Yemen will be first to fall in attack on Iraq

[Nic Name]

Yemen may be al-Qaida's new base

The justification for controlling Yemen will be as follows:

> Osama Bin Ladin is of Yemeni descent and many of his Al Qaeda buddies are Yemeni.

> Osama Bin Ladin is implicated in the December 1992 Hotel bombings in Yemen against U.S. servicemen enroute to Somalia.

> The attack on the USS Cole was in Yemen.

> The USA is making a case that Yemen is the new base of Al Qaeda.

> The recent attack on the French tanker will be more evidence that Yemen is a country harboring terrorists.

> It was a British Protectorate until 1967 and has not had any stable government since the Brits pulled out. The Brits will be ready to get back into Yemen with the Americans.

> It is strategically important for military control of the region, both for naval fleets and airports, without having to rely on the Saudis, or even the Brits for Diego Garcia to launch its bombers in the region.

Background: North Yemen became independent of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. The British, who had set up a protectorate area around the southern port of Aden in the 19th century, withdrew in 1967 from what became South Yemen. Three years later, the southern government adopted a Marxist orientation. The massive exodus of hundreds of thousands of Yemenis from the south to the north contributed to two decades of hostility between the states. The two countries were formally unified as the Republic of Yemen in 1990. A southern secessionist movement in 1994 was quickly subdued. In 2000, Saudi Arabia and Yemen agreed to a delimitation of their border.

What do ya think the US Marines Expeditionary Unity is doing in nearby Djibouti?




With a permanent militarty presence in Yemen, the USA could smack down Somalia, as well.

[hermit22]

Actually, Yemen would have been a better first target, if the issues in the Guardian article are correct. The stigma of Bush trying to exact revenge would no longer be there, and the al-Qaeda link would be more prevalent. It would deter much of the criticism. However, going after Yemen after Iraq? If the war in Iraq is any longer than Afghanistan, then public opinion wouldn't allow for it.

But then again, that could be why they went after Iraq in the first place.

And as a final note, the area of Saudi Arabia that all 15 of the Saudis involved in 9/11 came from, bordered on Yemen. The region has long been known for it's political dissidence against Mecca. Not quite sure what my point is with that, since it is way too late, but I figure I'll throw it out there anyway.

[Nic Name]

What I'm suggesting is that Yemen will be attacked before Iraq, not as a war on Yemen, but as a continuation of the coalition war on al qaeda ... and that it will be a strong base from which to attack Iraq in the spring of 2003 and control the region militarily in the longer term.

I think Yemen will be the next "Afghanistan" to the liberated from the terrorists.

[jaguar]

Yemen does not have the strategic interest Iraq does - Oil. Don't try to tell me oil is at least a major factor in attacking Iraq. Saddam is also less likely to generate as much Islamic backlash as attacking Yemen would. Thirdly the US has officers (around 100 i think) in Yemen, training the Yemeni army so i doubt it's on the hitlist so far.

Originally posted by jaguar
Don't try to tell me oil is at least a major factor in attacking Iraq.

Oil is, at least, a major factor in attacking Iraq.

[Undertoad]

And as a globally important resource, a damned fine reason to go to war, if your enemies are determined to control it and reserve it for strategic purposes. "Oil" is not a swear word.

[hermit22]

Riiiight. I'm 23, so if there was a draft, I'd end up having to go. (And don't think a protracted war in Iraq wouldn't prompt it either; there's been talk of a draft bill being written in Congress ever since 9/11.) So what that would mean is I'd be out there, fighting to protect a strategic interest that we can get elsewhere, find a replacement for, and that nearly every (I only use that qualifier in the interests of accuracy; however, I'm fairly certain that it applies to all of them) top administration official has either a financial interest or some other link to.

Fuck that. I'm not gonna fight a war for an aristocracy.

I don't know that oil is actually a factor. Left wing nuts want to tell you it is; right wing nuts want to tell you the opposite. What's the truth? I don't know, because I'm not omniscient and I can't get inside the mind of the President. I don't think anyone can say for certain that oil is a factor.

