To Americans...

[Zenda]

Hello Wiccan,

"what i see is the US is protecting are investments{oil feilds yes i know i hate this as much as anyone by saying this but its plain and simple we are protecting are investment.... "

You can say a lot about this war, but the USA does *not* have any oil investments there. All the big oil companies of the world have (had?) investments in Iraq, except the British and American.

[Chaerophon]

But they will no doubt get a sizable piece of the pie with the coming of a "free market economy" under a "democratic" regime... Once "free trade" hits any country, one can rest assured that American corporate imperialism will have found itself another niche. This isn't really arguable; whether you're a booster or detractor of corporate America, it's pretty difficult to deny the facts of America's international commercial insurgencies.

[Occhidiangela]

French Elf Fina has 10-14 billion worth of capital dependent on Iraqi oil.

See also Russian firms.

US has been supporting the embargo of Iraq oil, has has Canada and UK, since 1991.

How you infer that US companies have money at risk in Iraq mystifies me.

Do you have some background data, or investment information from US oil companies that would support your assertion? I would be interested in seeing such. Most interested.

[Chaerophon]

"Most interested", as in, "it ain't gonna happen". :) I've looked into this extensively, Wiccan, as, I'm sure, has Occhi. I have NEVER come across evidence of any such thing. Elf Fina and Russia's "Lukoil" are the primary investors in oil fields in Iraq along with smaller company's from Italy and Spain. The "free trade" argument that was alluded to above is of more significance than is that which you are articulating.

[Zenda]

Hello Occhidiangela,

"US has been supporting the embargo of Iraq oil, has has Canada and UK, since 1991."

Which embargo? Remember the Food-for-Oil program? It allowed Iraq to export oil as much as it wanted, as long as the profit was spent in certain ways. The USA was one of the bigger customers of Iraq crude oil for the last decade, as a matter of fact. It was Iraq who declared a 30-day oil embargo, a few years ago, and it even hurt America's economy a little. But it could have been worse: all the other Arab countries (including Kuwait) might have joined Iraq there, if they hadn't decreased their export 3 times already that year.

[Occhidiangela]

The trade sanctions that completely curtailed normal Iraqi oil commerce was reduced, at the behest of the UN with full American agreement, to ensure that the embargo, imposed 6 August 1990, would not cause inordinate suffering in the population. Of course, Saddam and his government has done what it can to finesse that, with the result being that this agreed lessening of the embargo has not necessarily been much help.

I am amazed at how little most people know about the details on this one.

Do your homework. Check Security Council Resolutions of 1990, and then follow the bouncing ball to the post conflict, 1991, decisions by the UN to lessen the impact of the embargo on the average Iraqi trying to get a loaf of bread.

Iraqi 'oil' embargo hurting the US? Hardly, and please, dont make me laugh, all of the other Arabs pump enough oil to keep the international marked working. All small perturbations do is make the Norwegians, Nigerians, Venezuelans, and Saudis a bit richer by bumping the spot prices up a bit on the internaitonal oil market.

You want to see an oil embargo? One that really works? Go back to 1973, and look at the embargo, led IMO by Saudi Arabia, others will disagree, and how OPEC put a serious hurt on US economy.

That, sir, was an embargo with teeth in it.

[Zenda]

Hello Occhidiangela,

"The trade sanctions that completely curtailed normal Iraqi oil commerce was reduced, at the behest of the UN with full American agreement, to ensure that the embargo, imposed 6 August 1990, would not cause inordinate suffering in the population. Of course, Saddam and his government has done what it can to finesse that, with the result being that this agreed lessening of the embargo has not necessarily been much help."

Not sure what exactly you are saying here, but I take it as an acknowledgement that there was no oil embargo by the USA, Canada or UK, after 1991, and that your previous statement was not correct.

"I am amazed at how little most people know about the details on this one."

