Nadar and the War

[Diezel]

I found this article quite interesting, bringing up some very good rebuttals to some of the anti-war arguments, mainly the "It's all about the oil!" argument.

http://www.fumento.com/military/nader.html

What really struck me was this idea:

But the ultimate problem with Nader's reasoning is that, if all we wanted was cheap abundant oil, we could get it peacefully by simply lifting oil-export sanctions against Iraq and demobilizing. Petroleum prices would plummet instantly, with the stock market rocketing at almost the same speed due both to cheap oil and the end of war fears.

It is so simple, but it is true! Eliminating the embargo would create a larger supply, bringing down the prices (as would the diminished fear of war.) So, if it was really just about oil, we would be better off letting Sadaam do whatever he likes and just buy his oil.

Oddly, I have never heard this rebuttal before...

[shuize]

I have heard this rebuttal. But I have yet to hear a cogent response to it.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shuize
I have heard this rebuttal. But I have yet to hear a cogent response to it.

I'm not surprised.

[gnome]

Perhaps our current administration would like access to the oil without having to appease Saddam, who has proven unreliable?

I'll even admit this is an appealing idea, and seems a perfectly likely reason for hawks in the administration to desire war.

I just don't think they can sell it to the American people that way. Certainly not me.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by gnome
Perhaps our current administration would like access to the oil without having to appease Saddam, who has proven unreliable?

I'll even admit this is an appealing idea, and seems a perfectly likely reason for hawks in the administration to desire war.

I just don't think they can sell it to the American people that way. Certainly not me.

Why? We haven't used or needed it in years. And Sadaam being unreliable would mean nothing to a free market. If he decided to not sell to the U.S., so what? We don't buy it now and we aren't hurting for oil. And the small fact that somebody else will sell us what we need would set in on him at some time, so he would sell it to us under our conditions soon enough.

Do you think if we win this war and occupy Iraq, we then have free reign to all the free oil we want?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Why the fsck would eliminating sanction wolve the oil problems? First of all, Saddam already sells oil to us, he just can't sell it for anything but barter of certain humanitarian goods. Secondly, had all restrictions been lifted, Iraq would simply have its price limited by OPEC anyway, with negligible total impact on oil prices.

This rebuttal is a non-starter.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Why the fsck would eliminating sanction wolve the oil problems? First of all, Saddam already sells oil to us, he just can't sell it for anything but barter of certain humanitarian goods. Secondly, had all restrictions been lifted, Iraq would simply have its price limited by OPEC anyway, with negligible total impact on oil prices.

This rebuttal is a non-starter.

Increased supply with no increase in demand leads to lower prices. And the elimination of the threat of war would also eliminate the "worried about future supplies" price hikes we have seen lately.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
First of all, Saddam already sells oil to us, he just can't sell it for anything but barter of certain humanitarian goods. Secondly, had all restrictions been lifted, Iraq would simply have its price limited by OPEC anyway, with negligible total impact on oil prices.

First of all, they sell Oil to us, but they are limited in the total volume. They are capable of producing more than they are currently selling.

Secondly, OPEC cannot fix the price. They can set production limits (which will cause the price to go up), but when Iraq begins selling at closer to its capacity, it will mean more oil on the market. (OPEC has to ensure that all members get a share of the market.)

Thirdly, part of the reason why the price is high is not due to supply and demand, it is because people fear war and uncertainty, and it is this fear that is making prices go up. Once Iraq is attacked, the uncertainty goes away.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Diezel


Why? We haven't used or needed it in years. And Sadaam being unreliable would mean nothing to a free market. If he decided to not sell to the U.S., so what? We don't buy it now and we aren't hurting for oil. And the small fact that somebody else will sell us what we need would set in on him at some time, so he would sell it to us under our conditions soon enough.

Do you think if we win this war and occupy Iraq, we then have free reign to all the free oil we want?

in fact the amount of Iraqi oil being imported to the US is going up at present.

