russia.(Big in size, relatively important, but highly inefficent)

George Bush will be remembered as one of America's greatest presidents, China will either morph to Russian-style fascism or have a Liberal revolution, but will never be number one. Fully-robotic manufacturing (spearheaded by the USA) will render their industry obsolete within the next decades. The EU is not an important global factor, they don't even have their own defense forces. A few Franco-German brigades here and there constitute nothing. They've created massive pyramid-scheme welfare-states and have declining populations (pyramid schemes rely on increasing populations and collapse without them). The disgrace of a passive Europe in the face of what happened in Yugoslavia and the intervention of the Americans further proves that. All France is good at is assassinating African leaders it doesn't like every now and then. Switzerland just keeps playing war-profiteer as usual. Eastern Europe is actually following the leadership of GWB who you hate so much. Europe actually elected more important pro-american leaders in GWB's term. Russia is basically fucked. Declining pop (like Europe but they don't have Algerians to pad their birthrates.) A resource-hungry China eye-ing Russian Manchuria. An economy so pathetic it relies on resources for income, putting it on par with countries like Qatar. The USA will continue to lead, as it has in the 20th century.

I always find it funny to read predictions of the decline of the USA by Europeans... it's as if they felt the need to justify the fact that their own continent is in a death-spiral decline by saying "the US too! the US too!... just wait... it'll happen..."

 

[{LD}Firestorm]

All one needs to do is look at the economy of the states at the moment, and see it is declinding, maybe not to death but its going to hurt.

 

[unmerged(81350)]

1) Peak Oil isn't about environmentalism at all.

2)


Well you've just profen that you've got no idea what the message of peak oil is: Nobody says we've ten years left. But there will be less oil coming from the ground than today in a few years. Thats a geolocical theory which is pretty much proven. The only diskussion is about the "when" not about the "if".

And that alone is enough to bring the US economy down to it's knees since they're so dependant on cheap oil.

For Iraq, the Peak of Oil Production is predicted for about ~2018, so invading the last big oil producer that will be left, might not be a coincidence.

Your comparison with Nazi Germany an the French wine is a poor one, since Germany can survive without French wine, while Americans wouldn't be able to get to work, heat their homes and so on . . .
Oil might be only a small part of the gross domestic product, but we can't live without it.



Well that is ridiculous. Did you read that in the "Bild-Zeitung" ? Or the "Spiegel," the "Bild-Zeitung" for the better off people ? No, seriously who tells such fairytails, where did you get that "information" ?

Hey buddy I've read Spiegel International for about the past year and to be honest while it is a different prespective it also has a fairly Euroliberal slant. (If you want examples PM me and we'll talk). I usually take things I hear in Spiegel with a nice helping of salt.

Also yes people have predicted peak oil before and no it has never happened. What we see today has happened in the 40's, 50's, and also 70's and 80's. Each time we thought we were going to run out of oil until advances in electronics (for finding oil reserves) and metalurgy (for making drills that go deeper) increased our capacity to extract oil.

Its the human condition look for devloping problems and solve them but the fact is alot of people here love history because if you see a similar pattern of events now that have occured before you know the outcome, in this case, a bunch of worry over nothing.

 

[unmerged(105989)]

Just throwing this into the conversation -

Iraq had given the US (and the UN) multiple Cassus Bellis.
1) By the UN commision's own statement - Iraq was violating the terms of their CEASEFIRE with the coalition. The US was acting militarily in 1991 in accordance with a UN resolution. That same resolution authorized the use of force to enforce compliance. That resolution never expired - ergo - the same UN resolution also authorized the use of force in 2003.
2) Iraq had attempted to assassinate a former president - 'nuff said.
3) Iraq continued to actively engage coalition aircraft enforcing "no fly zones" put in place to prevent Saddam from massacring his own population. (didn't work that well, and this is unfortunate). This ALSO was a violation of the cease fire.

So basically, what happened after 9/11 is the US got tired of dealing with Saddam and decided to end this once and for all. Yeah, there is a lot of oil in Iraq. I guess we should only fight resource poor countries so our motives are never questioned.