We can't all be Texans devoting our time to the justification of this war. Moreover, I'm getting quite annoyed by this typical notion that you cannot possibly be mistaken, and that the rest of the world is too dumb to understand the issue. Do you ever consider the possibility that you might be misled, ill-informed or just plain wrong, yourself? Don't you realize the USA would have had far more support if it wasn't for that stance?

"Iraqi 'oil' embargo hurting the US? Hardly, and please, dont make me laugh, all of the other Arabs pump enough oil to keep the international marked working. All small perturbations do is make the Norwegians, Nigerians, Venezuelans, and Saudis a bit richer by bumping the spot prices up a bit on the internaitonal oil market."

I said "a little bit", you say "hardly". That makes us agreeing, according to my knowledge of the English language. Or did you meant to say it didn't have any effect at all?

"You want to see an oil embargo? One that really works? Go back to 1973, and look at the embargo, led IMO by Saudi Arabia, others will disagree, and how OPEC put a serious hurt on US economy.
That, sir, was an embargo with teeth in it. "

Yes I remember, and as I said, it almost happened again. Perhaps the fear for another large scale embargo, started by Iraq and followed by the other Arab countries, has played a part in this whole mess? Could it be that some people believe Hussein doesn't need terrible weapons to blackmail us, and that he must be removed because of that alone?

[Dani]

We can't all be Texans devoting our time to the justification of this war. Moreover, I'm getting quite annoyed by this typical notion that you cannot possibly be mistaken, and that the rest of the world is too dumb to understand the issue. Do you ever consider the possibility that you might be misled, ill-informed or just plain wrong, yourself? Don't you realize the USA would have had far more support if it wasn't for that stance?

Now now. Occhi is one of the "good americans", and doesn't really deserve the generalization, even if I've said in the past that despite his somewhat wide view of the situation, he does have some bias probably caused by just simply being an American (society, education, media etc. do mold pretty much all of us), same as I probably have a bias for being Euro.

Looking at the administration though. My mouth has been occasionalyl wide agape looking at the headlines just in the recent couple days. US issues stern warning to Syria, US issues same to Iran, US installs sanctions on Pakistan, US accuses Pakistan us nuclear proliferation. Us says Egypt is naughty. US accuses China of human rights violations. Etc.
Err say again? Will someone please give W's white house a clue about foreign policy? On how not alienate every one on the globe? OTOH it's kinda fun watching, waiting for when Igor Ivanov will snap.

[D-Dave]

Well, "not prosecuted" may be not perfectly correct but as you had the link handy I did not have, this is what I meant:

For four months the Peers Panel interviewed 398 witnesses, ranging from General Koster to the GIs of Charlie Company.  Over 20,000 pages of testimony were taken.  The Peers Report criticized the actions of both officers and enlisted men.  The report recommended action against dozens of men for rape, murder, or participation in the cover-up.

and

The Army's Criminal Investigation Division continued its separate investigation.  Most of the enlisted men who committed war crimes were no longer members of the military, and thus immune from prosecution by court-martial.
A 1955 Supreme Court decision, Toth vs Quarles, held that military courts cannot try former members of the armed services "no matter how intimate the connection between the offense and the concerns of military discipline."  Decisions were made to prosecute a total of twenty-five officers and enlisted men, including General Koster, Colonel Oran Henderson, Captain Medina.  In the end, however, only few  would be tried and only one, William Calley, would be found guilty

So it should have been more like "not enough prosecuted".

PS: BTW, thanks for the link, great resource for freshing up knowledge.

[Occhidiangela]

My points of view and biases are based on my life experiences, my education, and my continued interest in the world in general, not my nationality. :)

The passive nature of the post Reagan White Houses is actually quite at odds with the more energetic White Houses of 1940-1980. Some of the world happened to think that absent American forceful leadership, American's would 'not get into it' but rather talk things out. That assumption completely misses a fundamental character of just what is 'American.'