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/02/23/1045935273673.htm

US oil firms use more Iraqi crude
Date: February 24 2003


By Colum Lynch
New York

American oil refineries have dramatically increased their reliance on Iraqi crude - even as the Bush Administration steps up preparations for a military attack on Baghdad - to offset a shortfall in oil imports caused by the recent political crisis in Venezuela.

The United States has more than doubled its consumption of Iraqi crude over the past two months, according to unpublished UN figures. The US Department of Energy, whose Iraqi import figures typically lag behind - by about 40 days - those of the United Nations, also recorded a sudden surge of Iraqi oil imports into the United States last week to more than 1 million barrels a day, US officials said.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Diezel
Do you think if we win this war and occupy Iraq, we then have free reign to all the free oil we want?

If we install a government friendly to the US, and help them stay in power... not free, but at pretty good prices.

I don't want us to do this, but I think it is believable as a goal.

If we weren't so gung ho about getting oil, I think that our foreign policy in the middle east would be more human-rights oriented. The drive for oil distorts our policy. Taints, I daresay.

[a_unique_person]

Ralph Nader, soon to star in a remake of "Clueless." ...ad hominem

At a D.C. press conference earlier this month ...ad hominem, "the perverse priorities of the Bush/Cheney oiligarchy." ("Oiligarchy," get it?) These priorities, he said, "are driving the war against Iraq."

But among Nader's many lapses in thinking is that we already do "control" that oil, albeit not through force but through money. Without the world's largest oil-import market, that stuff below the sand is mere black goo.

this must be the most twisted piece of logic I have come across.



The Arab countries discovered during the 1973 embargo that if they didn't sell to us somebody else would. If only the Nixon administration had realized that, there would have been no oil crisis.

that is just silly. where was that somebody else? the infrastructure to sell oil is not set up overnight. the oil that was available as an alternative also cost more money. more money spent on oil pushes up prices and cuts the standard of living.

Nader also took the obligatory swipe at SUVs. To his credit, he did not ask "What would Jesus drive?" Nor did he claim that SUV drivers support terrorism. Instead, he cited safety studies to label the vehicles "weapons of mass destruction."

i do worry about the massive increase in small trucks on the roads, driven by people who don't understand what they are in charge of, and using more fuel than is necessary to get from point a to point b.

Nader also disparaged the hydrogen fuel-cell technology that increasingly is being touted as an eventual replacement for gasoline-powered engines and other energy-using devices.

This is quite strange, given that hydrogen power has long been the darling of the anti-fossil-fuel lobby. Indeed, it's the subject of a new book by Nader's fellow radical, Jeremy Rifkin, who claims the technology will usher in utopia. But all that changed the moment Bush threw his support behind developing the technology during his State of the Union Address.

so there is something wrong with nader having his own opinion on hydrogen. has nader ever claimed himself it would usher in a new utopia? no evidence has been give.

Now, says Nader, hydrogen "will do virtually nothing" for us until around 2020, when "some hydrogen vehicles may be viable." You'd never know that hydrogen fuel-cell trucks and cars are already on the road, or that it's widely estimated that they could make up a large part of our vehicle fleet within a decade.

and so are solar cars, but they aren't going to replace cars either in the near future. the vehicles on the roads are very much in the experimental stage, hence the use of trucks. they have plenty of room to hold the bulky equipment currently needed. hydrogen may be a big improvenment, but it has to be made, a very energy intensive operation, and the energy available from hydrogen is much lower in volume than is available from petrol. much more promising are the hybrid petrol/battery powered cars, which are actually being sold to (wealthy) consumers now.

As to measures we could take in the meantime to decrease oil imports, somehow Nader forgot to mention government bans over the last 20 years on oil activity covering more than 300 million acres of federal land onshore and more than 460 million acres offshore.

alaska, as i recall, has been opened up for oil. much of that area that is banned probably doesn't have the promise that alaska has. that is, if there was oil there, it would be drilled. or if there is oil there, no one wants it being drilled and ruining a fragile sector of the US.