**Truth in Lending** I'm in the US Army and am in Iraq right now on my 2nd tour.

 

[General Guisan]

Just throwing this into the conversation -

Iraq had given the US (and the UN) multiple Cassus Bellis.
1) By the UN commision's own statement - Iraq was violating the terms of their CEASEFIRE with the coalition.

So the US never violated any treaties? If you go this way, Russia and China get at least 1000 Casus Belli...

The US was acting militarily in 1991 in accordance with a UN resolution. That same resolution authorized the use of force to enforce compliance. That resolution never expired - ergo - the same UN resolution also authorized the use of force in 2003..

They somehow got the UN to "approve" that war using faked evidence.. c'mon. 1991 was different, but US already back to than was to blame, as they delivered all those weapons to Saddam. They wanted him to kick Iran... too bad he didn't read it said "only for Iran" and used them on Kuwait as well. Wasn't there something similar in Afghanistan with Russians and some religious defenders? :rofl: US apparently never learn...

2) Iraq had attempted to assassinate a former president - 'nuff said.

So did Kuba... oh, they're still here...?!

3) Iraq continued to actively engage coalition aircraft enforcing "no fly zones" put in place to prevent Saddam from massacring his own population. (didn't work that well, and this is unfortunate). This ALSO was a violation of the cease fire.

Yes, the US invasion certainly helped to keep the population away from massacring itself, you're right... in Tubby-Land

So basically, what happened after 9/11 is the US got tired of dealing with Saddam and decided to end this once and for all. Yeah, there is a lot of oil in Iraq. I guess we should only fight resource poor countries so our motives are never questioned.

Why do you connect 9/11 with Saddam? Did you get any evidence apparently the whole world is missing? Oil wasn't the only reason they invaded Iraq, but it was a strong argument. They also wanted their "domino democracy effect" to apply in all the middle east. Too bad that thing was pretty much nonsense.

**Truth in Lending** I'm in the US Army and am in Iraq right now on my 2nd tour.

I'm sorry for you.

 

[unmerged(105989)]

I'm curious as to which treaties you're specifically referring to in which the US violated Treaties with the USSR and China. But leaving that alone, I fail to see how Iraq violating the terms of the 1991 ceasefire does NOT constitute a reason to resume hostilities. The US did not "trick" anyone into "approving" a war against Iraq in 1991. It did lead the coalition, but the UN voted. Maybe all those diplomats are utter fools, who knows? but I doubt it.

Cuba has tried to assassinate a US president, but then again, Cuba is much less belligerent towards us than Iraq pre-2003 was.

Yes, you're right, a lot of people died in sectarian fighting, fighting between the coalition and insurgents, as well as insurgents and terrorists murdering others simply to maintain power. But the invasion was not simply to make sure that everyone in Iraq held hands and lived together, it was to remove a hostile government that had violated the terms of the UN sponsored cease fire.

As for weapons, you're right the US did provide weapons to Saddam - when he was engaged in a war with a country that was sponsoring terrorism worldwide and had held Americans hostage for 444 days. Ever heard the line "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? sometimes you work with people you find less than desirable against your enemies. As for providing weapons - at least we stopped. I wish the same could be said of our good European friends and allies. Those that weren't actively participating in the oil for food scandal, were actively selling weapons to the Iraqi army - during the sanctions that THEY had voted for!!!! I'll forgive a lot, but when I'm getting shot at by German and French made weapons sold to Iraq in 2002, I don't have a lot of patience.

The only connection Saddam had with 9/11 is that that day sparked a watershed in US foreign policy. The US decided that rather than wait for the blow to fall, it would go out after hostile governments that were actively trying to undermine the US.

Finally, why are you sorry for me?? I'm here doing my job, helping make Iraq a better place. I was here in 2003 and the differences are huge.

P.S. - The personal nature of your attacks and your insistance that the US is wrong have pretty much convinced me that I will not change your mind. Rather, I feel sorry for you.

