Seems Saddam knows what this potential war is really about

miir · Post by **miir** » January 24, 2003, 2:32 pm

Saddam knows hes fucked.
He knows what Bush really wants.
I guess that will be his last act of defiance.

Iraq Intends to Damage Own Oil Fields in War - U.S.
Fri January 24, 2003 12:12 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraq intends to "cause damage or destruction" to its own oil fields if war breaks out, and the U.S. military has plans to secure and protect the fields in the event of hostilities, a senior U.S. defense official said on Friday.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told a Pentagon briefing that "a variety of intelligence sources" indicate that President Saddam Hussein intends to "cause damage or destruction to their oil fields."

The official said there are indications that Saddam's forces already have begun the process of planning for destroying oil wells.

The official said U.S. military planners "have crafted strategies that will allow us to secure and protect those fields as rapidly as possible in order to then preserve those prior to destruction, as opposed to having to go in and clean up after." He refused to provide details as to the nature or timing of such a military operation.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 24, 2003, 2:37 pm

This has been known for awhile and factored in.

Edit: the big question is if he'll use biological or chemical weapons. My guess is he will and would also use nukes on his own soil if he had them.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 24, 2003, 2:37 pm

**yawn**

Gee, Saddam spiking oil wells.

deja vu

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » January 24, 2003, 2:39 pm

Where in the fuck is your liberal outrage over the environmental damage that Saddam did to the earth when he torched all the Kuwaiti oil fields during the Gulf War? I mean the Green at ALL Cost freaks should have called for Saddam's head long before now. You idiots get your panties in a wad over some minor and highly monitored drilling on the North slope but Saddam lit a country on fire and you forgive and forget that? You amaze me.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 24, 2003, 2:44 pm

yes Metanis i think Saddam got a Greenpeace Christmas pack a few weeks ago...

an analyst i heard doesnt believe this threat, but yes the US plans for the contingency. Fucking those Oil Wells would really hurt the long term Iraqi economy. Even in death, Saddam will be an egomaniac, and he will want to be remembered favorably by 'his' people.

anyway, to a realistic point about the oil wells in Kuwait that one of our Desert Storm vets may know: what long term impact did that have to the oil reserves in Kuwait?
Major impact? tangible but annoying impact? no impact? Devastating impact?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 24, 2003, 2:51 pm

My understanding ( I am no expert on oil production ) is that the damage Saddam did was more or less to equipment, not the oil itself. It's very difficult to cause a problem with underground oil. What the expense was to replace the rigs he destroyed I haven't heard.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 24, 2003, 2:54 pm

so in otherwords, BFD if he torches the wells?

i mean a few billion in gear is nothing compared to what is underground there.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » January 24, 2003, 3:00 pm

Theoretically couldn't you send a bomb down one of the drill wells to cause an explosion, and set the underground oil afire? I know you can't have fire without oxygen, but if heated like this, all of the resulting oil comming from that well for the next few days / weeks / months be impossible to extinguish because it will ignite when it comes in contact with oxygen? Depending on how hot the bomb blows it, of cours.e. napalm would doa nice job..

Or hell, maybe somthing not so far out.. how about dropping a chem warhead down there.. somthing liquid. Would render the oil worthless.. if you find the right thing to use..

I know, far out ideas.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 24, 2003, 3:04 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Theoretically couldn't you send a bomb down one of the drill wells to cause an explosion, and set the underground oil afire? I know you can't have fire without oxygen, but if heated like this, all of the resulting oil comming from that well for the next few days / weeks / months be impossible to extinguish because it will ignite when it comes in contact with oxygen? Depending on how hot the bomb blows it, of cours.e. napalm would doa nice job..

Or hell, maybe somthing not so far out.. how about dropping a chem warhead down there.. somthing liquid. Would render the oil worthless.. if you find the right thing to use..

I know, far out ideas.

STFU! Iraqi snoops may be reading this board!

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 24, 2003, 3:06 pm

Akaran,

You might be able to do something with a chemical, I dunno. Setting oil underground on fire is damn near impossible, since it is rarely in a large 'pool'. Oil deposits tend to be spread throughout a layer of porous material. From what I have heard, an oil deposit has to be almost played out in order for there to be enough oxygen present to make it burn.

Just guessing, but since you have to change oil to a vapor to make it burn under most circumstances, and underground oil is usually pressurized to some degree it would be really, really hard to get an oil deposit fired except at the point where it comes to the surface.