[Occhidiangela]

"The trade sanctions that completely curtailed normal Iraqi oil commerce was reduced, at the behest of the UN with full American agreement, to ensure that the embargo, imposed 6 August 1990, would not cause inordinate suffering in the population. Of course, Saddam and his government has done what it can to finesse that, with the result being that this agreed lessening of the embargo has not necessarily been much help."

Not sure what exactly you are saying here, but I take it as an acknowledgement that there was no oil embargo by the USA, Canada or UK, after 1991, and that your previous statement was not correct.

OK, let's try this slowly. The trade embargo was imposed UPON IRAQ as a mutlinational/UN measure, punishment, for

1. the invasion of Kuwait
2. continued failure of Iraq gov't to live up to cease fire agreement.

Complying with that UN embargo has been a matter of policy of many governments since 1990, however, France and Russia, in support of their own interests, have been trying to get the trade embargo eased, the which was imposed by the UN security council and initially supported.

Now, before you comment on this again, get a clue as to what you are talking about. Your assertion that there has been any recent 'oil embargo by Iraq versus anyone' is a crock. Iraq's government cannot sell anywhere near its potential share to the international oil market expressly due to the embargo/blockade that has been ongoing since 1990.

Like I said, do your homework. It's just a click away.

Edit: add on. Here is a hint. Start here.

UN SC Resolution 660


The language in the decisions part, sub para three, shows an resolve for a complete trade embargo with Iraq on the part of all member nations. Technically, as soon as hostilities commenced on 17 January 1991, that embargo became 'a blockade' since a state of belligerence became current, and it returned to 'embargo' once cease fire was put in place and 'belligerence' had ceased. Blockade is in fact one endorsed measure of UN collective action as sanction aganist states who transgress. The problem is, who enforces it? The member nations who bother to show up. So, since 1991, that has mostly been the US, Brit, and Canadian forces, though I am sure others have contributed, and IIRC, there are Spanish ships in the IMSO in the Red Sea and there were at one point French flagged vessels in the Persian Gulf supporting the trade embargo.

What you understand as the oil for food program was the result of a decision to allow food and medical aid, in exchange for oil, as an EXCEPTION to the general trade embargo. Resolutions 661 and 687, as I recall, were the framework/policy guidance upon which that is grounded.

And you might want to note that in the 15 Aug 1991 Resolution 707, the Security Council affirmed that the Government of Iraq was in breach, as a treaty bound signatory, of the 1968 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Last I heard, that condition of breach has not been lifted.

Sorry I can't cut and paste the PDF excerpts, looks like the UN has posted copy protection with their version of Adobe, or mine is 'Adobe Light.' :o

[kandrathe]

Thank you. :rolleyes: I also am the type of person that would never show any disrespect toward another nation's flag, anthem, or other "nationalistic" trappings. It's think it has something to do with being sensitive towards others. Micheal Moore's antics however make me want to barf...

Unlike you, I am for the war in principle, but against some of it's outcomes. Death, and destruction namely, and not just American and British lives, but I mourn for the loss of Iraqi lives, innocent or not. Brutal and cruel in my definition of justice, but I'm with Occhi in being somewhat skeptical if peace, justice and democracy can be imposed upon a nation of people who have never had it. Generally, I find it unfortunate that the failure of politics has resulted in war, yet again.

I too am worried about the post war world, our relations with the "coalition of the unwilling" and how we will relate to other nations in general.

Again, thank you. I'll bring the sweet rolls!!

[Zenda]

Hello Occhidiangela,

Regarding that non-existant embargo by Iraq, how about this quote from The Washington Times, April 9, 2002

"Saddam Hussein said yesterday he will cut Iraq's oil exports for 30 days or until Israel withdraws from Palestinian territories, raising new fears about soaring gasoline prices in the United States. The price of oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange rose 33 cents to $26.54 a barrel after the Iraqi dictator's announcement. The international oil market braced itself as Libya and Iran threatened to join the embargo and a revolt continued against Venezuela's state oil monopoly. The federal government projects that the price of regular unleaded gasoline will average $1.46 a gallon this summer, but that could rise significantly if supplies tighten, officials say. The average price for regular gasoline reached $1.41 this week, according to an Energy Department survey released yesterday, almost two months before the start of the summer driving season. Prices have jumped at a record rate of nearly 25 cents a gallon during the past month."

