How likely do you think it is that the U.S. will attack Iraq in the next six months?

In the next 6 months - somewhat likely. I believe the US will not move until it is cooler because soldiers will be wearing protective clothing and it will be too hot in summer.

I don't know

It seems like Dubya really intends to carry through this immensely stupid plan he has to attack Iraq for no good reason. I have no idea how soon he plans to do it, and it's possible he'll wise up and decide not to. Please let our allies (Tony Blair, this means you) talk him out of it.

I have no idea. Anything is possible.

Somewhat likely whether we want it to happen or not! Bush has a hard-on when it comes to Saddam Hussein and I think he will order an attack whether it's a good idea or not.

Somewhat likely, but I hope Bush comes to his senses (if he has any) and decides not to attack!

It certainly wouldn't surprise me. It has been talked about for a while. I'm not really following the issue too closely, so it is hard to say...

Die for oil, sucker.

Not at all likely. Bush has got Colin Powell who I don't think is stupid enough to attack Iraq in the next six months. Pity I can't add if at all to that.......

Come on Blair! Denounce these plans. Get us in line with Europe. Meet with Russia on a more regular basis. Tell America that they don't have British support in invading Iraq.........

Maybe I should write to my MP but I'm pretty sure that she'll be against invading Iraq. She's one of those Labour backbenchers that's happy to disagree with the leadership because she isn't seeking advancement. David Blunkett (the home secretary) is a Sheffield MP too - good job I'm not in his constituency......

Not at all likely, unless the US military has found out a way to launch a full campaign against Iraq without the need of a ground base in one of its neighbouring countries. Iran, Jordan and Syria are all definitely out. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have also said no, and it would probably take more than six months to negotiate plans to use their territory. Turkey may be a NATO member but its not going to participate in any war without the approval of the UN security council or without being guaranteed a say in what happens to the Kurdish areas of Iraq if there ever is "regime change", and again that's not going to happen within six months. There is a possibility that Qatar might be used, but the problem here (and its one shared by many countries in the region) is that the leaders are in a position of knowing that their long term interests include having good relations with the US, yet at the same time knowing that their people are sympathetic toward Iraq as a fellow Arab nation.
Whatever happens, it will have little to do with what the American people actually want, as Bush has yet to make a convincing case for a war which has the sole purpose of removing someone he doesn't like.

100% certain

I'm not sure. But if we do, I probably won't get to go over there... I won't be done with OCS until May of '03.

Yes, probably. I heard some people discussing it yesterday, they were actualy looking foreward to it because it has proven that every war is really good for the economy. If all the lives and suffereng are price to be paid, then I don't know if I would pick a economically better life over so many dead corpses.

Somewhat likely unless we can stop Bush from going through with this ill-begotten idea!

*shrugs* Somewhat?

Not Likely I reckon.

If the monkey leading the US has some sort of a brain (which I highly doubt) they won't. It would be the mistake of century, leading to a complete and devastating war in the Middle East.
At least Bush sr. had a reason to start the Gulf war (oil), but junior doesn't.

very very likely.

Oh come on now, 6 months huge time span.

Yep, I had to change my vote from 'Somewhat likely' to 'Very likely' as junior desperately wants to go to war.

Yeah, cause he needs something to distract us from the mad grab for power Adolf Ashcroft and Heinrich Rumsfeld are making. Can you say, Wag The Dog? Yeah, I knew you could.

Fairly unlikely due to the time frame. It'll probably be more like 6 months to a year.

I could have SWORN that Iraq started the Gulf War by invading Kuwait..

C'mon, we didn't go over there for oil, we went over there because Kuwait specifically asked us for assistance. It was clear that Iraq was making a move to control the ENTIRE region, and to see that regime increase in power any more would have been... well.... unfortunate. The other reason we went is because American Jews are fairly powerful and Israel was at risk.

I thought that the whole reason that Bush was so keen to go to the UN now was that any military action is going to have to start in early February so it's not too hot for the soldiers. If he doesn't get the UN's backing but thinks he may get it later, he's going to have to wait until after the summer.

That seems plausible. I suppose we will see what happens.

I watched his speech to the UN yesterday. I was actually impressed by how well he did it. It was a nicely constructed speech that was well argued. A bit glaring in what it left out though. It's left me in no doubt that this is going to happen though. I think he's going to get UN backing and if he doesn't he still can't back down.

Somewhat. Six months is a long time, I guess. I might answer "very likely" if the time were extended to a year or maybe 18 months.

