Iraq: Just War or Just Oil?

[Qenan]

See the Thomas Friedman essay: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/opinion/05FRIE.html (registration required)

Key point:

I say this possible Iraq war is partly about oil because it is impossible to explain the Bush team's behavior otherwise. Why are they going after Saddam Hussein with the 82nd Airborne and North Korea with diplomatic kid gloves — when North Korea already has nuclear weapons, the missiles to deliver them, a record of selling dangerous weapons to anyone with cash, 100,000 U.S. troops in its missile range and a leader who is even more cruel to his own people than Saddam?


Friedman argues that a war for oil might still be just... but not if we just install a friendly regime to maintain cheap oil. Worth reading.

[asspennies]

This argument is so lame. We have to treat the North Korea situation with kid gloves precisely because they DO have nuclear weapons. They're the great equalizer, and they force diplomatic relations.

You remember Civilization, don't you? "And we have NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!"

Saddam doesn't have them...yet.

[Anonymous]

Another thing, though, is a bit more cynical but I think valid, and that's the idea that Iraq is an easy task, relatively speaking, and North Korea is not. Barring Saddam tossing Sarin at Tel Aviv (not that likely, given the likely response), Iraq can't really do that much damage to anyone. North Korea, using purely conventional weapons, could kill a boatload of South Koreans, not to mention what they could do with a nuke. So, kid gloves might be the best approach. There are no good options dealing with North Korea, unless you simply don't want to pay any attention to the risks to South Korea. Iraq, on the other hand, is as close to a "freebie" as you get in this world.

That's not to downplay the dangers or potential difficulties in a war with Iraq; war is unpredictable and hubris has felled many a would-be conqueror. But realistically speaking, Iraq is nowhere near the challenge that a war with North Korea would be, from a lot of different angles, including danger to other parties.

[Qenan]

This argument is so lame. We have to treat the North Korea situation with kid gloves precisely because they DO have nuclear weapons. They're the great equalizer, and they force diplomatic relations.

You remember Civilization, don't you? "And we have NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!"

Saddam doesn't have them...yet.

Of course, such a policy will encourage every sane state to acquire Nuclear weapons. Is that what you want?

In any case, you've missed the main thrust of Friedman's article. Did you read it?

[Brad Grenz]

Another name for my Big Book of Retards...

*Friedman, Thomas

Death Wombat is right, it's all about South Korea. Why is it so difficult to understand that Iraq and North Korea are not directly analogous situations? And for a bunch of peace-loving hippies, some people sure are eager to start a nuclear war with NK. (or reinstate the draft (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021231/ap_on_go_co/rangel_draft_1), by the by)

All this "What about NK?" and "it's just about oil" is just so much political spin bullshit. The anti-war movement obviously can't mount a convincing argument against taking down Saddam (you know you're in trouble when your best ammo is that he tried to assassinate a former US president), so they've resorted to muddying the issue by insisting we have to attack North Korea as well, insinuating that all Bush wants is cheap oil, or trying to force the issue by instituting a draft.

[Anonymous]

I'm curious Brad, just what do you believe this war is about? Because Saddam is an very evil and bad man? There are plenty out there. What makes him so special?

[Qenan]

Another name for my Big Book of Retards...

*Friedman, Thomas


Hey, if you consider Friedman a "retard" there isn't much to say... My assessment is very, very different.

[Brad Grenz]

I'm curious Brad, just what do you believe this war is about? Because Saddam is an very evil and bad man? There are plenty out there. What makes him so special?

Well, you see, there's this place called the middle east. It is situated in the region where Africa, Asia and Europe meet. In one country located in this part of the world lives a very bad man. Unfortunately, not oly does he live there, but he runs the place. The people in this country are brutally oppressed. The bad man is also an egomaniac, far from trustworthy and perhaps insane. He lusts for power and renown. One way he thinks he can use to expand those aspects of his person are through the aquisition of terrible weapons. Thanks to the reletive sophistication of his country's population, there is a fairly good chance that he could develop a nuclear arsenal. But it would not be safe to assume he would never use such weapons. Mere posession itself could contitute a threat to the stability of the region. This could lead to many deaths and possibly severe damage to the world economy. This man could also not be trusted not to allow the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other powers around the world, for profit. A number of these powers do not have the best interest of the world in mind and in fact could intend harm to many around the world, including the US and its citizens. These geopolitical concerns should not be taken lightly.

This bad man also maintains a brutally oppressive regime. Inhuman methods of torture and murder are used against dissidents, undesirables and their families, women and children. The human rights violations are in my opinion sufficient cause for this man's removal.

This place, I referred to it as the middle east, if you recall, is also the birthplace of one of the world's major religions, Islam. A small subset of this religion adhere to what we call fundementalist beliefs. Some have come to the conclusion that western civilization, and the United States specifically, are the source of evil in the world. A few actively engage in violence directed at the west, this is called "terrorism". Many of the factors contributing to the spread of terrorism are socioeconomic, rather than truely religious. Poverty, the absense of democracy, poor education, etc. The country where the bad man resides, Iraq, has the potential to be a shining example of success for the region, better than any other country in the middle east. If the bad man was removed a democratic government could be established, economic sanctions would be lifted and Iraq would be poised to become a major economic power. It might require a war, but in all likelyhood it would be an extremely short one with reletively few casualties on both sides. The positive influence Iraq could have on its neighbors in the future will be worth it.

It's true that there are other bad man and other troubled regions, but none possess the confluence of factors, or political viability, or ease of action, of potential reward and reduction of threat, as exists in Iraq.

Did I go slow enough for you? Or should I break out a muppet and some flash cards?

[Anonymous]

Did I go slow enough for you? Or should I break out a muppet and some flash cards?

Are you always an abusive asshole or is it just seasonal?

[Brad Grenz]

Just with smart-ass, anon pricks. Have a nice day! :)

[Rywill]

Erik Wolpaw's been recommending a book called "The Threatening Storm." I read it a couple of weeks ago. It's a good book and presents the case for invading Iraq in a clear way that is hard to argue with. I'd recommend that anyone who disagrees with Brad go read it.

To summarize the important differences between Iraq and NK, though (partly a retread of what Brad said):

1. Saddam, unlike Kim Jong Il, has shown that he is willing to invade his neighbors if he thinks it will bring him greater power and prestige (Iran, and Kuwait). He is thus a greater danger and needs to be dealt with more quickly.

2. Iraq, unlike NK, has a severely weakened military that could probably be beaten pretty easily. In the last war, most of them deserted or surrendered when the first shots were fired. He is thus an easier target to deal with militarily, making invasion a more appealing option than it is in NK.

3. Iraq, unlike NK, is a terrain favorable to US military assets, especially airpower. The cities are obviously a different matter, but at worst, that means the urban part of Iraq is comparable to the urban part of NK.

4. Iraq, unlike NK, is not within easy artillery range of the capital of one of our allies (South Korea).

5. Iraq, unlike NK, cannot reach Japan with its missiles.

6. Iraq, unlike NK, cannot reach Alaska with its missiles.

7. Saddam, unlike Kim Jong Il, has shown over and over again that he cannot be effectively deterred because he grossly miscalculates the likely outcome of his actions. For example, Saddam expected to defeat the US military if they responded to his invasion of Kuwait. Thus, while we can expect that NK will probably refrain from using nuclear weapons (if they have them) and will probably refrain from invading their neighbors with conventional weapons--because they know they would get their asses kicked--we cannot make this assumption about Saddam. There is simply no way to predict what will or will not deter him, particularly as he gets older. In fact, the evidence (his own statements and those of his cabinet) point strongly to the conclusion that Saddam believes that if he had a nuclear weapon, no world government would dare oppose him if he engaged in conventional war. In other words, he seems to think that if he had nukes, he could use conventional war to invade his neighbors (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and eventually Israel) and nobody would try to stop him because everyone would be too afraid of his nukes. Although obviously he is mistaken, the fact that he believes it could lead him to start off a Mideast war that he would lose, but which would send the entire world into economic depression.

8. Saddam, unlike Kim Jong Il, has repeatedly used weapons of mass destruction, both on his enemies (extensively in the Iran-Iraq war) and also on his own people (the Kurds).

