1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A diplomatic tool

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Steve, Jan 22, 2003.

  1. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    Something I don't recall hearing debated: the possibility that the Bush Administration is using the U.S. military as a negotiating tool.

    Let's face it - Hussein is one recalcitrant SOB, to put it mildly. He's demonstrated time and again that he will do whatever he thinks he can get away with doing.

    Perhaps the President is using the very real threat of military action to get Hussein to concede, however reluctantly and slowly, to full disclosure and regulation, with an eye toward discrediting him amongst his own people to the point where he can be removed.
     
  2. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I have often wondered the same thing. But I think you should not use the military as a negotiating tool if you do not intend to use them. So the point is moot. If they suddenly have a new government without Saddam and we have full inspection of every corner of the country we do not need to attack. Anything short of that requires we attack.
     
  3. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    Oh, I think the Administration is more than prepared to excercise force and I know the military is prepared to open a big ol' can of whoopass. And the threat of force isn't very useful if the person being threatened doesn't believe it will be used.

    So, let's hope ol' Hussein is paying close attention to how the U.S. is studiously ignoring world opinion and pay even closer attention to regular news reports of more troop deployments.
     
  4. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    Much criticism is heaped on Bush for his "inflammatory" language and movement of troops, but it does keep the pressure on Saddam to allow the inspectors free reign and, who knows, maybe it makes Saddam jump out of bed every night he hears a vehicle backfire.

    Really, what's the alternative? Bush to say that no troops will be moved and he will not even consider an attack until June? If he said that earlier, would the inspectors not still be waiting to start?
     
  5. immortal one

    immortal one 501st Geronimo

    Mr. President has had his post-Saddam plans regarding Iraq for months. He has created an office run by the Pentagon which will move into Iraq immediately after the carnage has ceased. The stated purpose is to rebuild the schools, roads, hospitals and what would remain of the Iraqi society. Retired General Jay Garner will head that office, and our military will maintain the civil order in that devastated country.

    The energy corporations will like it there so much, they may even eventually adopt Iraq as the 51st state. When they get their control of the untold wealth of the Iraqi oil and gas reserves, they won't ever let it go.

    Baby I'll be there to take your hand...baby I'll be there to share the land...
     
  6. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    I really cannot understand why anyone continues to think it's all about cheap energy. If that were the case, the easiest and simplest thing to do would be for the U.S. to lift sanctions and stop enforcing them, and allow Iraq to open the pipes to the world market.

    You'd see gasoline in the states drop below $1/gallon within two months.
     
  7. immortal one

    immortal one 501st Geronimo

    I think it has something to do with who has control over the energy resources as well. If the sanctions against Iraq were lifted, Saddam would be counting those trillions of $$$ for himself. That's exactly what they don't want to see.
    Gas prices below $1/gallon in the states mean less profits for our domestic energy barons, and they certainly don't want that.
    I don't think it's all about cheap energy, or even oil, but rather about the power and profits which would be gained from the control of those resources.
     

Share This Page