Just one of these reserves, the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), is estimated to contain from 10 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That alone could replace about three years of imports.

But the ultimate problem with Nader's reasoning is that, if all we wanted was cheap abundant oil, we could get it peacefully by simply lifting oil-export sanctions against Iraq and demobilizing. Petroleum prices would plummet instantly, with the stock market rocketing at almost the same speed due both to cheap oil and the end of war fears.

perhaps the military has it's own barrow to push. Also, the US, however, despite the absurd claim above, does not control this oil, Saddam does. And the US is buying plenty of that oil now. As for not needing it, if you look at the political stability of the other oil producing nations, the stability of oil is a bit unsure. Saudi, Venezuala, Iraq, Russia, Kuwait, etc. All countries that cannot be relied upon for any length of time to keep the supplies going.

All of this couldn't fail to spur the economy, putting Bush and the GOP on the path to continued dominance of the White House and Congress.

We don't need military force to secure all the Mideast oil we want; this green stuff guarantees our access to all we want.
Nader proffered the seemingly plausible idea that the U.S. could be seizing Iraq to divvy up its resources among some American oil companies. But he immediately contradicted himself when he pointed out that Russia, China, and France already have major contractual interests there.

why the US insists on using force when other methods would be preferable, I don't know

Are we really going to yank all those wells from beneath the noses of three of the world's most powerful nations?

Consider this, too: Doesn't U.S. "Big Oil" profit from the sanctions currently in place, since restricted Iraqi exports prop up the price for all the oil they drill elsewhere?

Instead, Bush is about to embark on a very risky move for his presidency and his party. The logical reason is the one Bush gives: Saddam poses a serious regional threat now and a serious worldwide threat in the near future. He will never stop until he gets the Bomb, along with some shiny ICBMs to toss wherever he pleases.

Would he use them to kill, or merely to intimidate, the rest of the world? Do we want to wait a few years to find out?

A post-Saddam Iraq carries with it not the promise of secure oil — we already have that. Rather, it carries the guarantee of a more secure world.

Risky indeed. Risky most of all for the Iraqi civilians. Dubya, like his father, will be the patsy. there are plenty more presidential candidates where they came from. And according to http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/24/1046063965588.html the US itself still has no idea about what it actually wants to achieve from the war. there is still deep division within the administration. how can you start a war when you haven't got your aims sorted out yet?

By the way .... ad hominem



I believe it is a lot more than just oil. It is also about a military that seeks to legitimise existence by doing something to justify the trillions it absorbs.

[svero]

Basically the problem is that Fumento doesn't understand the basics. He makes that clear when he says..."if all we wanted was cheap abundant oil".

Since that isn't the hypothetical US goal of the war for oil camp the rest of his point is worthless. Whether or not you agree with people like Chomsky etc... they don't make the above statement. They state that part of the reason for war in Iraq is to regain control over Iraq's oil resources. Note... "regain control over" is not the same as "gain access to". If you don't understand the difference then you haven't taken the time to read and understand the war for oil argument and therefor you shouldn't be debating it. Read Chomsky since he's consistent and clear on the subject. You see it really doesn't matter whether you think Chomsky is right or not. Fumento is arguing a different point. (I realize Fumento is discussing Nader and not Chomsky, but I'm assuming here that Nader understands the oil argument for what it really is.)

[Victor Danilchenko]

Diezel

Increased supply with no increase in demand leads to lower prices.Except that Iraq already supplies oil, and their production capacity is greatly limiyed due to their oil rigs having been destroyed in the first world war; this means that the change in oil supply the lifting of the sanctions would effect, would be small -- which was why I said that such an act would have a negligible impact on oil prices.

And the elimination of the threat of war would also eliminate the "worried about future supplies" price hikes we have seen lately.this is true, but kinda self-referrential, don't you think?

[Diezel]

I'm going to try to cover all three of your posts in one. I'm a little behind and this will be catch-up. If you want a specific point answered, just ask me and I will try.