9. Saddam, unlike Kim Jong Il, routinely violates the human rights of his own people in the most hideous ways. Although Kim Jong Il does not respect human rights, and is clearly a terrible leader in the sense that he makes decisions that bring great suffering to his people, he is nowhere near being in shouting distance of being in the same league as Saddam Hussein.

10. Iraq, unlike NK, definitely does not have nuclear weapons yet.

11. Iraq, unlike NK, is in violation of numerous UN resolutions.

12. Iraq, unlike NK, sits on top of the second-largest deposit (and next to the largest deposit) of one of the world's most important resources. Unlike the situation with NK, allowing the region around Iraq to destabilize even a little could tank the US economy. Allowing it to destabilize a lot would throw the entire world into a depression that would probably last much of the rest of our lives.

Are those sufficient differences to convince you that perhaps these two situations are completely unalike, and that your simplistic world-view is childish and mistaken? This war is about oil in the sense that Iraq's ability to send the world economy over a cliff makes it extremely important to deal with him now, before he gets nukes. So in that sense, you're right that this is a war "about oil," although it's about a lot of other things as well. Your implication that Bush wants to invade to take control of Iraqi oil or drive down the price of oil is wrong.

Also, Qenan's argument that "the policy [of treating nuclear states differently than non-nuclear ones] will encourage every sane state to acquire [n]uclear weapons" mistakes correlation for causality. It's not that we, completely randomly, have elected to treat nuclear states differently, thereby encouraging states to pursue nukes. It's that nuclear states have vastly more power than non-nuclear ones, which both forces us to treat them differently, and encourages states to pursue nukes because they want to be treated differently. There's no "policy" at work here other than the purely pragamatic policy of recognizing that nuclear states are very powerful.

[Anonymous]

So basically, the USA is tearing down someone they think they have a chance against without causing too much casualties to themselves.

Also, there is still no link between Al Queda and Iraq. Thank you for playing and please try again.

[Brad Grenz]

Way to address the substance of the argument. We're all really impressed. OK, that's a lie. But if you had a time machine and could go back five months and speak to a class of 5th graders, they'd all be incensed!

Are you familiar with the concept of hypocrasy? Your argument is rife with it. You oppose the war, I assume, based on the loss of life that it will incure, but you argument against it is that not enough people will die. I have no problem dismissing this objection out of hand as it is so absurd.

What your peace march needs is more body paint and some abstract choreogrphy! That'll win over the public for sure! Oooh! Try to include gardening somehow, IN THE NUDE! It'll really communicate your objections when they show a clip to make fun of on Fox News.

[Desslock]

Key point:

I say this possible Iraq war is partly about oil because it is impossible to explain the Bush team's behavior otherwise.

Well, impossible unless you're rational:

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id={1025511D-34F9-4921-BC02-EA73849F5C0B}

[Anonymous]

"hypocrasy"

Are you familiar with a dictionary?

[Anonymous]

Yet, Desslock, the article does not give a plausible reason as to why exactly Bush and his administration is so intent on invading and deposing of Saddam.

While U.S. laws prohibit the USA from investing in Iraq, does it prevent companies in the USA from doing so? How many ways are there to circumvent this? Why did this law not prevent Cheney and Halliburton from selling oil equipment to Iraq back in 1998? Are these questions really not worth answering or at the very least, asking?

[Brad Grenz]

"hypocrasy"

Are you familiar with a dictionary?

Ooh, a grammar police beat down. You sure showed me what for. I guess my spelling at 2 in the morning isn't as good as it should be. Sorry if the mistake made things confusing for you when you went to M-W.com to find a definition. Here, I'll make things easy for you. This is the one I meant:

"Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
Date: 13th century
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy"

Does the first entry ring a bell? 'Cause it should.

While U.S. laws prohibit the USA from investing in Iraq, does it prevent companies in the USA from doing so? How many ways are there to circumvent this? Why did this law not prevent Cheney and Halliburton from selling oil equipment to Iraq back in 1998? Are these questions really not worth answering or at the very least, asking?

I guess we've missed the point again. US law does not prevent any interaction between the US and Iraq with regards to the oil trade. As the article mentions, we are currently Iraq's number one oil customer. And we already get it on the cheap cause we kicked their ass last time. Why would we spend a couple trillion dollars to save and extra couple billion a year? Answer: we wouldn't. The insinuation has always been that the US would swoop in after a war and, like, steal all the Iraqi oil for ourselves. This is patently absurd. The oil would still belong to the people of Iraq, it would be theirs to sell. The current infrastructure and foreign concerns would be maintained by their respective owners. The article also mentions that. Did you actually read the article? 'Cause it sounds like you didn't. And nothing you've mentioned comes close to proving, or even suggesting that this is all some hair-brained scheme by Bush and Cheney to secure a license to print money. Here's a hint, your pot dealer is probably not the most reliable source on such matters. Hey, there's an idea, if Bush wants a license to print money, he should legalize hemp. And found a bunch of farms! He could even print this money on paper made from the hemp, just like the good old days!

I'm going to bed now, someone want to tag me out? Or should we just resume this later?

[DrCrypt]

Another thing, though, is a bit more cynical but I think valid, and that's the idea that Iraq is an easy task, relatively speaking, and North Korea is not. Barring Saddam tossing Sarin at Tel Aviv (not that likely, given the likely response), Iraq can't really do that much damage to anyone.
Actually, Saddam hurling chemical or biological missiles in Tel Aviv is very likely. This is exactly what Saddam had already set up to do if it looked like the coalition was going to march on Baghdad during the Gulf War despite the fact that no coalition leader was even regime change as an option at the time. The chances of him doing it again (and already having the missiles aimed at Israel right now, given the current push to invade) are high enough that Israel has had a ballistic missile defense system installed. Although Saddam's first concern is maintaining his power, his second priority is the always worrying aim of "going down in History".

This is why we need to either remove or permanently cripple this man now: if he has biological weapons aimed right now at Tel Aviv which will be launched the second American troops invade, imagine what will happen once he gets a nuke. Think it is far off? Saddam had a nuclear device built ten years ago, only missing enriched uranium. Iraq has natural uranium deposits. With an eroding containment policy that can never be fixed, it is only a matter of time before Saddam has a nuclear device. Then, not only will his human atrocity problems never be solved, but Saddam will start blackmailing the world population by a one-two punch of massive quantities of oil and nuclear weapons. This is a serious threat, considering the fact that Iraq already irrationally invaded Kuwait once.

I'm going to second the recommendation of "The Threatening Storm" by Kenneth Pollack while simultaneously stepping out of my fake Internet asshole voice to make a point clear. It is so clear in its argument, so concisely written, so objective, so devoid of sweeping generalizations, so packed with reference and annotations for the generalization it does make, and so devoted to fairly outlining all possible options that, after reading it, it is almost impossible to think of anyone commenting in this thread against war with Iraq is anything besides a dim-witted clod.

I'm not trying to flame, but seriously, guys - the reason Brad Genz and co. are getting so furious and patronizing to you is because it is clear you are operating under absolutely no knowledge about the Iraq situation besides what you have heard at on-campus smelly armpit rallies, and are stubbornly against aquiring any knowledge that might contradict your preconceived opinions. To me, it is not only clear that you have no real knowledge of the Iraq crisis, but that you aren't even bothering to do more than skim Brad and the others' information-laden posts to broadly ascertain its "agrees with me" or "disagrees with me" status. Which makes you someone not worth debating with. Try arguing with facts, not opinions.

This isn't aimed at Death Wombat, who I started out quoting. Oh, and props to Qt3 and Erik!!! (who once recommended my favorite book, Naked Came the Stranger) for the Threatening Storm turn-on. An absolute page-turner.

[Guido Jones]

Yes, Threatening Storm is an *excellent* book on this issue - recieved my copy the other day from Amazon (on Erik's suggestion) and am about half way through it now.

If you've read that book and think we shouldn't go to war...well I just don't think it's possible to read that book and think we should remain outside of Iraq.

[DrCrypt]

Also, there is still no link between Al Queda and Iraq. Thank you for playing and please try again.
Also, who said there was? The United States has said that Iraq is a sponsor of organized terrorism - which is undeniably true, although again, that isn't why Saddam should be ousted. But I can't recall them saying that Al Qaeda and Saddam were in cahoots. Source?

[Ben Sones]

So basically, the USA is tearing down someone they think they have a chance against without causing too much casualties to themselves.