Vor,

That's pretty much it. Replacing the wellheads is apparently a giant-sized pain in the ass and costly, but I don't think his actions had any real impact on the resource itself.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 24, 2003, 3:14 pm

He introduced more pollution in terms of oil then the Exxon Valdez by several orders of magnitude.

Independant News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/865247.stm
Military report
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/rowl/mr1018ch1.html
EPA report
http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/foreign/03.htm
University of Vermont Report
http://www.uvm.edu/~jmoore/envhst/joste ... 20War.html

A quote from greenpeace.org
"At the end of hostilities in August 1991 the MV Greenpeace began a tour of the Gulf region visiting Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran to document the environmental impact of the war. Memorable images were recorded of blackened beaches from oil slicks tens of miles long - a result of the worlds largest oil spill estimated at some 4 to 8 million barrels and burning oil wells that darkened the skies above Kuwait turning day into night. " ( http://archive.greenpeace.org/~comms/vr ... t/z14.html )

The single largest act of eco terrorism in the history of the world.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 24, 2003, 3:14 pm

He did the same thing in 92. No big surprise.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 24, 2003, 3:17 pm

The single largest act of eco terrorism in the history of the world.

That's not 'eco-terrorism', you idiot.

Typical of you foaming-at-the-mouth fucktards to throw the word terrorism around when you think it might help your argument.

Pick up a fucking dictionary:

e·co·ter·ror·ism
Terrorism or sabotage committed in the name of environmental causes.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 24, 2003, 3:19 pm

miir wrote:
The single largest act of eco terrorism in the history of the world.
That's not 'eco-terrorism', you idiot.

Funny that is what greenpeace calls it you dumb ass cocksucking blizzard cracker fuck.

rhyae · Post by **rhyae** » January 24, 2003, 3:20 pm

I'm Green
and no I'm not happy about the aftermath of the Kuwait oil fires.
Up to 40% of major water aquifers poluted. Tons of sand labelled toxic waste. 250 oil 'lakes' forming across the surface of the desert, 1000 miles of coast line contaminated. A black oily cloud hanging over the region for months, decreasing the air and water temperature.

The environment always takes a beating in a war, the fallout from Hiroshima, defoliants like Agent Orange. We beat up the earth in peacetime too, can anybody say Chernobyl?
Sickens me, that's it, I'm writing my congressmen again.

Edit: MF'n spelling

miir · Post by **miir** » January 24, 2003, 3:21 pm

Kylere wrote:
miir wrote:
The single largest act of eco terrorism in the history of the world.
That's not 'eco-terrorism', you idiot.
Funny that is what greenpeace calls it you dumb ass cocksucking blizzard cracker fuck.

ROFL, Greenpeace partakes in eco-terrorism.
You enjoy making yourslef look like an idiot?

miir · Post by **miir** » January 24, 2003, 3:23 pm

I believe that's shoving both feet in your mouth while your head is up your ass.

Thanks for cracking me up before I start my weekend.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 24, 2003, 3:24 pm

miir wrote:
Kylere wrote:
miir wrote:
The single largest act of eco terrorism in the history of the world.
That's not 'eco-terrorism', you idiot.
Funny that is what greenpeace calls it you dumb ass cocksucking blizzard cracker fuck.
ROFL, Greenpeace partakes in eco-terrorism.
You enjoy making yourslef look like an idiot?

Okay you dumb fuck lemme make it easy for your ignorant ass.

Main Entry: eco·ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: "E-kO-'ter-&r-i-z&m, "e-kO
Function: noun
Date: 1987
1 : sabotage intended to hinder activities that are considered damaging to the environment
2 : political terrorism intended to damage an enemy's natural environment
(http://www.m-w.com)
Define how lighting an opponents oilfields on fire is NOT ecoterrorism now bitch.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » January 24, 2003, 3:26 pm

miir wrote:The official, speaking on condition of anonymity...

We burn anon posters here everyday. Why should this guy be any be any different?

Acies · Post by **Acies** » January 24, 2003, 3:30 pm

Saddam is not a "terrorist" in the sense of the word, he is a dictator.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 24, 2003, 3:31 pm

Acies wrote:Saddam is not a "terrorist" in the sense of the word, he is a dictator.

