or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › War with Iraq...this Fall?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

War with Iraq...this Fall?

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
No, not a new TV show on WB17...

My cousin went to see her financial analyst and wanted to know when she should re-invest some stocks. He said that she should hold for a few months because we will be at war...

She told him that we are already at war...with Afganistan. He told her that from reliable sources we will attack Iraq in the Fall...then there will be a surge on Wall Street and that would be the time to buy...

Typical ANALyst B.S. or an actual action we may take this Fall? I wonder...

Any thoughts or opinions?
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #2 of 13
Wouldn't now be the best time to buy? All the stock prices are at a bargain! When the market "surges" they'll go up in price.

I'd say that analyst is an idiot. "Reliable sources"?? Oh you mean <a href="http://www.drudgereport.com" target="_blank">The Drudge Report</a>



[ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: Willoughby ]</p>
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
Reply
post #3 of 13
CIA INFORMANT: PSSST. Hey...hey buddy. Over here...
All stocks are a hold, going to war soon!

STOCK BROKER: OH. OK...I'll be sure to let my clients know.

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #4 of 13
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs:
<strong>CIA INFORMANT: PSSST. Hey...hey buddy. Over here...
All stocks are a hold, going to war soon!

STOCK BROKER: OH. OK...I'll be sure to let my clients know.

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, yeah I know...and yer right...buy now, sell at war...half asleep...still...from the NYTimes:

U.S. Exploring Baghdad Strike as Iraq Option
By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER


ASHINGTON, July 28 As the Bush administration considers its military options for deposing Saddam Hussein, senior administration and Pentagon officials say they are exploring a new if risky approach: take Baghdad and one or two key command centers and weapons depots first, in hopes of cutting off the country's leadership and causing a quick collapse of the government.

The "inside-out" approach, as some call this Baghdad-first option, would capitalize on the American military's ability to strike over long distances, maneuvering forces to envelop a large target. Those advocating that plan say it reflects a strong desire to find a strategy that would not require a full quarter-million American troops, yet hits hard enough to succeed. One important aim would be to disrupt Iraq's ability to order the use of weapons of mass destruction.

The advantages and risks of strikes aimed deep inside the country and radiating outward are now under active discussion, according to senior administration and Defense Department officials. No formal plan has yet been presented to President Bush or the senior members of his national security team, and several officials cautioned that a number of alternatives were still under consideration.

The inside-out ideas are essentially the reverse of the American strategy in the Persian Gulf war of 1991, which dislodged Mr. Hussein's occupying army from Kuwait.

The aim would be to kill or isolate Mr. Hussein and to pre-empt Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction, whether against an incoming force, front-line allies or Israel. Those weapons are the wild card in all the outlines of a military confrontation.

Officials say it may be possible to paralyze an Iraqi command-and-control system that is highly centralized and authoritarian. Under such a system, midlevel officers are not taught to improvise, should they be cut off from commanders. It is also possible that those midlevel officers, if they fear that Mr. Hussein has been killed, would not bother to fire weapons of mass destruction.

If that can be accomplished with a smaller invasion force than the 250,000 troops suggested in early drafts, the approach could appeal to skittish gulf allies whose bases would be required for a war.

Those states are quietly advocating the quickest and smallest military operation possible, to lessen anti-American protests on their streets. In that sense, the war planning includes the political dimension of trying to tip reluctant allies into supporting, tacitly at least, the operation.

Something nearer the 250,000 figure might have to be deployed to the region anyway, to make sure that any forces that drop into Baghdad do not become isolated or surrounded, bereft of a land line providing military support, food and ammunition.

The Defense Department deputy spokesman, Bryan Whitman, said the Pentagon would have no comment on potential military plans for Iraq.

But it is clear that the debate over whether and how to dislodge Mr. Hussein is gaining speed within the administration and on Capitol Hill.

"There is a divergence of views on how can one best diminish the prospect that he uses weapons of mass destruction, with any efficacy," said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who stressed that he had not been briefed on administration thinking.