Also, there is still no link between Al Queda and Iraq. Thank you for playing and please try again.

When you set up a straw man argument (or two, in this case), try to find something that is at least vaguely related to the argument that you are countering. The Al-Quaeda one, for instance, just reads like a total non-sequitur.

The first one is the better of the two, in that the statement itself is nominally true, though an inaccurate representation or Rywill's argument for the reason to invade Iraq. The second one needs work, though. Nobody has mentioned Al-Quaeda, and I'm not sure why countering Al-Quaeda suddenly becomes the only valid justification for military action.

Rywill makes some pretty good points. If you have any real counter arguments, I'd like to hear them. Otherwise, thank you for playing.

[Anders Hallin]

1. Saddam, unlike Kim Jong Il, has shown that he is willing to invade his neighbors if he thinks it will bring him greater power and prestige (Iran, and Kuwait). He is thus a greater danger and needs to be dealt with more quickly.
And has only done so when he was quite sure that he couldn't lose the war in question.

2. Iraq, unlike NK, has a severely weakened military that could probably be beaten pretty easily. In the last war, most of them deserted or surrendered when the first shots were fired. He is thus an easier target to deal with militarily, making invasion a more appealing option than it is in NK.
Personally, my wish is for a more peaceful world since, you know, war hurts people.
If having a weak military is enough reason to be targeted in a military manner by the mightiest, the logical conclusion is that the best way to be able to speak your mind on all issues in the world is to build a bigger and better military, which would lead to a much more silent arms-race, but in the end likely more dangerous than the one between Soviet and the US.
This point is also in response to no.s 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10.

7. Saddam, unlike Kim Jong Il, has shown over and over again that he cannot be effectively deterred because he grossly miscalculates the likely outcome of his actions. For example, Saddam expected to defeat the US military if they responded to his invasion of Kuwait.
I have not read that, but I assume that was based on his belief that the US didn't care enough to invest so strongly in the war.
(I'm currently sitting around pondering the issue, and my mp3-player just started playing To Wish Impossible Things by The Cure.. how depressing)
I'm having a bit of a problem right now because I do not doubt that it's possible to stop Saddam from getting nuclear weapons without a war and highly doubt he would try anything at this point in time (I do not believe he is quite so mad that a lot of people seem to claim). However, since the UN can only do its controls and such because the West has Iraq tied up, it's not really viable as a method for the viable development of democracy in a global perspective.


8. Saddam, unlike Kim Jong Il, has repeatedly used weapons of mass destruction, both on his enemies (extensively in the Iran-Iraq war) and also on his own people (the Kurds).
I don't quite see how that has any importance for the current situation.

9. Saddam, unlike Kim Jong Il, routinely violates the human rights of his own people in the most hideous ways. Although Kim Jong Il does not respect human rights, and is clearly a terrible leader in the sense that he makes decisions that bring great suffering to his people, he is nowhere near being in shouting distance of being in the same league as Saddam Hussein.
Less time. And North Korea is hardly a bastion of Civil and Political liberty, just because it doesn't get reported as much I don't think their prisons are that nice, or the methods of their police and so on. Starvation-inducing politics is hardly the extent of Kim Jong Il's crimes.

11. Iraq, unlike NK, is in violation of numerous UN resolutions.
That is a good point. Should be a good point. Then there is Israel.
Iraq agreed to the weapon inspections though,

12. Iraq, unlike NK, sits on top of the second-largest deposit (and next to the largest deposit) of one of the world's most important resources. Unlike the situation with NK, allowing the region around Iraq to destabilize even a little could tank the US economy. Allowing it to destabilize a lot would throw the entire world into a depression that would probably last much of the rest of our lives.
The use of arms due to economic reasons sets a rather bad example, and there is no guarantee that a war in Iraq would act stablilizing (wars rarely do)

And no, I am not pushing for passivity instead of action, I am pushing for a different sort of action than war, since I do not think violence is an ideal way of changing the world.

[Qenan]

Key point:

I say this possible Iraq war is partly about oil because it is impossible to explain the Bush team's behavior otherwise.

Well, impossible unless you're rational:

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id={1025511D-34F9-4921-BC02-EA73849F5C0B}

Let me just quote a small piece of this article you implicitly praise:

Once Iraq is liberated, a peaceful, democratic society may emerge -- one that sets a constructive example for other Arab states.


Unless we are committing to keeping troops there for a long time, that is just about the most optimistic interpretation possible. However, if you'd actually read the Friedman piece, you would know that he would see that as a worthwhile end. His main point (IMO) was fighting a war JUST to get a more favorable dictatorship would be unjust war.

I'm disappointed in you, Desslock; I thought you could do more than just call people names.

[Qenan]

So basically, the USA is tearing down someone they think they have a chance against without causing too much casualties to themselves.


That seems to be the gist of it. Much as I dislike the current ruler of Iraq, I think this will help cement the view of the US as international bully.

[Qenan]

I'm not trying to flame, but seriously, guys - the reason Brad Genz and co. are getting so furious and patronizing to you is because it is clear you are operating under absolutely no knowledge about the Iraq situation besides what you have heard at on-campus smelly armpit rallies, and are stubbornly against aquiring any knowledge that might contradict your preconceived opinions. To me, it is not only clear that you have no real knowledge of the Iraq crisis, but that you aren't even bothering to do more than skim Brad and the others' information-laden posts to broadly ascertain its "agrees with me" or "disagrees with me" status. Which makes you someone not worth debating with. Try arguing with facts, not opinions.

I will try to get a copy; it looks like an interesting book. Three points:

1) Brad's style of discussion ("if you don't agree with me you are an idiot") deserves a kick in the groin. It is also likely counterproductive, as those whom he belittles are more likely to walk away than follow his recommendations.

2) Arguing by calling people names (e.g, "retard") is lame.

3) Thomas Friedman is a respected writer on foreign affairs, and deserves a more respected hearing, IMO. Or is it impossible for someone to disagree with your sacred book?

[DrCrypt]

Qenan, here's the exact quote you were looking for:
And that leads to my second point. If we occupy Iraq and simply install a more pro-U.S. autocrat to run the Iraqi gas station (as we have in other Arab oil states), then this war partly for oil would also be immoral.
I read the article, though, and couldn't even find the logic that Friedman used as a springboard to intergalactically launch himself into the stratosphere of incomprehensability.

Huh? Saddam Hussein repeatedly has little girls gang raped in front of their parents, or their eyes gouged out, because he thinks their parents might be a traitor. Think that is creepy enough by itself? Here's a famous Saddam quote: "I know there are scores of people plotting to kill me, and this is not difficult to understand. After all, did we not seize power by plotting against our predecessors? However, I am far cleverer than they are. I know they are conspiring to kill me long before they actually start planning to do it."

To sum that all up for you: if you were an Iraqi, you could find yourself watching your child being raped and tortured because you were a traitor, even if being a traitor had never even entered your mind.

How installing ANYONE in Saddam's place could be considered as strong a word as "immoral" is beyond me.

[DrCrypt]

3) Thomas Friedman is a respected writer on foreign affairs, and deserves a more respected hearing, IMO. Or is it impossible for someone to disagree with your sacred book?
It is, but not in the slipshod manner that Friedman has done. I could quote by quote refute his "points", but why bother? Someone already did it (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375509283/qid=1041785569/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4162484-6319926?v=glance&s=books).

[Qenan]

Qenan, here's the exact quote you were looking for:
And that leads to my second point. If we occupy Iraq and simply install a more pro-U.S. autocrat to run the Iraqi gas station (as we have in other Arab oil states), then this war partly for oil would also be immoral.
I read the article, though, and couldn't even find the logic that Friedman used as a springboard to intergalactically launch himself into the stratosphere of incomprehensability.

The argument (paragraphs 4 and 5 of the essay) is that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction would not likely be launchable against the US. We are not directly threatened. What is threatened is the middle east -- and, particularly, the oil coming from there. (I would add Israel.)


Huh? Saddam Hussein repeatedly has little girls gang raped in front of their parents, or their eyes gouged out, because he thinks their parents might be a traitor.... How installing ANYONE in Saddam's place could be considered as strong a word as "immoral" is beyond me.

This is the "Saddam is a bad guy argument". No one disputes this, but last I saw we were not removing all the leaders in the world who were bad guys. We are even on friendly terms with many evil governments. So this is a red-herring.