Uh... run that by me again? The only reason we went into Kuwait was the oil. Saddam Hussein at no time posed a serious threat to Israel. He would have had to march all the way across Jordan to get his ass kicked. And we certainly couldn't care less about Kuwait. What we cared about was a general destabilization of the region, which could have dramatically increased oil prices. A secondary worry was that if Hussein gained control over those oil reserves he could cause the price to go up. It really was about "the price of a gallon of gas". I only wish Bush Sr. had made the effort to explain that to the American people. I for one think the price of a gallon of gas is a sufficient reason to start killing people for. Well, maybe not by itself but if you consider that US industry and society would collapse without oil, you start to realize that it is a resource that require protection. But that doesn't make for a good speech so we stuck with the Kuwait angle.

Joachim, Saddam Hussein launched scud missles at Israel. Enough said. Get your facts straight, then come back to me for an intelligent conversation. Oil prices have nothing to do with it, and in fact, oil prices would only increase nominally AND initially(~40%) were the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST to pull out of selling to America *permanenttly*. Intelligent folk realize that America's oil comes from a variety of sources, mostly America (Alaska, Texas, California), Canada, Mexico, South America, Russia, and the Middle East, and that these sources, were there to be a decrease in production somewhere, would exploit the increased prices by increasing production.

The theory you purpot has always been (necessarily) vague. It never covers the details, because it would not be able to. There are no claims about 1) How much oil prices would increase (See later on for a discussion of how this figure ultimately would be ~5-10%). 2) How Iraqi expansions could have possibly increased oil prices (in fact, it likely would have DECREASED them as international production pacts broke down and exports increased). 3) Why the other reasons were not suitable answers in and of themselves, regardless of oil prices.

The only way Iraq could increase oil prices would be by decreasing production. In fact, just the opposite would have happened. Iraq would have violated agreements between the Middle East and South America (and Russia), and increased production beyond it's limits in an attempt to find funding for it's growing empire (to fuel it's war machine). Sure, Iraq could simply increase its oil prices, but then, of course, everyone would just buy their oil elsewhere.

True, while the invasion was occuring, oil prices increased, mostly due to the fact that a war (the war itself) would have a massive (and did have a massive) negative impact on production. However, this was a short term effect.

Furthermore, although in the short term, oil prices increase as a result of decreases in production, there are long-term negative feedback mechanisms. Namely, as one country reduces its oil production, other countries and regions INCREASE production to exploit the (generally presumed to be temporary) increase in prices. That is to say that if Iraq were to decrease production below agreement levels (which wouldn't be in Iraq's best interest, and therefor is dubious), new agreements would be drafted taking this into account, and reallocating the Iraqi portion to other oil producing nations. Oil producers want to keep the price of oil artificially high, however, they realize (through economics equations which you clearly don't understand) that ideally, production (and therefor price) have a certain level they should remain at to maximize profits. Therefor, if Iraq were to decrease production, world production would decrease, and the profits would no longer be maximized. The numbers would be crunched again, and nations like Venezuela would then increase production to account for the global drop in order to remaximize profits. Then, if Iraq increased production again, new agreements would be made and other countries would agree to decrease production accordingly, to once more make the economics ideal.

So please, no more vague theories that don't hold up under the slightest scrutiny.

You continue to provide humorous amusement to everyone here at Survey Central and for that I thank you.
To your first point, about which I do not believe there was "enough said", your statement that Iraq launched SCUD missiles at Israel does not contradict my statement that at no time did Iraq pose a significant military threat to Israel. Of course the Israelis would have responded to the attacks had we not prevented them from doing so.
Clearly your understanding of the econonics and politics of the global energy market is far superior to my own. Now that I have read your essay it is clear to me that the real reason the United States rushed to the defense of Kuwait is precisely the same reason we rushed a massive army into East Timor and spent $100 billion to protect the rights of the people there. Clearly the United States is motivated solely by a desire to protect small nations from being harrassed by large ones. I hope I understood your article correctly.
The nice thing about taking over a country that already produces oil is that you don't have to change the global production rate at all to make more money. The danger to oil prices (and oil availability) did not stem from some imagined OPEC summit, it stemmed from the prospect of a complete political destabilization of the region. Just as the Gulf War temporarily reduced oil production in Kuwait, so could an inter-Arab war or, in its aftermath, a monopoly on oil production by one nation.
The strategic national interests of the United States were threatened by the events in Kuwait and that's why we went in there. We did not do it out of the goodness of our hearts or to follow some nebulous ideal as you have suggested. I find it amusing that you are complaining that the oil theory is "vague". What do you call your theory? I call it unlikely.