As for resolution 660, I already knew that one. Like you said, it made an exception for oil, so you can't call it an oil embargo, in my view. But I understand now that you were referring to the enforcement of the trade embargo, and not implying that the USA didn't buy Iraq's oil. You weren't really clear about that, to say the least.

[Dani]

...if you read inside the parentheses. ;)

[Zenda]

Hello Occhidiangela,

"Complying with that UN embargo has been a matter of policy of many governments since 1990, however, France and Russia, in support of their own interests, have been trying to get the trade embargo eased, the which was imposed by the UN security council and initially supported."

That sounds as if think the food-for-oil program was wrong. Would you really have left millions of people to die? Sure, it lessened the control over Hussein, but it was the right thing to do, nevertheless, at least in the eyes of most of the world. Luckily your government was smart enough to go along, albeit for economic reasons. Besides that, too much punishment has never made men or nations more peaceful, but it has made them more vengeful and dangerous. WWII is an example of that, and not everyone here in Europe has forgotten that lesson (it sometimes pays to be old).

"So, since 1991, that has mostly been the US, Brit, and Canadian forces, though I am sure others have contributed, and IIRC, there are Spanish ships in the IMSO in the Red Sea and there were at one point French flagged vessels in the Persian Gulf supporting the trade embargo."

I'm glad you admit there were other countries helping in the blockade as well. To bad they didn't send as many ships as the USA did, but that might have to do with the fact that they don't have that many ships. Apart from this, there were others working on an international court of justice, where people like Hussein could be trialed. Unfortunately, those efforts were wrecked when one of the biggest powers in the world got scared for the implications. Not only that, but ALL other nations (be it allied or not) were threatened with military sanctions if the court would ever be used against its people.

"And you might want to note that in the 15 Aug 1991 Resolution 707, the Security Council affirmed that the Government of Iraq was in breach, as a treaty bound signatory, of the 1968 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Last I heard, that condition of breach has not been lifted."

Since you are so fond of resolutions and their breaches, I will give you this quote from the "Washington Report on Middle East Affairs", which also mentiones the NPT. Sorry for the length of it, but I didn't want to leave anything out and it's definately worth reading.

"It was 14 years ago, on June 7, 1981, that 16 U.S.-made Israeli warplanes bombed and destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear research facility near Baghdad, more than 600 miles from Israel's borders. Prime Minister Menachem Begin claimed the reactor was about to go into operation and was a threat to Israel because it could produce nuclear weapons. Begin's claims were contradicted by a number of experts, but there was considerable circumstantial evidence that Iraq indeed hoped eventually to develop a nuclear weapon. However, Israel's critics pointed out that Iraq was a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allowed international inspections of the nuclear facility, while Israel itself refused to sign the treaty, refused inspections of its nuclear facility, and was widely believed to have a large nuclear arsenal.

Thus the deeper meaning of the attack was that it amounted to a declaration of war against the Arab world's efforts to enter the atomic age. The attack was Israel's way of declaring that only the Jewish state would be allowed to participate in advanced technology, while the Arabs would be consigned to non-nuclear technology and second-class economies.

Israel was universally condemned. The White House advised Congress that a "substantial" violation of the Arms Export Control Act prohibition against the use of U.S. weapons except in self-defense "may have occurred" in Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear facility. It was the third time the act had been invoked against Israel, the first two occurring during the Carter administration because of Israeli attacks on Lebanon. But, as in the prior cases, Congress declined to take any action.