You can be a dictator and a terrorist.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 24, 2003, 3:39 pm

kylere: do you agree with what Fallanthas said, that in the big picture, Saddam torching the oil wells in Kuwait did little to damage the reserves themselves?

so moving forward if that is true, the main effect of torching the oil wells can be concluded to be 1. sort of a publicity stunt and 2. only really damaging in an environmental capacity?

Acies · Post by **Acies** » January 24, 2003, 3:41 pm

True enough, and yes, that is the correct definition.
However, I must point out that the definition makes it a point to include intent.
The question is, was it Saddam's intent to damage the ecology of Kuait, or simply try to fuck us over?
However, I think Kylere has made a good point.
Yeah, I think we can assume the guy is a ecoterrorist figure.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 24, 2003, 3:43 pm

Well, I'm sure that short-term it's a devastating thing to the country he leaves behind.

It has to take a huge amount of time and currency to bring those wells back into production. Cleanup costs would also be very high.

Long term, probably the only thing it does is piss people off and kill a hell of a chunk of biomass for no reason.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 24, 2003, 3:43 pm

Voronwë wrote:kylere: do you agree with what Fallanthas said, that in the big picture, Saddam torching the oil wells in Kuwait did little to damage the reserves themselves?

so moving forward if that is true, the main effect of torching the oil wells can be concluded to be 1. sort of a publicity stunt and 2. only really damaging in an environmental capacity?

I agree they did little in terms of overall damage to the in ground oil supplies, however it was a spill of 4-8MILLION BARRELS, versus a puny 30-40Million GALLONS from the Exxon Valdez, Saddam order the single largest act of ecoterrorism in the history of mankind.

No matter how many edits Miir throws in, this remains the truth. You do damage with the intent of harming the environment of your opponent, and it is ecoterrorism. The US even used it in Vietnam by mass deploying defoliants.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 24, 2003, 3:47 pm

Acies, I think he did it to;

1. Fuck over the people, environment and government of Kuwait
2. Fuck over the oil producing capable of a competitor that he had attempted and failed a hostile takeover upon.
3. Make the US led, UN sanctioned repulsion of his invasion seem less effective.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » January 24, 2003, 3:56 pm

Yeah, under the circumstances, I am not going to say he didn't do it

Senwen Aelabon · Post by **Senwen Aelabon** » January 24, 2003, 4:05 pm

Saddam's oilwell Sabotage made for an interesting IMAX film anyway.

http://www.imax.com/films/now_playing/fire_kuwait.html

Fires of Kuwait review.

http://xanadu.real.com/film-review/1993 ... eview.html

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » January 24, 2003, 4:53 pm

From a technical perspective of someone who works in the energy industry...

Blowing the wellheads and surface equipment off causes one hell of a mess, but unless the reservoir pressure is totally depleted, it will not permanently render the wells useless.

Starting an underground fire, and burning the oil, is impossible unless you can provide a source of oxygen downhole to keep the fire going (its really that simple: you need an ignition source, a fuel source and an oxygen source for a fire).

Even setting off a bomb downhole may have no consequence: if the well bore collapses/caves-in, you move over 100 feet and drill a new well. Incidentally, this is probably about the most damaging thing he can do, in terms of expense. On this same line, as Fallanthas sort of hit on, if he pumps the right chemicals downhole he can essentially seal off the pores in the wells that allow the oil to flow into the wellbore, but again, this has a generally localized effect, so moving and re-drilling a short distance away still allows you to recover the reserves.

About the only ways to render most of the oil unrecoverable, would be to somehow get rid of the reservoir pressures (and with several thousand feet of rock, dirt, and other crap on it, good luck unless you have some time to let it all gush out) or to somehow contaminate the oil so no one can handle it (such as to irradiate it). And even bleeding off the reservoir pressure, will still leave oil in the reservoir that you can pump out, using surface pumping units or a submersible pump. At that point it gets down to how economical is it for Exxon, BP, Shell or Chevron or whomever else to attempt to recover it...

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » January 24, 2003, 5:15 pm

Or drop some of this stuff down the wells ... wonder how long it takes

http://sjc.edu.hk/~mtleung/Pollution/Oi ... cteria.htm

miir · Post by **miir** » January 24, 2003, 5:15 pm

Kyleye, by your definition, the Atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the largest acts of "eco-terrorism" ever commited.

Those actions resulted in far greater ecological damage than the oil fires in Kuwait.

In order to deem an action as "eco terrorism", the motive must be clear.