Thomas' argument is that if we just go in and replace Saddam with someone else to man the gas pump (with no committment to a long-term plan for more democratic government), that would be immoral. The point of the damned essay is to say, "if we are going to do this, we should do it right and leave a democratic goverment in Iraq when we are done."

That will take a much longer-term effort than just rooting out Saddam.

[Ben Sones]

This is the "Saddam is a bad guy argument". No one disputes this, but last I saw we were not removing all the leaders in the world who were bad guys. We are even on friendly terms with many evil governments. So this is a red-herring.

Sort of. You make a good point, but I'm not sure that I agree with your implication that we would be better off acting friendly towards all evil tyrants. That would be less hypocritical of us, certainly, but not particularly ethical.

Rather than be more friendly to Saddam on that basis, I would rather that we were LESS friendly with all the other evil tyrants. That doesn't mean that we have the responsibility (or the capability) to remove all of them from power, however. In the case of Iraq, Hussein presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the world economy, and this justifies the risk (very little, at the moment) of invading and removing Saddam Hussein from power. North Korea, by comparison, presents no immediate threat to anyone other than its own citizens, but has the ability to cause significant mayhem if prodded. So I don't think enacting a campaign of blind idealism, in which we start invading nuclear-armed countries such as NK and nuclear superpowers such as China (they aren't very nice, either) makes a whole lot of sense, even if invading Iraq does.

[Qenan]

I'm not arguing we should be friendly to evil tyrants. I'm just saying it is obvious that Saddam being a bad guy is not the reason we are going in.

Saddam is an evil man, and no one will be sorry to see him go.

[Rywill]

1. Saddam, unlike Kim Jong Il, has shown that he is willing to invade his neighbors if he thinks it will bring him greater power and prestige (Iran, and Kuwait). He is thus a greater danger and needs to be dealt with more quickly.

And has only done so when he was quite sure that he couldn't lose the war in question.

Absolutely true, but as I mentioned later in the post you are quoting, Saddam is often "quite sure" that he can't lose a war that he is, in fact, absolutely certain to lose. Cases in point: invasion of Iran (his forces got nowhere; Iran immediately counterattacked, kicked his ass, and was marching on Baghdad when Saddam slowed (but could not stop) them with profligate chemical weapons use; Saddam eventually accepted a humiliating, punitive peace agreement); invasion of Kuwait (Saddam expected to defeat the US military response, and continued to think that his troops would at least hold back any incursion into Iraq, even as those same troops were getting obliterated or were deserting; fearful that the US would march on Baghdad, Saddam had to accept a humiliating, punitive peace agreement). So your counter-argument here carries no weight--especially in light of Saddam's and Aziz's comments to the effect of "If we had a nuclear weapon, no nation would dare oppose us in a conventional war." If he gets a nuke, chances are extremely, extremely high that he will invade Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran or will try to get to Israel. Any one of those (perhaps not Iran, but definitely the others) would require a strong military response from the US, and could easily, easily escalate into nuclear war, or a punishing conventional war (e.g., if Iraq decides to torch its own oilfields) that could send the world economy to hell. We can't afford to let that happen, and the chances of it happening are way, way too high while Saddam is in power.

2. Iraq, unlike NK, has a severely weakened military that could probably be beaten pretty easily. In the last war, most of them deserted or surrendered when the first shots were fired. He is thus an easier target to deal with militarily, making invasion a more appealing option than it is in NK.

Personally, my wish is for a more peaceful world since, you know, war hurts people.

Well, I wish I had gotten a surround-sound speaker system for Christmas. Such is life. I mean, I don't even know what this statement is supposed to accomplish. We all wish for a more peaceful world. I wish Saddam Hussein had never come to power, and yes, I realize we helped put him there, and I wish we hadn't. I wish war didn't hurt people. I'm glad precision warfare hurts fewer civilians, but I wish nobody would be hurt at all. I wish war weren't necessary. If we lived in some magical happy world where everything was the way it was in Disneyland, that would be great. (Well, maybe not Disneyland. That's kind of freakish in a Stepford Wives way.) But we don't. War is sometimes a necessity. People like Saddam seize power and the only way to stop them is through violence. The world learned in the 1930's-40's that a quick, decisive, early war is vastly preferable to a protracted one after you've let a madman amass lots of power.



If having a weak military is enough reason to be targeted in a military manner by the mightiest, the logical conclusion is that the best way to be able to speak your mind on all issues in the world is to build a bigger and better military, which would lead to a much more silent arms-race, but in the end likely more dangerous than the one between Soviet and the US.
This point is also in response to no.s 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10.

You've totally missed the point here. Quenan's original assertion was "Iraq war is obviously only about oil because otherwise we would have invaded NK instead." My points were all intended to demonstrate that, no, there are many differences between Iraq and NK besides the presence of oil. For example, we are more hesitant to invade NK because it has a much more powerful military.

Your statement about "the best way to be able to speak your mind" is no more than a truism. If you think this is somehow the result of US policy, you are gravely mistaken. Maybe on Planet Allin everyone lives happily together and countries never use force to get their way, but here on earth, all countries strive to have better militaries so that they will have greater autonomy of action, no matter what the US does. Even if we never used our military anywhere, other countries--particularly ones led by violent dictators like Saddam--would continue to increase their military capacity so as to increase their ability to get their way.

Also, your implication that the US targets countries with weak militaries simply because of the weak military (i.e., because it's a chance to bully someone, which is its own reward) is so ludicrous that I don't even know how to respond. The world is jam-packed with countries that have a weaker military than ours (such as, for example, every single one of them). We target countries for military action when there is a problem that needs to be solved and can only be solved with military action. The fact that the problem country has a weak military is a huge bonus because it makes our job easier; however, the fact of a weak military does not itself mean you will be targeted, and the fact of a strong military does not mean you will not be targeted (see WW2).

7. Saddam, unlike Kim Jong Il, has shown over and over again that he cannot be effectively deterred because he grossly miscalculates the likely outcome of his actions. For example, Saddam expected to defeat the US military if they responded to his invasion of Kuwait.
I have not read that, but I assume that was based on his belief that the US didn't care enough to invest so strongly in the war.

Your assumption is correct, but does nothing to refute my point. Saddam grossly miscalculates how the world will respond to his actions, which leads him to take risks that from the outside appear insane and suicidal. Thus, the claim that Saddam will not cause trouble because he knows we would kick his ass is untrue. He will cause trouble, because he does NOT know we will kick his ass, even though it's OBVIOUS that we would kick his ass.

He also grossly miscalculates the effectiveness of his own military. He thought they would destroy Iran's military; instead, Iran rolled over them like they weren't even there. Even after seeing the huge coalition buildup after he invaded Kuwait, he didn't leave because he thought his forces would be able to hold off the counterattack; instead, the coalition rolled over them like they weren't even there.

I'm having a bit of a problem right now because I do not doubt that it's possible to stop Saddam from getting nuclear weapons without a war and highly doubt he would try anything at this point in time

Really? Do you base that on anything other than your own wishes about how beautiful the world could be? Because that's not how things are. You are completely wrong. But since you "do not doubt" that it would be possible to stop him without force, please let us know how that would be accomplished. He has the uranium in his own country. All he needs is to enrich it. That can be done in lots of different ways, and can be done in a way that is nearly impossible to detect from outside his country. All he needs is money, and time. He has lots of money, and we have no way to deny him money because the UN sanctions have fallen apart and he smuggles billions of dollars into his country every year. All we can deny him is time. Despite your unblinking assertion that we can deny him nukes without a war, every intelligence agency that has looked at the matter has concluded that Saddam will have nukes in the next 2-5 years unless he is removed from power.


(I do not believe he is quite so mad that a lot of people seem to claim).

Well, you must not be very familiar with the man and his history. To be fair, he is not "mad" in the sense of being "clinically insane," or at least doesn't appear to be. However, he is definitely "mad" in the sense that he is disconnected from reality (e.g., his ludicrous predictions about how the wars he starts will go) and in the sense that he is an inhuman monster (e.g., his habit of individually breaking a child's bones to get their parents to confess, or starving babies to get their parents to confess, or repeatedly raping children/wives to get their parents/spouses to confess, or killing people by lowering them into vats of acid, or any of a hundred other examples that are readily available).



