The oil embargo brough the US to its knees. Today it is making sure it never happens again.
and in 2003 states is in the region.... bravo claping
there was another plan in 80s ,,,
USA/ USSR ..
one takes saudi other takes iraq .. kuwait wells are split between them...
needs must be taken care off..
i m sure pakistan would go to war with india .. on water issues.. to ensure stable supplies..
so whats the difference here.
i do not condone it.. but i understand why the plan was considered.
Ok next time i hope you consider it if Al-Qaeda launches a pre-emptive strike at some US military bases. After all i bet you can understand that they dont want these soliders to kill them.
Thats quite funny when you hear these American and UK Government and people saying we never do it for the oil we doing it for the people!
Yeah right pull the other one!
like pakistan is doing it for the good of kashmiris ..
international politics.. you have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies... you have the self interest of each nation which is of paramount importance
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by blackzero: *
international politics.. you have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies... you have the self interest of each nation which is of paramount importance
[/QUOTE]
Welcome to anarchy. If international politics were only governed by interests and no morality, then when Iraq attacked Kuwait would have been perfectly legitmate. International Laws are basic morality of society. What you can do and what you cant. If there is only self interest. Then i see nothing wrong with Al-Qaeda nuking a US city using your logic.
US, UK had plan to seize West Asian oilfields in 1973: Report
CM you stole my post :disgust: …
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_515915,00050004.htm
Press Trust of India
Washington, January 1
Britain and the United States seriously considered seizure of oil fields of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait during the 1973 Arab oil embargo which disrupted global oil supplies, according to a declassified British intelligence memorandum.
Under the plan, Britain would have seized the Abu Dhabi fields and the Americans the Saudi and Kuwaiti fields, says the document released on Wednesday night titled “Middle East–possible use of force by the United States”.
It says that if there were deteriorating conditions such as a breakdown of the ceasefire between Arab and Israeli forces following the October 1973 West Asia war or an intensification of the oil embargo, “the American preference would be for a rapid operation conducted by themselves” to seize the oil fields.
It cites a warning from the then US Defence Secretary James R Schlesinger to British Ambassador to US Lord Cromer, that Washington would not tolerate threats from “underdeveloped, underpopulated” countries and that “it was no longer obvious to him that the US could not use force.”
Seizure of the oil fields, the British memo says, was “the possibility uppermost in American thinking (and) has been reflected in their contingency planning.”
The document, dated December 13, 1973, was sent to Prime Minister Edward Heath by Percy Cradock, head of Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee. Arab members of OPEC imposed the embargo on US and other western countries in October to force them to compel Israel to withdraw from Arab territories.
I dont see anything wrong in US policy of invading arab lands!!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by soul: *
I dont see anything wrong in US policy of invading arab lands!!
[/QUOTE]
lets assume for a second that you are right, and US learnt its lessons from those invasions, then that would mean everybody has a right to attack/kill other person/country.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by soul: *
I dont see anything wrong in US policy of invading arab lands!!
[/QUOTE]
well your quite happy when muslims die and your quite happy when US invades lands on basis of usurping wealth.
when the Americans go into lands they face nothing but hostility!
[QUOTE]
then that would mean everybody has a right to attack/kill other person/country.
[/QUOTE]
you have the answer, search the book!!
how come such words of wisdom comes out from you, only when you are the victims??
[QUOTE]
when the Americans go into lands they face nothing but hostility!
[/QUOTE]
Nothing new!! that every invader faces!! who gets welcomed with flowers??
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by soul: *
you have the answer, search the book!!
how come such words of wisdom comes out from you, only when you are the victims??
[/QUOTE]
that "book" would be this thread in this forum where you permit invasions for ANY reason, because some other nations did it for some reasons (which never got thru some thick skins).
[QUOTE]
that "book" would be this thread in this forum where you permit invasions for ANY reason, because some other nations did it for some reasons (which never got thru some thick skins).
[/QUOTE]
huh?? invasion is invasion....if one invader can stake divine right over this world, so can the others!!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Welcome to anarchy. If international politics were only governed by interests and no morality, then when Iraq attacked Kuwait would have been perfectly legitmate. International Laws are basic morality of society. What you can do and what you cant. If there is only self interest. Then i see nothing wrong with Al-Qaeda nuking a US city using your logic.
[/QUOTE]
CM
i concede your point has merit, and yes there is an overall moral code.
but even taking the morality into account .. all actions are based on self interest. you do not undertake an action just because it is the morally right thing to do.
Actions taken over the past 10 years.. are based on these criteria
1. it is in your economic interest
2. it is in your political interest
political interest includes the issue that it would maintain or improve your image in eyes of your citizens or govt/ citizens of another country.
In any case, the basic morality of society shifts with time, and what was acceptable 100 or 1000 yrs ago is not acceptable now.
so the morality is not as dynamic as the 'self interest' .. but there is shifts in there as well.
and these were plans... possible options..that were not taken and did not materialize..one can understand them and not agree with them.
or is understanding the same thing as agreeing? ;)
If someone were to call you an idiot, one could understand him and not agree with him.
Or is understanding the same thing as agreeing? ;)
To get to the point. If you understand a point, you see some validity in the agrument. If someone called you an idiot and some one did agree with that comment they would see some validity in it. The same applies to this case.
you can logically follow a person's argument and understand how he is constructing that argument whether or not you agree with the person's premise, thought pattern, outcome etc etc.
well maybe you cant..but its still possible :)
In general terms, I've got no problem with my government (or any government for that matter) planning around various "what if" scenarios. In fact, I think it is the obligation of our leadership to hypothesize various "worst case" scenarios so that they have the outlines of a plan to cope with them if they happen.
What troubles me a little about THIS plan is the administration that came up with it. In 1973, our friend Tricky Dick Nixon was in the White House. Various other plans he had in the making were, of course, the break-in at Democratic National Headquarters and the subsequent coverup; kidnapping anti-war protestors during the planned GOP convention in San Diego and taking them across the border into Mexico to keep them out of the limelight; and using the IRS to conduct criminal investigations and prosecution of his detractors.
This guy didn't just "plan." He liked to "execute" those plans.