First, I understand the difference in points, but the point that is missed by Chomsky, et. all, is that we never had "control", so we can't "regain control". OPEC has the control, as evidenced by in the early 70's and pointed out by Victor. So, even if we took the country over, we wouldn't have anymore control than we did before. If anyone doesn't understand the War for Oil argument, it is the people arguing about "regain of control".

Now, AUP argues that it is twist of logic to state that we control the oil market, because we are the biggest customer. This is no twist of logic at all. Come to Detroit and talk to a Tier I, Tier II and sometimes even Tier III auto supplier. They are controlled by the Big 3. Because they are so singular customer focused, they are sometimes at the mercy of that customer. So, yes, a dominant consumer can become a controlling factor.

And yes, they are producing oil now, but at 1/3 their pre-war capacity. With the lifting of the emargo would come spare parts and help to return them to their pre-war capacity of around 3.5 million gallons/day. Then the market would be flooded with a surplus, driving prices down.

Yes, it is kind of self-referential, but true. Eliminate the threat of war and you eliminate the fear. All indicators point to the fact that if we wanted cheaper gas prices, the best thing to do would be to leave Saddam alone and start doing business with him.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Except that Iraq already supplies oil, and their production capacity is greatly limiyed due to their oil rigs having been destroyed in the first world war; this means that the change in oil supply the lifting of the sanctions would effect, would be small -- which was why I said that such an act would have a negligible impact on oil prices.
You are right; there capacity is limited by their oil rigs. (Some were destroyed in the last war, some are old and need to be replaced.) However:
- They still have the ability to produce and sell more than they currently are. Thus, they have the ability to increase supply (while demand would stay constant)
- Once the sanctions are lifted, they can fix or repair their oil infrastructure. This will increase their capacity further. (We could eliminate sanctions now, but then we would have no guarantee Saddam wouldn't spend the money on rearming)

[svero]

Originally posted by Diezel
First, I understand the difference in points, but the point that is missed by Chomsky, et. all, is that we never had "control", so we can't "regain control".

Well if you understand the difference then why did Fumento's rebuttle to another completely different point "really strike you"? I suppose because it was so incredibly embarassingly wrong? Yeah it struck me that way too. It struck me how he sticks his foot in his mouth and points out clearly to the whole word that he doesn't understand the argument and then goes on to argue against it. Fumento should stick to medical stories. Clearly middle east politics is not his strength.

Strange though, that in these lucid moments of clarity and understanding, you point out that Chomsky mistakenly says "regain" control. You'd think that a guy like Chomsky, who doesn't toss words around carelessly, would come to notice that he consistently in every document, speech, and interview uses the word regain again and again. That's a pretty big oversite. One has to wonder why he says that... or alternately one could just dismiss it and say he's wrong in a vacuum of ignorance so complete tha one's head explodes.

Seriously folks, anyone who thinks oil isn't a factor in middle east foreign policy, and yes... the current agression against Iraq, is either ignorant or a complete fringe lunactic. It's definitely a serious factor.

I'll leave you with some quotes from the history of the first gulf war... All these are from interviews conducted by PBS - or at least reproduced on their site in the oral history section.

"Q: In those early hours, did you think Kuwait was worth fighting a war over?
Powell: I think that was the question...did it measure up as a regime, as a nation and, frankly, as the source of twenty percent of the world's oil. "

On saddam Hussein and why being in the middle east is of strategic importance...

Dick Cheyney : "I think if Saddam wasn't there that his successor probably wouldn't be notably friendlier to the United States than he is. I also look at that part of the world as of vital interest to the United States for the next hundred years it's going to be the world's supply of oil."

Margeret thatcher discussing reasons for Gulf War One...

"There was a secondary factor there. That part is the oil center of the world. Oil is vital to the economy of the world. If you didn't stop him, and didn't turn him back, he would have gone over the border to Saudi Arabia, over to Bahrain, to Dubai.......and right down the west side of the Gulf and in fact could have got access and control of 65% of the world's oil reserves, from which he could have blackmailed every nation. So there were two things, aggressors must be stopped and turned back, and he must not get control of this enormously powerful economic weapon."