Regardless, it's entirely possible that if Hussein isn't stopped, he could be the next Hitler. I haven't made up my mind about a war with Iraq, but I'm certainly not liking the idea that the US should only step up after it's been hit. We waited long enough in WWI & WWII; I see no reason to make the same mistake three times.

[Undertoad]

Herm, sure. Now since energy prices are directly linked to the price of almost every good and service, how does massive inflation and unemployment, basically another "great depression" grab you?

It's more than the loss of soccer-mom SUVs. Think about the use of oil in, say, bringing everything together for your lunch-time BLT. Name a few products that don't include trucks somewhere in their lifetime. Look around you - everything in your field of vision required oil either to produce or to get to you. The use of alternative sources will lead to an immediate doubling of that cost which is passed along to you in the price of everything you buy.

Conservation? Sure, that will mean 95% inflation instead of 100%. It's important but it's not that big of a solution.

And what would you like to have happen to the political will to drill at ANWR? Double gas prices and watch the public head north with picks and shovels.

[hermit22]

Herm, sure. Now since energy prices are directly linked to the price of almost every good and service, how does massive inflation and unemployment, basically another "great depression" grab you?

Those are scare-mongering words. I say conserve. It's better for the planet, our health (air pollution has been linked to a higher number of asthmatic cases in children), better on our pocketbooks in the long run (oh wait, we have the CEO president - ceos are only concerned about today and forget that tomorrow might exist) and better on our political and foreign capital. Besides that, just because a system is broken, why not fix it? Politicians need to stop listening to the scared lobbyists from GM and start taking action. Otherwise, when the inevitable day comes when we have to break our ties to oil (say, when there's none left), it will cause a Great Depression.

To say that conservation will cause 95% inflation instead of 100% - that just doesn't make sense.

Prices will rise as new technologies come into use. However, they will not stay high for long. Economics dictates that the prices of these technologies will decrease over time. Take, for example, the cost of less than 100% gasoline powered vehicles. In the mid 90s, an electric vehicle was in the $40k range. Now you can get a Honda Civic Hybrid for less than $20k.

New means of acquiring energy are going to become a necessity. The question is whether we're going to let it become one, or 'pre-emptively' skirt it? (ie. develop the technologies now)

Regardless, it's entirely possible that if Hussein isn't stopped, he could be the next Hitler. I haven't made up my mind about a war with Iraq, but I'm certainly not liking the idea that the US should only step up after it's been hit. We waited long enough in WWI & WWII; I see no reason to make the same mistake three times.

This is more rhetoric. While Hussein has been horrible to his people, he has shown no signs of invading other nations since he was pushed out of Kuwait a decade ago. Don't get me wrong - he's a horrible man, the perpetrator of gross human rights violations - but he is no Hitler. His country is not in the economic situation that Germany was before World War II. Do you know that 4k-6k Iraqis die every month as a direct result of the economic sanctions? You wouldn't have seen any such statistics about 1930s Germany.

Besides that, it is in violation of the Un Charter (which we not only signed, we basically wrote) to attack another country without provocation. That's why Bush's only justifiable path towards war is through the UN.

[Undertoad]

Those child-killing sanctions were created by what body?

A. The oil-seeking, imperalist US
B. OPEC
C. Bush Sr. because he didn't have enough blood from the Contra thing
D. The military-industrial complex
E. The United Nations, that body all progressives worship at the feet of, which is critical to support because it prevents all the trouble in the world

Hussein built how many "presidential palaces" in the last ten years instead of buying medication for those dead children?