8. Saddam, unlike Kim Jong Il, has repeatedly used weapons of mass destruction, both on his enemies (extensively in the Iran-Iraq war) and also on his own people (the Kurds).

I don't quite see how that has any importance for the current situation.

Well, let me try to clarify: use of weapons of mass destruction is very very bad. Anyone who uses such weapons should be very high on our problem list. This is particularly true if that person is also an agitator who routinely goes to war against his neighbors. And it is true-times-ten if he is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Thus, Iraq ranks very high--in fact, spot number one--on the problem list. North Korea is also up there, but is not nearly as high, because even if they already have nukes (an open question), there is no reason to believe they will use them unless somebody attacks them first. That is not at all true of Iraq--in fact, the opposite is much more likely. Nukes would embolden Iraq and probably cause them to attack their neighbors, which would necessitate a strong world response, which would back Iraq into a corner and make them very likely to use their nuke(s), which would lead to nuclear retaliation from at least the US and Israel.


9. Saddam, unlike Kim Jong Il, routinely violates the human rights of his own people in the most hideous ways. Although Kim Jong Il does not respect human rights, and is clearly a terrible leader in the sense that he makes decisions that bring great suffering to his people, he is nowhere near being in shouting distance of being in the same league as Saddam Hussein.

Less time. And North Korea is hardly a bastion of Civil and Political liberty, just because it doesn't get reported as much I don't think their prisons are that nice, or the methods of their police and so on. Starvation-inducing politics is hardly the extent of Kim Jong Il's crimes.

Your "less time" argument is wholly speculative. In particular, I would note that Saddam wasted no time--not even one day--after coming to power before torturing and summarily executing dozens of Iraqis that he thought might be a future threat to his dictatorship. Your other argument--that NK has also abused human rights--is completely nonresponsive to my point. I agree that NK abuses human rights and I agree that Kim Jong Il is a terrible person and a bad leader. But he is not nearly as bad as Saddam. Again, this thread is about "Why are we invading Iraq before NK?" This is one of the reasons why. Because even though Kim Jong Il is bad, Saddam is much worse than Kim Jong Il.

11. Iraq, unlike NK, is in violation of numerous UN resolutions.
That is a good point. Should be a good point. Then there is Israel.
Iraq agreed to the weapon inspections though,


Again, part of this argument is totally nonresponsive. Even if Israel is in violation of UN resolutions (and I don't know of any that they are, although I realize the UN has often condemned their actions in response to the Palestinians), that does not change the fact that Iraq, in addition to being in violation, has all the other problems I listed, none of which Israel has.

I think it's great that Iraq agreed to the inspections, but that still doesn't change all the other problems listed in my original post.

12. Iraq, unlike NK, sits on top of the second-largest deposit (and next to the largest deposit) of one of the world's most important resources. Unlike the situation with NK, allowing the region around Iraq to destabilize even a little could tank the US economy. Allowing it to destabilize a lot would throw the entire world into a depression that would probably last much of the rest of our lives.

The use of arms due to economic reasons sets a rather bad example, and there is no guarantee that a war in Iraq would act stablilizing (wars rarely do)

Why else do you think arms get used? Outside of cases of ethnic or religious hatred, arms are almost always used for economic reasons. Iraq invaded Kuwait for economic reasons. The coaltion counterattacked for mostly economic reasons. World War 2 was fought partly for economic reasons. So was World War 1. What in God's name is your point? Do you honestly think that if the US invades Iraq, it will be "setting an example"? Arms have been used for economic reasons all the way back to the day the first caveman picked up a rock and killed a food animal with it. Give me a fucking break.

And as for wars being destabilizing, that is true in the short term but completely off in the long term. Some wars are destabilizing in the long term, but the majority are not. In particular, removing a wildly unstable dictator like Saddam and replacing him with anything other than another wildly unstable dictator would be stabilizing.

(Edited to keep the grammar cops at bay)

[DrCrypt]

The argument (paragraphs 4 and 5 of the essay) is that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction would not likely be launchable against the US. We are not directly threatened. What is threatened is the middle east -- and, particularly, the oil coming from there. (I would add Israel.)
Exactly. Which could topple America's entire economy more profoundly than a nuclear bomb dropped in one of our cities could. So America is threatened, as is the economy of the entire world. The well-being of billions of people is a very valid reason to go to war.
Thomas' argument is that if we just go in and replace Saddam with someone else to man the gas pump (with no committment to a long-term plan for more democratic government), that would be immoral. The point of the damned essay is to say, "if we are going to do this, we should do it right and leave a democratic goverment in Iraq when we are done."
Fair enough, but I haven't heard anyone say that this isn't what is going to happen. Everyone knows Iraq is going to take years of US commitment to rebuild - that knowledge has been one of the primary ones driving the dovish position in Washington for the last ten years.
This is the "Saddam is a bad guy argument". No one disputes this, but last I saw we were not removing all the leaders in the world who were bad guys.
Hey now, I didn't mean to come across as anti-evil. In fact, I am about as unequivocal supporter of insidious evil as one emotionally wishy-washy Dubliner can be. For example, Evil Avatar is my favorite web site - his denunciation of the iMac lamp is probably as close to gang-raping small children as one news post can be. Runner up on favorite web site goes to Portal of Evil. I based my recent arm-shattering scooter accident on a man so evil, he's a canyon-jumping homonym almost twice in one name - Evel Kneivel. And I spend my evenings writing Croatian clerihews to my favorite film, Twins of Evil - essentially combining the language of genocide, poetry's evilest form, and Tom Chick's favorite film into one apocalptically evil hobby.

But as motherfuckin' awesome as I think evil is, even I'm not going to try to pretend that being evil is more moral than being good. Which, I think, is the only way you can construe Friedman's thesis: replacing Saddam Hussein, one of the most evil men on earth, with someone less evil is immoral.

[Jason McCullough]

3) Thomas Friedman is a respected writer on foreign affairs, and deserves a more respected hearing, IMO. Or is it impossible for someone to disagree with your sacred book?

Just because Friedman is "respected" doesn't mean he has any idea what he's talking about. Try asking an economist what they think of The Lexus & The Olive Tree sometime.

[Jason McCullough]

This is the "Saddam is a bad guy argument". No one disputes this, but last I saw we were not removing all the leaders in the world who were bad guys. We are even on friendly terms with many evil governments. So this is a red-herring.


Is there a reason my allies on the left have decided that because we can't fight oppressive evil everywhere, we can't fight it anywhere?


Thomas' argument is that if we just go in and replace Saddam with someone else to man the gas pump (with no committment to a long-term plan for more democratic government), that would be immoral. The point of the damned essay is to say, "if we are going to do this, we should do it right and leave a democratic goverment in Iraq when we are done."


Well, yeah.

[Qenan]

The argument (paragraphs 4 and 5 of the essay) is that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction would not likely be launchable against the US. We are not directly threatened. What is threatened is the middle east -- and, particularly, the oil coming from there. (I would add Israel.)
Exactly. Which could topple America's entire economy more profoundly than a nuclear bomb dropped in one of our cities could. So America is threatened, as is the economy of the entire world. The well-being of billions of people is a very valid reason to go to war.


I think that's a slippery slope. If economic harm is enough reason to go to war, would we be justified in attacking OPEC if they raised prices? I don't much respect that argument. It might have more weight if it were coupled with serious efforts to conserve, which I don't see the current administration making.

[Jason McCullough]

The argument (paragraphs 4 and 5 of the essay) is that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction would not likely be launchable against the US. We are not directly threatened. What is threatened is the middle east -- and, particularly, the oil coming from there. (I would add Israel.)
Exactly. Which could topple America's entire economy more profoundly than a nuclear bomb dropped in one of our cities could. So America is threatened, as is the economy of the entire world. The well-being of billions of people is a very valid reason to go to war.


I think that's a slippery slope. If economic harm is enough reason to go to war, would we be justified in attacking OPEC if they raised prices? I don't much respect that argument. It might have more weight if it were coupled with serious efforts to conserve, which I don't see the current administration making.

I have no idea about the OPEC thing; but good lord, you don't think Saddam having the power to cause a great depression is good enough reason to take him out?

Another bit on the "US is just doing this to control oil" argument: would you prefer Saddam control it? It's the other alternative.