I think it's obvious that Iraq's motive in ligting the wells on fire was to render them unuseable. These actions did have adverse ecological effects in the area. Due to the geographical proximity of Iraq to Kuwait, both countries' ecological systems were affected.

Going by your secondary definition of ecoterrorism and the facts surrounding the situation, we can safely say that Iraq's primary motive was not to "intenionaly damage an enemy's natural environment".

The same can be assumed with regards to the Atomic bombs America dropped on Japan.

On the other hand, I don't think that was the case with the extended use of Agent Orange in Veitnam.

** Ecoterrorism is almost exclusively referred to as the actions of groups such as Greepeace that are considered harrasment and that damage property. The term was created as a direct result of Greenpeace's actions in the 80s.

*** The secondary definition you provided is exclusive the the Mirriam-Webster dictionary and is not included in any other english language dictionary.

Soriathus Serpentine · January 24, 2003, 5:40 pm

EDIT: Hmmm yeah ummm nm, Wulfran said it better than me.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 24, 2003, 5:48 pm

Yeah, imagine us wanting to keep an insane dictator from fucking up one of the largest oil fields in the world. How dare the mean US imperialists do that!

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 24, 2003, 5:49 pm

Kylere wrote:
miir wrote:
The single largest act of eco terrorism in the history of the world.
That's not 'eco-terrorism', you idiot.
Funny that is what greenpeace calls it you dumb ass cocksucking blizzard cracker fuck.

Haha Kylere you made my day.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » January 24, 2003, 6:23 pm

I'm eating grits.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » January 24, 2003, 6:26 pm

What do they taste like?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 24, 2003, 6:31 pm

Miir,

You cross the line of value and go into clueless. Other dictionaries do include the definition, and I unlike you have checked this fact.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were LESS damaging environmentally than the burning of the Kuwaiti oilfields and the release of millions of barrels of oil. The snipe against the US is further weakened by the fact that I myself had already pointed to a past US transgression. Your attempt to dilute the issue fails.

You decide that the only Iraqi intent was to damage oil production, as this is your opinion you can maintain this thought. However enlightened thinkers are able to see the same clear cut rational that Iraq was interested in denying use of the land to Kuwait. This is ecological and enviromental denial of terrain through making it inhospitable to life.

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » January 24, 2003, 6:32 pm

Lalanae wrote:I'm eating grits.

With or without sugar?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 24, 2003, 6:43 pm

sugar on grits?

butter, salt and pepper go on grits.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 24, 2003, 6:46 pm

Showing how bad a redneck I am....

WTF is a grit, anyway?

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » January 24, 2003, 6:47 pm

Aye - sugar on grits. I'm a Yank - what do you expect?

miir · Post by **miir** » January 24, 2003, 6:48 pm

Other dictionaries do include the definition, and I unlike you have checked this fact.

I'm afraid you are incorrect.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » January 24, 2003, 6:49 pm

So, why Grits? Forgive my cuisine ignorance on these, but exactly what the hell is a grit?

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » January 24, 2003, 6:56 pm

Grits are "coarsely ground hulled grain" that is usually eaten for breakfast. I never had them until I went South. Most people I know put butter, salt, and pepper on them but I put sugar on mine. I view them in a similar way as oatmeal and I've never heard of anyone putting salt and pepper on oatmeal.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 24, 2003, 6:57 pm

Aye. Yankee here too. Butter and Sugar on my grits.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 24, 2003, 6:58 pm

Hrmm, sorta like Cream of Wheat?

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 24, 2003, 6:58 pm

When I was a kid, I hated grits, partly cause I viewed it as a poor mans cereal. Grits instead of fruit loops? I was getting the shaft! I grew up and now I love them. Sugar and butter = heavenly breakfast.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 24, 2003, 7:00 pm

Being a yank has nothing to do with butter and sugar. I am from the south and everyone I know eats them this way, so stop trying to claim the heavenly combo as your own.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » January 24, 2003, 7:00 pm

That sounds quite ... bland.
Pepper and salt (or sugar) helps it go down without tasting like a wheaty paste, ya?

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » January 24, 2003, 7:03 pm

Aye Acies. And I would like to apologize to you Krimson. I always get laughed at when I put sugar on mine - thought it was just me.

VeeshanVault

Seems Saddam knows what this potential war is really about

Seems Saddam knows what this potential war is really about

..

Re: Seems Saddam knows what this potential war is really abo