Senator Biden, who is preparing to hold hearings on Iraq this week, said in an interview: "That is where the argument for an inside-out operation gains credibility. There is a diminished possibility that he will use chemical or biological weapons."

In May, President Bush was presented with concepts that advocated a major invasion, but some senior officials are said to view the plan as unimaginative.

In contrast, a key national security aide, retired Gen. Wayne A. Downing, had reportedly argued that Mr. Hussein could be toppled with minimal numbers of Americans on the ground, provided they were backed up by huge airstrikes. However, senior officials concluded that a proxy battle would be insufficient to bring a change in power in Iraq, and General Downing left the White House last month.

"It's easy to rule out both ends of the spectrum," one senior Defense Department official said. "We are looking at the three or four options in between."

No timetable has been set for military action, and if President Bush decides to go ahead, his aides say, he will have to make a public, convincing case about why Mr. Hussein poses an intolerable threat to the United States and its allies. Some members of Congress, including conservative Republicans, are beginning to urge Mr. Bush to explain his reasoning and goals before committing American forces to topple a foreign government that has not attacked the United States.

"The time will come to do all of that," a senior administration official said in an interview on Friday. "And no one is opposed to doing it."

A plan to immobilize the Iraqi leadership would draw from lessons learned on maneuver warfare in the invasion of Panama, which Dick Cheney and Colin L. Powell directed, and on the surprise Inchon Sea landing in Korea in 1951, according to officials who monitor the internal debate.

"To the degree that you can have strategic and, especially, tactical surprise in any military operation, that is important," said another senior Defense Department official. President Bush has put Mr. Hussein on direct notice that regime change is American policy. But just as the Taliban and Al Qaeda had little doubt that the United States would respond to the attacks of Sept. 11, the timing and tactics achieved a great measure of surprise, military officials said.

Baghdad is ringed by Mr. Hussein's most elite forces, and the city itself is filled with antiaircraft batteries. While officials declined to discuss details of any new operation in detail, it would probably include intense air attacks followed by a combined airborne and ground assault on strategic targets.

Senior administration and Pentagon officials said they expected that a military action against Iraq would be mostly American-run, with Britain the only partner contributing significant forces. But cooperation from allies in the region particularly in the form of bases would be essential.

Persian Gulf governments have significant areas of agreement with Mr. Bush's policy, and equally important areas of concern, according to senior officials, diplomats and military officers from the region.

Those nations have issued warnings against American military action, have called for dialogue with Baghdad and they identified with Iraq at the Arab League summit meeting last spring, yet gulf state officials said Mr. Hussein, while contained today, remained a threat.

"We don't like Saddam," said one senior gulf diplomat. "We don't believe he is a peaceful neighbor."

To win support of those strategic allies, America has to ensure that next time, the military operation will take down Mr. Hussein once and for all, officials from the region say.

"Any war against Iraq has to be successful," said another senior gulf official. "America has to nail down the objective of the war."

Officials from those nations are equally adamant that any military action should be the minimum necessary to bring about a change in rule. "The worst scenario from our view would be a big war by air and land and with lots of bombs and civilian casualties," said a gulf official.

In any case, the gulf nations first want the United States to demonstrate some progress in the crisis between the Palestinians and Israelis before opening yet another front in the region, after Afghanistan.

In concentrating its attention on an air campaign and ground action, the military and administration officials have been weighing troop deployments ranging from 70,000 to 250,000. The new plan under discussion could conceivably be carried out at the lower range of that spectrum.

Pentagon officials warn that tracking Mr. Hussein with any certainty is difficult if not impossible, as shown by the global manhunt now under way for Osama bin Laden. Likewise, despite a decade of intense scrutiny of Iraq's missile program and its efforts to field biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, America's knowledge of hidden labs, storage areas and mobile missile sites is still spotty.