Moreover, President Ronald Reagan soon found extenuating circumstances for Israel's conduct. Reagan said: "Israel might have sincerely believed it was a defensive move," adding: "It is difficult for me to envision Israel as being a threat to its neighbors." While Washington joined in a unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution "strongly" condemning Israel, privately U.S. officials made it known that the United States would veto any article that called for sanctions against Israel. As a result of this pressure, council Resolution 487 stopped short of imposing sanctions and Israel's aggression was let go with a slap on the wrist.

Bobby Inman, the No. 2 man at the Central Intelligence Agency, was less forgiving. He realized that the Israeli warplanes could not have flown to their target without having been guided by aerial photographs supplied by U.S. spy satellites. Under a secret arrangement worked out with Israeli intelligence by Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey, Israel had been granted access to U.S. satellite photography. However, Inman knew that access was to be limited to areas posing potential "direct threats" to Israel, in Inman's words. When he discovered Israel had drawn material on such far-away areas as Iraq, Libya and Pakistan, he made a decision to limit its access to photographs covering areas no farther than 250 miles from Israel's border, thereby reducing Israel's satellite intelligence to its immediate neighbors.

This decision infuriated Israel's supporters, and nearly 13 years later came back to haunt Inman when he was nominated by President Bill Clinton as secretary of defense. Israel's supporters, in particular columnist William Safire of the New York Times, took advantage of the occasion to launch harsh personal attacks against Inman, convincing him he could not effectively run the Pentagon amid such powerful criticism. Inman declined the nomination.

Actually, Israel's aggressive intentions toward Iraq should have come as no surprise to anyone, particularly the CIA. Since at least 1979 it had been waging a secret war aimed at disrupting Iraq's nuclear program. The campaign was carried out by Israel's Mossad intelligence agency under the name Operation Sphinx. The operation began at least as early as April 6, 1979, when three bomb explosions in the nuclear facility of the French firm of Constructions Navales et Industrielles de la Míditerraníe in La Seyne-Sur-Mer near Marseilles blew up reactor cores about to be shipped to Iraq's facility, setting back Iraq's program by at least half a year.

On June 13, 1980, Dr. Yahya Meshad, an Egyptian nuclear physicist working for Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission, was killed in his Paris hotel room. Meshad had been in France checking on highly enriched uranium that was about to be shipped as the first fuel for Iraq's reactor and, according to Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky, was the victim of Mossad agents. Two months later, starting Aug. 2, a series of bombs exploded at the offices or residences of officials of Iraq's key suppliers in Italy and France: SNIA-Techint, Ansaldo Mercanico Nucleare and Techniatome. The three firms were supplying Iraq with a reactor and hot cells and their officials and workers were harassed by threatening letters.

The terror campaign against Iraq was similar to one carried out by Israel 19 years earlier against West German scientists working on Egypt's rocket program. That campaign was called Operation Damocles and involved kidnapping and letterbombs which caused the deaths of at least five persons in 1962-63. By the time Israel halted its campaign against the German scientists, it had already become clear that, in the words of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion's biographer, they "were a group of mediocre scientists who had developed antiquated missiles. The panic that had overtaken the country's leadership...was highly exaggerated." But the damage was done. Not only did the victims suffer directly, but the operation convinced Egypt's leadership of Israel's unyielding hostility.

While Israel's suspicions against Iraq may have been more realistic, its disregard of the significant diplomatic effects of its violent action was similarly myopic. Although Israel repeatedly congratulated itself during the 1991 war against Iraq that its attack represented an early blow to Saddam's militancy, there can be little doubt that one result of the attack was to further radicalize the Iraqi leader and add to his suspicions of the West and his determination to build up Iraq's war machine.

There can be no certainty, of course, that diplomacy would have stemmed Saddam's ambitions. But there can be no doubt that once Israel attacked Iraq with U.S.-made warplanes, Saddam would do whatever he could to harm America and its Persian Gulf friends like Kuwait. The culmination of Saddam's hatred came a decade later when a half-million American military personnel had to be rushed to the Gulf area to war against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait."