A. None; he's a humanitarian
B. One; government officials are entitled to public housing
C. Two; he needs a dummy house to confuse the CIA and Mossad
D. Three; but he lets his sons take their BMWs to the beach house from time to time
E. Fifty-seven, covering more than 12 square miles of area, or about half the size of Manhattan

Originally posted by hermit22
This is more rhetoric. While Hussein has been horrible to his people, he has shown no signs of invading other nations since he was pushed out of Kuwait a decade ago. Don't get me wrong - he's a horrible man, the perpetrator of gross human rights violations - but he is no Hitler. His country is not in the economic situation that Germany was before World War II. Do you know that 4k-6k Iraqis die every month as a direct result of the economic sanctions? You wouldn't have seen any such statistics about 1930s Germany.

All I'm saying is that you cannot positively tell me that a similar situation won't arise. And then suppose it does - what then?

I guess we should wait until he detonates a nuke-yoo-lar device in NYC. Or until we find out that he's gassing hundreds of thousands of his civilians. Yes.

Or perhaps we should just insist on inspections? And act really tough, like we won't back down, so that we can determine he doesn't have such weapons?

Ja, maybe the inspections are necessary, and we need to force them. So maybe we need to convince the world and Hussein that we mean business, 'cause otherwise he's just going to fuck around with us and not let inspectors in.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Undertoad
[b]Those child-killing sanctions were created by what body?

A. The oil-seeking, imperalist US
B. OPEC
C. Bush Sr. because he didn't have enough blood from the Contra thing
D. The military-industrial complex
E. The United Nations, that body all progressives worship at the feet of, which is critical to support because it prevents all the trouble in the world
[b]

e. And A. blocked those sanctions from being eased, rescinded or actually changed in any way, though not because of oil-seeking, imperialistic motives. Of course, over the past decade, Hussein has made something like $11B in oil sales with other countries in anticipation of the end of sanctions - none of which were with American companies. So maybe it was because of oil?

Hussein built how many "presidential palaces" in the last ten years instead of buying medication for those dead children?

A. None; he's a humanitarian
B. One; government officials are entitled to public housing
C. Two; he needs a dummy house to confuse the CIA and Mossad
D. Three; but he lets his sons take their BMWs to the beach house from time to time
E. Fifty-seven, covering more than 12 square miles of area, or about half the size of Manhattan

The materials restricted by sanctions really have nothing to do with building materials required for a palace. This is not to say he should be building palaces while his people starve, but how can anyone condone the death of 50-75k people a year because the medical resources that would save them are denied for political reasons?

I guess we should wait until he detonates a nuke-yoo-lar device in NYC. Or until we find out that he's gassing hundreds of thousands of his civilians. Yes.

So...by that logic...even though Hussein has made no attempt to detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil, and that it would be politically disastrous for him to do so, we should attack just because he might have the materials and has a beef with us? Well, then, we'll have to start lining up the countries. India, as a leader in the Non-Aligned Movement during the Cold War, wouldn't join our side against the Communists. So let's take them out. There are a lot of Muslim extremists in the Pakistani army, and they've got nukes...China was in our face about that whole plane thing a while back, so let's oust them. And you know what? The French are being pretty uppity about the whole Iraq thing, so let's knock them out too. That will give us strategic bases on every continent that has a nuclear presence, and then we'll be safe. We'll still have to build a missile defense system though...the President promised his friends in the defense industry that he would deliver it - and he's a man of his word, ready to return integrity to the office. Or some such outright lie.

I am not sure if you are doing so intentionally, so as to put words in my mouth, or unintentionally and I was just not clear enough. Allow me to re-phrase:

Consider that the threat of force is a means to getting inspectors in to make sure Iraq is clean, WMD-wise.

I never said that we should attack Iraq. As a matter of fact, I have been quite clear in stating that I am not convinced that we should. What I <b>am</b> saying is that a return of weapons inspectors is absolutely necessary if we hope to avoid possible situations like those mentioned in my previous post.

[jaguar]

Dave - shaddup :p

Ut - I base my oil opinion on comments made by the head of the CIA in the washington post, they if anything confirmed it.

Secondly if the US feels it has a right to invade any soverign nation beacuse it contains a resource they feel they would like i think we have alarger misunderstanding on our hands.

I agree with dave on the weapons inspections, invading Iraq is insanity.