Iraq is thought to possess a small number of Scud missiles "A handful. A couple of handfuls, maybe," according to a senior Defense Department official. Senior military officials express confidence that the United States would do a much better job hunting mobile Scuds next time than they did during the gulf war, because of coverage from satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Iraq has studied ways to counter stealth aircraft and improve its tracking and jamming abilities. But for the most part, "They have mostly not used or tried to use air defenses very effectively," said another senior Pentagon official.

This "inside out" plans sounds logical...

Anyways...stocks are surging again...whatever... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #5 of 13
Yep, read that very article earlier this morning. Always strikes me as odd how we see no problems with tipping off our enemy as to our potential plans. Granted, not a ton of detail there and no indication of when it could happen, but why give them any means of preparation?

This whole "get pubic buy-in before you send the troops" thing is ridiculous. Gives the press the idea they're entitled to classified information for one thing...which they're not. Regardless, the people there are the ones we elected. If you don't trust them to manage our military affairs with prudence, then you shouldn't have elected him/her. Talking about Congress as much as the President here. Let 'em do their jobs and quit making it front page news - oh but that would make too much sense. Americans like gossip.



[ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #6 of 13
Thread Starter 
Fellas, I don't know but I think the rumors of attack are getting more frequent...(forget about the analyst...). I found this article about a speech by former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter.

He has some pretty chilling things to say. This link is to a radical web site but the reporting of the meeting/speech is pretty unbiased...

<a href="http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc622.html" target="_blank">http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc622.html</a>

I think this thread might be moving to Fireside Chat now... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #7 of 13
Do you really think Bush will declare war in the fall with the new TV season coming up?


--
Tightening homeland security is near useless against people willing to give their lives.
Foreign policy is the problem and no one (in the US) is even considering addressing that as part of the solution.

This old joke gives the best advice....
Patient: Doctor it hurts when I do this.
Doctor: Dont do that!
i got a letter from the government the other day i opened and read it it said they were suckers they wanted me for their army or whatever picture me given' a damn I said never here is a land that...
Reply
i got a letter from the government the other day i opened and read it it said they were suckers they wanted me for their army or whatever picture me given' a damn I said never here is a land that...
Reply
post #8 of 13
Yay! Moogs is back!

Anyhow, I hope we go to war this fall, sign me up for front row seats
post #9 of 13
Politically it makes perfect sense. He can have his war to boost his poll ratings, but the ramifications of the war wont be felt until after the 2002 midterm elections. Then, if all goes well, a big if I might add, the republicans can use the war to get a second term, and increase their hold on the congress.

This is a very pessimistic, political, and domestic view of the war, and I believe, and hope, that the Bush administration is considering more than just the political benefits of the war.

I haven't decided yet, but I think I am leaning against the war. I just feel that europe is too selfish and cowardly (Britain excluded) to help us with a war against Iraq(In a propoganda way, we do not need their military support).

[ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: chweave1 ]</p>
GO HOKIES!!
Reply
GO HOKIES!!
Reply
post #10 of 13
[quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:
<strong>He told her that from reliable sources we will attack Iraq in the Fall...then there will be a surge on Wall Street and that would be the time to buy...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Jesus Christ. Reliable sources?! Open your god damn eyes, our sec of state has been spouting off for months like we never funded the bastard Saddam and didn't let him retain power while simultaneously strangling internal rebellions. The writing has been on the wall for a helluva long time.
post #11 of 13
*If* US goes to war with Iraq, it will not happen in the Autumn but in the Winter for the follwing three reasons:

1. Mid-Term elections in November
Nothing will be decided until after elections for political reasons. US is starting to build up a case now and prepare the public. When its ready, it will state reasons for attack to public for public support. In other words, learn the lessons of Pearl Harbour and the lessons of Viet Nam.