[Qenan]

I have no idea about the OPEC thing; but good lord, you don't think Saddam having the power to cause a great depression is good enough reason to take him out?

Another bit on the "US is just doing this to control oil" argument: would you prefer Saddam control it? It's the other alternative.

Saudi Arabia has enough power to do that now, unless we were willing to intervene militarily. Suppose the Saudi's got a new, militant government that wanted to punish us for support of Israel and cut off the oil. Would that justify a war?

[Jessica]

I have no idea about the OPEC thing; but good lord, you don't think Saddam having the power to cause a great depression is good enough reason to take him out?

Another bit on the "US is just doing this to control oil" argument: would you prefer Saddam control it? It's the other alternative.

Saudi Arabia has enough power to do that now, unless we were willing to intervene militarily. Suppose the Saudi's got a new, militant government that wanted to punish us for support of Israel and cut off the oil. Would that justify a war?

Depends on whether you are looking for a moral justification or a practical justification, no? If Saudi Arabia cut off oil sales to the West (and maybe convinced other OPEC members to follow), would not the imminent collapse of Western civilization, along with wide-spread famine and all the other effects of having extremely limited access to the controlling factor of society and the economy, would that be a practical justification for war?

Personally, I wish we'd spend more on finding reasonable oil substitutes and replacements so the MidEast couldn't hold us over a barrel like this. But the US oil companies would never allow that.

[voltaic]

Personally, I wish we'd spend more on finding reasonable oil substitutes and replacements so the MidEast couldn't hold us over a barrel like this. But the US oil companies would never allow that.

More accurately, US politicians and political activists would never allow it. Those on the right more or less want to just use fossil fuels forever (existing infrastructure, political influence, etc) and those on the left want nothing more than the entire planet to convert to solar and wind power all in one fell swoop. Noone asks if we could develop more domestic oil reserves (Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, etc) and use the money saved by not buying foreign oil to research better modernized renewable energy.

For most of them on both sides it's all or nothing. Noone will compromise to, for example, use nuclear energy for another 25 years or so so that our national infrastructure can be converted off of fossil fuel burning electric plants in preparation for post-nuclear energy. It's sad really. But there's nothing like being an extremist!

[Jason McCullough]

More accurately again, technology won't allow it. I wouldn't hold your breath on a practical replacement for cheap oil in the next 20 years.

Sure, we *could* switch over to solar and zillions of batteries, but it's a $40/barrel equivalent. Not going to happen.

Nuclear power is also a pretty shitty replacement, until they find a good way to get rid of the waste.

[Brad Grenz]

Depends on whether you are looking for a moral justification or a practical justification, no? If Saudi Arabia cut off oil sales to the West (and maybe convinced other OPEC members to follow), would not the imminent collapse of Western civilization, along with wide-spread famine and all the other effects of having extremely limited access to the controlling factor of society and the economy, would that be a practical justification for war?

This hypothetical serves no point. Economics is only one component of the case against Saddam. As to this particular scenario, it will never happen. You see, Saudi Arabia likes the money the west gives them in exchange for oil. More than they hate Israel. Who would buy their oil if not the west?

Hell, but even if this did come to pass having a friendly post-war, democratic Iraq could help us weather such a storm, and serve as a base from which to exert political pressure on the anti-west/anti-American contingent in SA. There are reasons to dislike Saudi Arabia beyond them hypothetically cutting us off, like the way its citizens fund pretty much all of the Islamic terrorism in the world.

As to my tenor in this discussion, well, let's just say I get tired of hearing the same tired bullshit from smart-ass cowards. And let's not pretend these people are innocents who wanted nothing more than an intelligent, reasoned discussion. I'm more than happy to have a civilized debate with someone who will, you know, say who they are and address the substance of the point. I have no time for people who do nothing but repeat what they read in letters from Sean Penn, whether or not they are relevent to the issue at hand.

[voltaic]

More accurately again, technology won't allow it. I wouldn't hold your breath on a practical replacement for cheap oil in the next 20 years.

Sure, we *could* switch over to solar and zillions of batteries, but it's a $40/barrel equivalent. Not going to happen.

Nuclear power is also a pretty shitty replacement, until they find a good way to get rid of the waste.

True, but I wasn't only forwarding the notion of replacing fossil fuels. If the left and environmentalists would be a bit practical and allow the US to open up some of our own reserves, it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, thus giving us more wiggle-room to get technology up to speed. As I was saying initially, they want everything renewable NOW which, as you agreed, ain't gonna happen.

[Toddy]

But the biggest problem here is that Bush's war on evil cannot be won. If tensions remain high in the world, the Israel-Palestinian thing isn't resolved in at least a somewhat amicable way, and the Americans don't do something to ease the tide of hatred that's sweeping their way, the end result of what's building right now is the detonation of a nuke in one or more American cities within the next decade or so (and by the way, the economic devastation caused in North America would dwarf anything that could take place in the Middle East, even a nuclear launch by the Israelis; for one thing, all personal freedoms would pretty much vanish overnight). Taking out Saddam won't prevent that from happening. The only thing that's got a chance is the use of the carrot as well as the stick. And that ain't happening right now. The Bush regime doesn't seem to understand that American might isn't all-powerful. That a fairly small group of lunatics with access to a little bit of technology will soon be able to cause more damage to the United States than has been caused by over two centuries of wars and national disasters.

Invading Iraq would be a great idea in isolation. If you were just going to take out a tyrant, help a country become democratic, and gain access to lots and lots of oil, no problem. But that's not going to happen. Even if things go damn near perfectly when the troops arrive in Baghdad, and every shawarma seller on the streets is jumping for joy and waving the red, white, and blue, you've still got to worry about the hundreds of thousands of dispossessed young Muslims outside of Iraq. No matter what happens inside the country, the reaction outside is going to be furious, and it will just accelerate the timetable of the next major terrorist attack on the USA, which will probably involve something a lot more lethal than 757s. I'm not saying that this is a reason all on its own to avoid going into Iraq, but people need to be more aware that this just ups the stakes in a growing war that our grandchildren are going to still be fighting.

[Jessica]

[quote="Brett Todd"]But the biggest problem here is that Bush's war on evil cannot be won. [quote]

Anyone in this discussion who hasn't read Orwell's 1984 in a while, ought to. Brett makes a point here on something that Orwell foresaw and wrote about decades ago.

And we're already seeing NewSpeak come into play. Remember, you have to give up your freedoms and civil liberties to preserve them. If we don't, the terrorists have won.

Eh?

[Jessica]

More accurately again, technology won't allow it. I wouldn't hold your breath on a practical replacement for cheap oil in the next 20 years.

Sure, we *could* switch over to solar and zillions of batteries, but it's a $40/barrel equivalent. Not going to happen.

Nuclear power is also a pretty shitty replacement, until they find a good way to get rid of the waste.

True, but I wasn't only forwarding the notion of replacing fossil fuels. If the left and environmentalists would be a bit practical and allow the US to open up some of our own reserves, it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, thus giving us more wiggle-room to get technology up to speed. As I was saying initially, they want everything renewable NOW which, as you agreed, ain't gonna happen.

I agree with both of you. The technology won't allow it right now, so in the meantime, we need to find ways to drop the amount of oil we import from the Middle East, while researching other solutions.

With several high-ranking members of the energy industry ensconed in the Executive Branch right now, I just don't see it happening. Unfortunately.

[Desslock]

I'm disappointed in you, Desslock; I thought you could do more than just call people names.

Well, I did -- I cited an article by someone at least as well informed with a directly opposing viewpoint.

If I was glib in my response, it's because I share some of the frustration that Brad responded. There's too many flippant remarks on this subject, often made by people who are just trying to use their intuition to come to conclusions that might seem logical in isolation, but weren't based upon any actual knowledge or factual analysis of the situation.

If people want to discuss these subjects in a forum that's primarily dedicated to more frivilous pursuits like gaming and movies -- fine, why not. But there's too much mindless recitation of sound bites from talk radio shows, etc., and willing participation from people who frankly haven't taken any time to understand the subject matter in any depth for it to evolve into a particularly meaningful discussion in this forum.

Not saying there isn't some well reasoned, thoughtful commentary here -- I occassionally disagree with Brett Todd's views on the Middle East, but I appreciate that he has studied the subject in considerable depth (and has some first hand experience in the area) and accordingly never casually dismiss his comments, even if I initially disagree with them. But, in general, there's too much static here to take the political discussions very seriously.