[Occhidiangela]

The oil for food was, once again, a discreet Security Council action that was aimed at lessening the embargoes impact on the Iraqi population while the UN dealt with Hussein's regime, and its failure to live up to both resolutions and the cease fire agreement.

How the hell do you infer that I think it was a bad idea? It was the best possible approach to the fact that embargoes, which tend to hurt democracies way more than dictatorships since democratic governments are accountable to the people and dictators are not, was the only measure of suasion that the Security Council would agree upon, and is consistent with UN Charter guidelines on how humanitarian materials can be exceptions to a general trade embargo. As a general rule, non violent sanctions, such as a trade embargo, are preferred where practicable to military force. (See how US trade sanctions in 1940-41 in response to Japanese aggression in China since 1931 did any good!) The problem is, they are rarely effective where the leadership is indifferent to its populations needs: that is shown historically, except that I would say that OPEC, not a UN body, had a real effect on the US with it oil embargo, in the short term, where second and third order effects created long term damage to the economy. Without that embargo, some suggest that the Stagflation of the 1970's would not have been as severe, though other measures, such as the floating of the dollar in 1969, had a profound impact as well.

Back to the 'oil-for food.'

The idea was: that rather than let Hussein administer the program, wherein he could not be trusted to spend the money where it was needed, on food and medicine per the agreed position, TO WHICH THE US and the whole security council WAS A PARTY, an international body would ensure that revenues were allocated strictly to food and medicine and NOT armaments. Now, I would suggest that the Palaces/C2 bunkers that Saddam built in the past 10 years hardly qualify as 'humanitarian efforts.' The program has been a less than spectacular success, in that the application has hardly had the desired effect.

And about 'glad you admit' about the multinational nature of the sanctions: get a grip.

The problem is that the level of support in 1991 was grossly diluted by 1996-1997. Nations who had been strong supporters of keeping the sanctions while the UN got about its disarmament processes slowly but surely lost interest. The list of players slowly but surely got smaller, which reflects badly on the UN Secretary General, as well as the Prime Minister of France and Russia's president, who were two of the loudest voices in the mid-late '90's to stop sancitons even though the UN arms reduction process, to which Saddam's government signed up, was not completed satisfactorily. That dilution of UN Security Council resolve, by two of the Five major members, is one of the seeds of today's 'state of play.'

Insofar as the "ICC," etc, were the US to sign that, no Congress in this nation would allow a single US Soldier to participate in any UN peace enforcement, or peacekeeping operation, due to the issues addressed in some other posts. Our laws govern how our soldiers are trained, equipped, and administered, to include the maintenance of Constitutional rights. No American serviceman forfeits his rights upon swearing the oath.

Oh, and must ask you: how are you going to get Saddam to Den Hague to stand trial? Tell me how that can actually be accomplished without forcing him from power. He is not Pinochet. The Arab League approached him recently, asking that he retire for the greater good. You note that he declined the offer. Talk is cheap.

In re Israel's pre-emptive strike, thanks for the reading material. :) That was a trip down memory lane. :o But you do make me chuckle.

However, Israel's critics pointed out that Iraq was a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allowed international inspections of the nuclear facility, while Israel itself refused to sign the treaty, refused inspections of its nuclear facility, and was widely believed to have a large nuclear arsenal.

The same leader in Iraq who obstructs current international inspection processes now was in charge then. Not bloody likely that the critics were remotely close to reality with their observations. I do agree that the Israeli position is most unhelpful, and given the time frame, no help to US-USSR relationships at all.

But look at Israel's strategic position. Look at the map. Look at the size of Israel. Consider the effect of a single nuclear weapon. Like any sovereign state, Israel took action to secure its self, and I might remind you that in 1981, the Arab nations, with the significant exception of Egypt, were still 'at war' with Israel. Do you remember the 1982 air battle over Lebanon where Israeli Air Force cleared the sky of some 80+ Syrian warplanes?