2. Weather Conditions in Iraq (not too hot)
This is pretty obvious. Cannot fight in 100F weather. Note: Gulf War.

3. Oil Prices
This is more important. Oil consumption is the least in winter when people drive less (Cars consume the majority of oil consumption) and there are no summer holidays. With Oil consumption less in Winter, US dependence on OPEC is less. Oil is $20-25 a barrell. It could be either $6 or $60 depending on OPEC output. Russia is important as a no-OPEC oil supplier. If US outcome in Iraq is favorable, Iraqi Oil production can go from 2M barrells/day (under UN Oil-for-Food programme) to 5M. For this reason, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others in region have no economic interest in US attacking Iraq. (See T Freidman in NYTimes today on this).

4. Holidays (Christmas, Hannakah (spelt it wrong), and Ramadan). But this is not always the case here and is less important than the above three.

So, for these reasons, my guess *IF* US decides to invade/attack Iraq is late Dec/Jan 03 and into a Spring offensive but not before November.

Lastly, the New Yorker two months ago did an excellent report of Iraq and their use of biological and chemical weapons use on animals and Kurds in norther Iraq. They were experimenting with the weapons to see how effective their chemical program is and how weather/wind patterns killed many. So, there are many reasons including defying the UN Inspections. It is not a simple humanitarian nor a simple Oil issue but a complex fabric which is only more complicated now due to current events in the Middle East, Sept 11th, and others.

Best
post #12 of 13
[quote]Originally posted by chweave1:
<strong> I just feel that europe is too selfish and cowardly (Britain excluded) to help us with a war against Iraq(In a propoganda way, we do not need their military support).

[ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: chweave1 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


chweave1,
See current prospect magazine on American Power. It highlights differences in Europe and America.

<a href="http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/</a>

The power divide
Â*
August 2002
Â*
It is time to pretending that Americans and Europeans share a common view of the world

Robert Kagan
Â*
It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power-the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power-American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power or, rather, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and prosperity, the realisation of Kant's "perpetual peace." The US, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defence and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might. That is why on major strategic questions today, Americans and Europeans understand one another less and less. And this state of affairs is not transitory-the product of one US election or one catastrophic event. The reasons for the transatlantic divide are deep and likely to endure. When it comes to setting national priorities, determining threats and fashioning and implementing foreign and defence policies, the US and Europe have parted ways.

America, say many European intellectuals, is dominated by a "culture of death," the product of a violent society where everyone has a gun and the death penalty reigns. But even those Europeans who do not make this crude link agree there are deep differences in the way the US and Europe conduct foreign policy.

The US, they argue, resorts to force more quickly and is less patient with diplomacy. Americans generally see the world divided between good and evil. When confronting adversaries, Americans favour policies of coercion rather than persuasion, emphasising punitive sanctions over inducements to better behaviour, the stick over the carrot. Americans tend to seek finality in international affairs. They want problems solved, threats eliminated. And, of course, Americans increasingly tend toward unilateralism in international affairs. They are less inclined to act through international institutions such as the UN, less inclined to work with other nations to pursue common goals, more sceptical about international law and more willing to operate outside its strictures.

Europeans insist they approach problems with greater nuance and sophistication. They are more tolerant of failure, more patient. They prefer persuasion to coercion. They are quicker to appeal to international law and international opinion to adjudicate disputes. They try to use commercial and economic ties to bind nations together. They often emphasise process over result, believing that ultimately process can become substance.


........it continues on the above link (don't want to clutter this board with a long article)
post #13 of 13
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by serrano:
<strong>

Jesus Christ. Reliable sources?! Open your god damn eyes, our sec of state has been spouting off for months like we never funded the bastard Saddam and didn't let him retain power while simultaneously strangling internal rebellions. The writing has been on the wall for a helluva long time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I already mentioned that I think the ANALyst was wacked. But believing our Sec of State is also like hearing the word of Christ...I "heard" it but I don't believe it.

Did anyone read the speech I linked above? Doesn't seem so. It is another angle on this issue and and I for one have some belief in what he says. This is the man who headed the UN Inspections teams in Iraq...he points on all issues and reasons in this speech.

We'll see...this government is wacked. They have so many problems being foisted on them that they are losing sight of the real issues. But that's what happens all the time...
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › War with Iraq...this Fall?