[Anonymous]

I just want to interrupt a moment to thank everyone on this thread for the entertaining cavalcade of inexpert analyses.

Carry on.

[Sean Tudor]

Could someone enlighten me ... how long will worldwide oil reserves last ? 50 - 100 years ?

There will come a point where the world will be forced to seek alternatives to oil. Hopefully by then alternative forms of energy will be perfected. Fusion reactors to name one.

[Anonymous]

Apparently the factoid of the day is that the IAEA is saying that they haven't found any evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program, or that Iraq lied about it in their mammoth declaration. Now, leaving aside for the moment the truth of this assertion (that Iraq has no nuclear program), I'm beginning to wonder how the Bush administration is going to manage the end game of all of this.

It's looking more and more likely that the UN will, at absolute most, indicate that Iraq has left some questions unanswered or not fully answered. It's very very unlikely that the inspectors will report anything remotely resembling a smoking gun, nor that the Security Council as a body will be able to go along with the US assertions about Iraq's WMD programs. So....

One option is for the USA to back off, declare victory ("the inspectors forced the Iraqis into compliance, we're gonna be watching you, etc."), and stand down. Right. Not likely to happen, not in this universe.

But what then? Will the US release (now or after Blix's report) hard evidence to show the Iraqis are lying? Is there any way the US can convince the UN to green light a war? If not, are we headed for a situation where the US tells the UN "fine, we still think Saddam is a grave threat to us and the region, and we reject your conclusions and we're going to war"? If we do that, how many countries can we bring with us?

Or is it all pretty much moot, and everyone has already done their hand-wringing and resigned themselves to a war, so the whole inspection/Security Council thing is irrelevant?

Mind you, I'm asking these questions independent of the question of whether a war is good or bad, needed or unnecessary, etc. I'm just very curious about how the administration is going to transition to war without any momentum from the inspectors or the UN in general.

[Sean Tudor]

Or is it all pretty much moot, and everyone has already done their hand-wringing and resigned themselves to a war, so the whole inspection/Security Council thing is irrelevant?

I would agree with this point. Regardless of what happens the U.S. will go to war with Iraq within the next two months. The Dubya Administration wants a regime change in Iraq and really - IMHO - I would support this 100%. Affirmative action needs to be taken now. We can't afford to leave Saddam in power another 10 years.

[Jason McCullough]

Could someone enlighten me ... how long will worldwide oil reserves last ? 50 - 100 years ?

There will come a point where the world will be forced to seek alternatives to oil. Hopefully by then alternative forms of energy will be perfected. Fusion reactors to name one.

A good, long time. They keep trying to produce estimates of when oil production will peak, but they've been wrong for the last 100 years straight. Extraction technology keeps outrunning consumption.

If we do run out of crude oil, expensive alternatives like cracking shale oil become worthwhile, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

True, but I wasn't only forwarding the notion of replacing fossil fuels. If the left and environmentalists would be a bit practical and allow the US to open up some of our own reserves, it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, thus giving us more wiggle-room to get technology up to speed. As I was saying initially, they want everything renewable NOW which, as you agreed, ain't gonna happen.

The right has done an excellent job of cramming this "environmentals stop domestic oil production" stuff into the conventional wisdom. Do you know much oil ANWR, the current administration's hobbyhorse, will produce when fully operational?

An equivalent of a 3 mpg increase in US new car fleet mileage. An alternative way to look at it, since oil is a world market, is that ANWR will increase world production by .7%. Definitely worth wrecking an unspoiled wilderness!

By contrast, there's lots of low-hanging conservation fruit out there, with the potential for real gains, which conservatives are ideologically opposed to even looking at. God forbid we give in to the environmentalists, even if they're right.....

[Anonymous]

So basically, the USA is tearing down someone they think they have a chance against without causing too much casualties to themselves.


That seems to be the gist of it. Much as I dislike the current ruler of Iraq, I think this will help cement the view of the US as international bully.

You know I am SICK of America being the world's scapegoat.
How many of you live in America? And if we screw something up who is the first to hear about it over and over and over? EVERY SINGLE TIME I see 'Well American's are over patriotic and think their country is perfect' it is ALWAYS followed by 'Well not the ones here of course.' Watch 'The Daily Show' WE are the FIRST to admit our country does some bad things and our leader is an idiot.
About those 'bad things'; lemme give you some perspective: Say you're working on a project with coworker. You are given three jobs to do and he is given 60. Now say YOU screw up 2 of those job and your partner screws up 4. Who's the bigger screw-up?
What I'm trying to say is that America does SO MUCH for, and in this world, that the law of averages says it HAS to screw up some of them. As it is we are WAY above average.

The whole oil thing is bull, America is Iraq's number 1 importer, and Iraq is America's what 14th, 16th exporter?
Do you realize how many times Saddam has kicked weapons inspectors out of his country? America is trying to help the region that is too terrified by this man to say anything. When Saddam 'graciously' released all the prisoners who were held for YEARS on 'suspicion' THEY WERE CHANTING HIS NAME. Why? Cause as soon as the cameras were off they would be chased down if they didn't. ALL his neighbor AND subjects want him GONE, they just CAN'T say it and live at the same time.

But none of that matters cause America is the world's target.
'Hey America, you really saved our asses in WWII...BUT YOUR ARMY GUYS WERE REALLY LOUD IN OUR PUBS!!'
'Hey, America is devaluing their dollar, and potentially crippling their economy by giving billions a year to other countries on the one stipulation that they treat their people as well as they can...BUT YOU AMERICANS ARE SOOOOOOO FAT!!!!'
'Oh hey, American's work more hours a day than any other country in the world...BUT YOU AMERICAN'S LOOOOOVE YOUR COUNTRY!!!'

It's all bullshit and I HATE it; we act too slowly we get yelled at, we act to quickly we get yelled at, we act at all we get yelled at, we don't act we get yelled at. If this was a business America would have quit loooong ago.

You wanna know why America is the mid east's target? Cause they are a dying, failing civilization that is using the U.S. as a scapegoat to hold itself together. They are Hitler, and we are the Jews.
They base their thoughts on America on a book written 60 years ago about a TWO WEEK visit to America.
By God if America wanted to be evil it COULD be! We could kill EVERY LAST ONE of them ten times over and FLATTEN the whole country and anyone else that got in our way. Jesus Christ how many warning have we given Iraq? How long have we said we were gonna go to war? If we are so God damn EVIL, why are we giving our enemy warning after warning?? And WE are the world's bully??? A country that gives it's people plenty of freedom and rights, not to mention trying everything it can to avoid hurting it's enemies, is condemned by countries that openly kill innocent citizens for the crime of thinking wrong? What the hell is wrong with this picture??? We treat our ENEMIES better than they treat their CITIZENS. They gain power by killing as many people as possible and WE are the bad guys??

Last quick quiz: In ever major world disaster who is the first to fly, at their own expense, professionals and equipment to help? Second part: On September 11th, which country sent people and equipment to help America?

[Sean Tudor]

You know I am SICK of America being the world's scapegoat.

... snipped ...

Well that wins the award for rant of the week ! :lol:

[Bullhajj]

You know I am SICK of America being the world's scapegoat.

... snipped ...

Well that wins the award for rant of the week ! :lol:

Seeing as it's early, I'll go for rant of the year. ;)

[voltaic]

An equivalent of a 3 mpg increase in US new car fleet mileage. An alternative way to look at it, since oil is a world market, is that ANWR will increase world production by .7%. Definitely worth wrecking an unspoiled wilderness!

Addendum/correction: definitely worth using modern low-impact techniques of which even the Eskimoes approve on only about 2000 of the 1.5 million acres of ANWR.

[Toddy]

Second part: On September 11th, which country sent people and equipment to help America?

I'll play. Canada. Hundreds of firemen, medics, doctors, etc. went to NYC from Ontario and other parts of Eastern Canada before the dust began to settle. We also hosted thousands of Americans for days while US airports remained closed. As an aside, apparently a lot of permanent friendships were made during that time, to the point where a lot of people returned to their "host families" on the one-year anniversary of Sept. 11 and marked the occasion there. CBC did an interesting documentary on this at the time.

[Brad Grenz]

Yes, but isn't Canada really like America-Lite?