Israel, which I assume has nuclear capability, was not as willing as US/USSR to trust a MAD structure as a way to balance strength and threat of someone pushing a button, partly because they to this day will not admit to that. (Yet another thorn in the side of Washington's Mideast Policy, and no help to Mideast peace.). Unilke the rich Europeans, Israel was not protected by an Article 5 assurance per the NATO treaty. Their situation is NOT identical to that of the Europeans and Americans who criticize the Israeli efforts toward their national security.

Unless you just woke up, the battle of the first salvo is the modern age's fundamental military reality for small nations. Unlike the US and USSR, India and China, they have no strategic depth. It is 'come as you are.' And of course, a nuclear battle of the first salvo on a state as small as Israel would end it, even if as they melted they could know that their own nukes would wreak some havoc. That scenario has been exaclty what the entire non-proliferation effort has been trying to prevent, with mixed or no success: see Pakistan and India and their recent tension for a good example.

That said, the attack was most certainly an act that did nothing to promote peace in the Middle East. On that you and I will most definitely agree. Of course, you appear to ignore that the Cold War was in full swing at that time, and all of what happened in the Mid East must be seen through the lens of 'the great game' that was being played out by the Eagle and the Bear. You do remember the Cold War, right, the era us old farts grew up in, hoping on a daily basis that no idiot would push 'the red button'?

You also appear to ignore, again, the practical shortcomings of the 1968 nuclear non proliferation treaty, to which Iraq was a signatory. (As was Israel, as your quote points out.) Now, if Israel is to trust the UN to take care of the fact that Hussein was in blatant violation of that treaty, with French support (no surprise, they had adopted in late 1960's an independent nuclear posture) and the UN's track record (remember, SC veto paralyzed a great deal of potential multilateral action in those days) in actually producing results was abysmal (see for that matter the Occupied territory issues since 1967), what would you do if you were Israel? The bottom line entering assumption was that Israel wished to continue its existence. With that underlying assumption, work your way down a decision tree when your concerns are not the most important agenda items on the plates of the Large Powers. Were they to trust 'the big boys' to look after their interests? Were they to wait until the mushroom clouds bloomed over Haifa? That was the choice that the leaders at the time felt that they were faced with.

Through President Carter's efforts, they had just cut a deal with Egypt, which got Sadat assassinated (there you go, an Arab tries for a peaceful solution and look at what he got for his troubles!) yet none of the other major Arab powers were willing to move forward in the same direction: Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, you name it, under terms that Irael was able to trust. (Go back to the map, and the disparity in geography and the range of modern artillery. Apply your ruler and consiser North Korea vs Seuol and tube artillery.) Now, the why's of that are worthy of a few volumes, but that was the state of play.

Was the US pissed off? Hell yes, and justifiably so. Thanks for your Inman: tidbit I have great respect for Admiran Inman. That Isreali strike was without a doubt a huge risk to the US-USSR detente, as the Cold War played out its course in the arena of the Middle East. It was exactly the sort of wild card play that both Moscow and Washington feared would be a trigger for hostilities erupting.

Please try to read what I write and comprehend it. I have considerable experience in what embargoes and blockades are all about, and I once again find your misinterpretation of what I present evidence that you have little to no depth on the subject.

[Occhidiangela]

Got it, Dani. :)

[Occhidiangela]

The Iraqi share of the world oil market, if manipulated, can cause perturbations in the spot oil prices. So what? The price of gas, here in South Texas for the past two years, has ranged from 98 cents per gallon, 87 octane unleaded, to $1.58 per gallon. It haas been all over the map, and is at present back in the high 1.40's.

So too can actions of any number of OPEC decisions, or that of major producing nations.

It is not that Iraq sells the US so much oil, they don't, it is that their contribution to the aggregate global oil supply can influence spot market prices, as can that of Saudi Arabie, Nigeria, Kuwait, etc.