My theory is the accepted theory by historians, politicians, common folk, economists, and scientists. Your's is one which certain (liberal) groups have been purpoting for some time. It hasn't been discredited yet publicly, because thus far, no one has bothered to take it seriously.

I don't know about east timor. Iraq could have blown Israel to hell. Isreal has a big millitary, but it is a small target . Keep that in mind. Israel is subject to missle-based attacks. It has a strong air force to defend from air attacks, and a huge army (made possibly by some HIGHLY immoral requirements on participation which rip children away from their families at 18 or 19), but it would only take 100 or so well placed missles to destroy it's entire infrastructure.

I don't recall how many missiles Iraq launched at Israel during the war. It wasn't many - a few dozens, maybe? Anyway despite the fact that the Patriot missile system failed to provably shoot down even one SCUD, the damage was pretty minimal. If you told me Egypt or even perhaps Syria could be a threat to Israel, I'd agree, but Iraq was a nuisance at worst.

I'm actually surprised that you claim such general consensus about your theory that America rescued Kuwait because we love our Arab brothers. I have yet to hear anyone espouse that theory who wasn't making a speech at the UN.

What's your opinion on this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/91jul/nye.htm

It was written not too long after the Gulf War and discusses the motivations. It seemed quite fair to me and seemed also to take a fairly reasonable position which I believe is between yours and mine.

Iraq had a much larger army than Syria OR Eqypt. It had one of the largest and most powerful armies in the world! Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, and as I said, easily could have turned Israel into a bio-hazard.

As far as the article, I didn't have time to read the whole thing. The part I read makes some sense, but it dropped the ball on a number of issues.

We would not have gone into Iraq, simply for oil costs. We WOULD STILL have gone in, had oil not been an issue (see our involvement in Kosovo for a comparison). So the 'cause' was not oil, to say it was is to be extremely misleading.

Was it a motivation? Sure, it was a factor in a much larger equation.

Cosovo is definitely worth some thought. I believe the issue there was that certain European nations, including Italy and Germany, were worried about what might happen to them if that country experienced a severe political upheaval. That being said, I do believe that the Kosovo operation was motivated by good will to a much larger extent than the Gulf War. It was also smaller, and it was also a NATO operation rather than a US (or UN) op.
I don't question the fact that Iraq had a powerful army, but only that they had the ability to deploy that army into Israel (especially without being detected). Israeli air power, augmented no doubt by American planes, would have crippled a land assault. As for the missile thing, I don't know as much about that. I never got the impression that Iraq had a large number of SCUD missiles, and I certainly know that SCUDs of that vintage do not frequently hit their targets. My guesstimate on the missile launch problem? Hundreds of Israelis dead, which in wartime terms is a nuisance.

The missle launch campaign was not big because Iraq was preparing for a war with the US, and had just invaded another (relatively powerful) country. Iraq's (short term) goal was not to destroy Israel, which does play into what you were saying. However, it most certainly was (and is) a long term goal. Iraq's main goal is to become big and scary enough to be left alone in a stable state, and then to slowly expand into neighboring countries. Don't understimate the reality that if Iraq had nuclear weapons and were willing to use them (making it nearly a unique nation in that respect), we would be unlikely to fudge with them over relatively minor things (like genocide, or invasion of neighboring countries, etc.).

Iraq launched ~40 scuds at Israel, and I believe deaths numbered three or four. However, Iraq had another 750 or so (at least), all purchased from Russia. Fudging Russians. Seriously, their communist idiocy fudgeed up about 1/4 of the world.

In any event, there were enough chemical warheads to put two on each one of those Scuds, and the initial 'attacks' weren't so much attacks as threats. I also think Iraq was just trying to see what would happen. Saddam Hussein is a self-defeater, he has a failure complex, so that might have played into it.

It's also been rumored that Iraq might have had a few fully functioning nuclear warheads at the time, but that they were damaged during the conflict. Obviously this is speculative.

Were we supposed to let this crazy bastard invade neighboring countries, continue to develop nuclear and biological weapons, and launch approx 40 missles at a neighboring nation?

Obviously, it's not something we'd let happen. Anywhere.

I wouldn't really disagree with anything you said here (!) but any expansion of the type you're discussing would have taken several years if not decades. I think the nearer-term threat was to the global economy. I do wonder what would have happened had we left them alone. I'm not sure an invasion of neighboring arab states would have been high on Hussein's agenda, but I imagine he would have tried to bully them into some sort of anti-Israeli military coalition. Hm.

lets get it on!