 

[General Guisan]

The US did not "trick" anyone into "approving" a war against Iraq in 1991. It did lead the coalition, but the UN voted. Maybe all those diplomats are utter fools, who knows? but I doubt it.

Finally, why are you sorry for me?? I'm here doing my job, helping make Iraq a better place. I was here in 2003 and the differences are huge.

Sorry for giving you a rather harsh answer, I thought you're on the "Die Hard Bush" line... let's try with a fresh start.

Well, about 1991, the thing I mentioned was the fake with the daugther of the kuwaitian ambassador to the US, who they presented before the UN as a woman who worked in a kuwait hospital and "saw" how iraqi troops killed dozens of new-born babies. Whole thing was a big fake and certainly helped to swing the situation for the coalition. I do agree that action had to be taken in 1991, but if you do it with lies, what does say this to the public?

See here:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cohen1.html or just do a search on google with "kuwait nurse 1991" or similar... you'll find enough references...

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_&_Knowlton

" "Nurse Nayirah"

* In 1990, on behalf of the US-funded and US-directed Citizens for a Free Kuwait, H&K researched and then created stories and “eye-witness” testimonies that described Iraqi atrocities that would build public support for Desert Storm. These "eye-witnesses" were presented to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus and included the fraudulent "Nurse Nayirah" testimony that played a major role in involving the US in the Gulf War. She testified that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers killing hundreds of premature babies at the al-Addan hospital in Kuwait City. "They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die," she said. Congressmen were stunned. It was only after Desert Storm had officially ended that ABC reporter John Martin discovered that the none of these tales of atrocities were true. "Nayirah" (Nijirah al-Sabah) was actually the daughter of the Kuwait House of Al-Sabah royal family member Saud Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Without Hill & Knowlton's PR, the Gulf War would not have been as favorable to Americans. Much is made that at this time H&K's Washington office was headed by Craig Fuller, the former chief of staff and good friend of George Bush, Sr.[citation needed] This has been covered in a documentary film called To Sell a War."

Yes I think that finally the plans to stabilize Iraq are doing some progress. The initiale plan "kick the door in and ???" wasn't really that good, I guess we can agree on this. Too bad it needed years and hundred of thousands of death people for the military/administration to realize this.

I wish you personale all the best to help them developing to become a better country, but so far the invasion hasn't really helped the population to prosper. Mind you, now iraquian refugees are at the top of any people asking for asylum in the EU. More than from any other country, even from those african countries you can read in the newspaper ever other day that another boat was found... Iraq is still a long, long way away from anything but a peaceful country. And this is actually the thing on which I agree with J. Cain, that at least he says that "America did the fu**up, so we'll have to fix it", and not like the democrats who are swinging their mod every day.

Try to show the world that the US can actually fix Iraq, and the world opinion in the future might be much higher on them in 20, 30 years. Or fail, and well, you know that thing with Russia in Afghanistan...

 

[unmerged(105989)]

Thanks for the response. As for the 1991 sell - yeah there was some hysteria, but the decision was made based upon more than just that.

As for the initial occupation plan - I was there in 2003, no need to tell me the initial occupation plan was FUBAR (the actual invasion was a brilliant piece of work though - and ya'll should study it). However, that said, just cause your plan is FUBAR doesn't necessarily mean that the operation wasn't a good idea. Believe it or not, the country is coming around. The corner of the city that I was responsible for, when we first got there - you just didn't go there unless you wanted a fight. Now, thanks in large part to the IA (we did a lot, but there are much more of them) that area is one of the quietest parts of the city. You know though, this could have been easier but name one war where everything worked and no one screwed up.

 

[unmerged(83622)]

Oil is a limited resource. Limited resources have an end. Thus, sooner or later, it will have to peak. After that, production will go down, and eventually we will run out of it. That can hardly be debatable. And even if it is something that I, as a euroweenie, would love to think, the idea that USA only invaded Iraq because of oil is rather ludicrous.