I kid! I kid!

[Jason McCullough]

An equivalent of a 3 mpg increase in US new car fleet mileage. An alternative way to look at it, since oil is a world market, is that ANWR will increase world production by .7%. Definitely worth wrecking an unspoiled wilderness!

Addendum/correction: definitely worth using modern low-impact techniques of which even the Eskimoes approve on only about 2000 of the 1.5 million acres of ANWR.

When it comes to anything whatsoever involving the environment, I don't believe a word the GOP, or oil companies, say. Fool me a thousand times, shame on me, fool me a thousand and one.....

I'm not sure why the local residents should be considered experts, either.

[Anonymous]

Second part: On September 11th, which country sent people and equipment to help America?

I'll play. Canada. Hundreds of firemen, medics, doctors, etc. went to NYC from Ontario and other parts of Eastern Canada before the dust began to settle. We also hosted thousands of Americans for days while US airports remained closed. As an aside, apparently a lot of permanent friendships were made during that time, to the point where a lot of people returned to their "host families" on the one-year anniversary of Sept. 11 and marked the occasion there. CBC did an interesting documentary on this at the time.

Good job! You win the booby prize! But you miss the point. Note the singular use of the word 'country'. That's what I was trying to get across. And please to be noting how graciously we were in thanking them.
We appreciated it very much, remember the American schools that wrote the hundreds of thank you cards?
America as it is today probably would not exist without Canada and Canada as it is today definitely would not exist without America. Hell, half my family is from Canada, I wasn't trying to gloss over them.

And I'm sorry for the rant, all I ever hear is how bad the U.S. is, never seems to be anybody defending it.

[Desslock]

I'll play. Canada. We also hosted thousands of Americans for days while US airports remained closed.

Heh, I did my part -- Dulin and Wolpaw were stuck at my place in Toronto for a week after the World Trade center attack (Geryk flew out on Sept 10th, yikes). Didn't quite make the CBC documentary.

[Erik]

Dulin and Wolpaw were stuck at my place in Toronto for a week after the World Trade center attack

Yeah, I can vouch for that. Canada did its part. On the other hand, when I was in my early twenties and smoking a lot of dope, Canada stopped me at the border, forced me to strip, peeked up my ass, and then left me shivering on a little wooden chair in locked room for an hour. And they confiscated my friend Pat Lavelle's dope. So me and Canada are really just about even at this point. All true.

[Erik]

I may have asked this before, but in starving Iraqi children terms, what's the practical moral difference between sanctions that prevent Iraq from selling oil and radical alternative energy programs that eliminate or greatly reduce the need for that oil in the first place? Am I the only principled voice of opposition to hydrogen fuel cells? The collapse of Big Oil might be a real pisser for the Dick Cheney family, but it would be a humanitarian catastrophe for Iraq.

[DrCrypt]

How would it be an economic disaster for the people of Iraq, as things currently stand? All the oil money goes directly into the pockets of Saddam Hussein and his group of elite thugs. I don't see how the average Iraqi could possibly get much poorer.

Obviously, though, if there is a regime change, that is an entirely different matter.

[Guido Jones]

How would it be an economic disaster for the people of Iraq, as things currently stand? All the oil money goes directly into the pockets of Saddam Hussein and his group of elite thugs. I don't see how the average Iraqi could possibly get much poorer.

Obviously, though, if there is a regime change, that is an entirely different matter.

Actually all the oil that is being sold out of Iraq legally is handled by the Oil for food program set by the UN (at least last I knew). This is about $2 - 3 billion a year in money that goes direclty for food, medicine etc. - Saddam doesn't have a choice on what products he buys with this money as all payments go into a account setup by the UN.

While Saddam does smuggle some of these products out of the country to sell on the black markets in the middle east (Apparently doctors in Syria started substiting the term "Iraqi brand" for "Generic" when giving the patient choices of medicines), the quality of life has climbed a great deal in the last few years for a number of Iraqi's. There are of course still sections of the country that Saddam prevents from getting food/medicine (specifically any group that might appose him).

Edited cause it's 6AM and i'm working graves and apparently don't remember how to speak or write english.

[Erik]

How would it be an economic disaster for the people of Iraq, as things currently stand?

I'm just saying that if restrictions on selling oil constitute a baby murdering policy of evil, then so is any program whose goal is an almost complete devaluation of oil. I was kidding about the voice of opposition part, though. I'd love to see everything run on hydrogen fuel cells. We just have to admit that these cells are going to be fueled by hydrogen, natural gas, and falafel ripped from the mouths of Iraqi children.

[DrCrypt]

My understanding was that not only was Saddam selling the oil-for-food packages on the black market (which is so prevalent that, in other Arab countries, generic brands are referred to as "Iraqi brand"), but that his oil smuggling revenues were pretty high as well. Syria alone is a market worth over $500 million per year.

[Guido Jones]

My understanding was that not only was Saddam selling the oil-for-food packages on the black market (which is so prevalent that, in other Arab countries, generic brands are referred to as "Iraqi brand"), but that his oil smuggling revenues were pretty high as well. Syria alone is a market worth over $500 million per year.

Yes - Syria was worth several Billion a year though if memory serves because of the Syria - Iraq pipeline that was reopened in around 2000. There is also about $500 million a year passing in from Jordan, and another $500 million coming from Turkey. Very significant numbers. But there is still a large amount of food and medicine flowing and staying in the country from the Oil-for-Food program

[voltaic]

Addendum/correction: definitely worth using modern low-impact techniques of which even the Eskimoes approve on only about 2000 of the 1.5 million acres of ANWR.

When it comes to anything whatsoever involving the environment, I don't believe a word the GOP, or oil companies, say. Fool me a thousand times, shame on me, fool me a thousand and one.....

I don't generally believe anything said by any political group, including "parties" and "commitees" and "marches" and so forth. I find it best to look for people who are paid to learn and research and investigate the topic (scientists, historians, economists, and so forth) who are at least somewhat separated from the raw politics of the issue. In this particular case, they happen to agree with Bush's ANWR plan. That doesn't mean I am swallowing the whole GOP environmental stance.

I'm not sure why the local residents should be considered experts, either.

For one thing, the eskimoes have been taking care of the land for many hundreds of years, long before my pale-faced ancestors rolled west from Europe. Symbiosis with the environment is part of their heritage, religion, and culture. If they have evaluated some process which has environmental impact and they support it, then I count their vote that it doesn't harm the environment a helluva lot more than I count the vote of some whiny-ass Hollywood liberals, for example.

It doesn't hurt that many of them are professionals in the oil industry, i.e. they ARE educated about modern technological details of the same topic. So while "they" aren't experts, they have much more vested interest in keeping the land clean than anyone in the lower 48. And since they approve of the ANWR plan, well, maybe there is something to investigate.

[Anonymous]

How would it be an economic disaster for the people of Iraq, as things currently stand?

I'm just saying that if restrictions on selling oil constitute a baby murdering policy of evil, then so is any program whose goal is an almost complete devaluation of oil. I was kidding about the voice of opposition part, though. I'd love to see everything run on hydrogen fuel cells. We just have to admit that these cells are going to be fueled by hydrogen, natural gas, and falafel ripped from the mouths of Iraqi children.

You're an idiot. Ever seen what those middle eastern kings live in? Palaces of gold with rooms of gold, paneled in gold, with gold Rolls Royces. These are literally the riches countries in the world for their size. Why do all the people starve? Well they aren't royalty so why shouldn't they? And besides, starving people can't really rebel can they?
Remember U2's concert to help Ethiopia? more than 700 TONS of food were raised and bought with the money raised. What happened to it? It rotted in ships in the harbor cause the rulers refused to let it in. They were, and still are, starving their people on purpose.

[Erik]

Again, that argument was for the benefit of the "sanctions kill babies" crowd who also often tend to support radical alternative energy programs. Just so you don't feel bad, I'm still an idiot for lots of other reasons.

[Jason McCullough]

In this particular case, they happen to agree with Bush's ANWR plan. That doesn't mean I am swallowing the whole GOP environmental stance.

I don't recall any non-partisan scientists having a thing to say about ANWR.

It doesn't hurt that many of them are professionals in the oil industry, i.e. they ARE educated about modern technological details of the same topic.

.....at the cost of removing their ability to honestly evaluate the impact.