Scowcroft...

"Q: Did you think the invasion of Kuwait mattered? If so, why?

Scowcroft: Yes, I thought it mattered, a lot.

"Principally because there was a struggle and had been a struggle going on within OPEC over, if you will, control of OPEC and it was struggle basically between Saudi Arabia and the radicals, over keeping production flowing and keeping prices reasonable or trying to squeeze, if you will, the industrialised world.

And the notion of Iraq, which was an oil powerhouse in itself, acquiring the Kuwaiti resources and thus perhaps of being able to dominate, OPEC was a tremendous danger to the United States and to the industrialised world.

I thought it made a lot of difference, aside from the issue of flat naked aggression in and of itself.

Q: ... At the heart of this ... was oil ...

Scowcroft: No, at the heart was naked aggression against an unoffending country, that was the firm and legal position, but what gave enormous urgency to it was the issue of oil. Yes that transformed it."

[Diezel]

Yet none of those quotes does anything to prove your contention that the US is trying to "regain" control of oil interests - you only appeal to authority when you state that Chomsky picks his words carefully, so he must know what he is talking about.

To "regain" control, we must have had control. I need to see evidence that we had such control. It is funny you rail against Fumento for answering a strawman, yet it seems you have done so. Nobody said oil interests are a part of this equation, but I am rallying against those that state this war is "about oil". Each quote you have provided confirms my statement.

Another part of the equation is the substantial US economic investments by US based companies in the region, all of which are paying US business taxes. Why isn't anybody rallying that the war is "all about the taxes"? The first sign I saw after stepping onto Middle East soil for the first time was for KFC!

And here's the thing, if this war is all about securing cheap gas, it makes no sense, or we really don't need it anyway. For the last 10 years, all during the sanctions, gas prices in the US have hovered near all time lows (adjusted for inflation.) Only recently, with the threat of war, have the prices risen. I'm pretty sure most people know that you don't fix a problem that doesn't exist! Are we going to start a war to secure prices to a level that they are already at?

[Diezel]

I must apologize to RandFan. I did not see his post about the same subject (not the same article, but the same questioning of "War for Oil".) After a quick scan of that thread, I don't know if any more can be said than what has already been said.

[svero]

>Yet none of those quotes does anything to prove your
>contention that the US is trying to "regain" control of oil
>interests

That isn't MY contention, that is Chomsky's. I was rebutting Fumentos argument which uses an incorrect assertion about what the war for oil camp claims. I feel no need to defend Chomsky's argument. I merely pointed out that you dismiss his use of the word without understanding why he uses it.

>To "regain" control, we must have had control. I need to see
>evidence that we had such control. It is funny you rail against
>Fumento for answering a strawman, yet it seems you have
>done so.

When I used Chomsky's wording it was in the context of Fumentos assertion being wrong. I never intended to argue whether Chomsky was right or wrong and I carefully pointed out that it didnt' matter whether you agreed with Chomsky or not. Fumento's argument is incorrect either way.

>Nobody said oil interests are a part of this equation, but I am
>rallying against those that state this war is "about oil". Each
>quote you have provided confirms my statement.

I assume you mean aren't. Your whole thread was about how wonderful Fumento's argument was and that's what I answered. Clearly Fumento was wrong. After I pointed out that the war for oil argument had nothing to do with cheap and abundant supply as Fumento claims you attacked Chomsky's use of the word regain. Why should I care about that? The point is that Fumento does not provide a proper argument and therefor his rebuttal of Nader is worthless.

My quotes in the last post were not to prove Chomsky was right. That was entirely because there was an implication in this thread by you and others that oil was not a major factor and it clearly is. So why is Nader foolish if he discusses control of oil? Even if Fumento hadn't of put his foot in his mouth with his talk of cheap abundant supply and embargoes he'd still be incorrect in his criticisms of Nader. Really that part of the argument belongs in the other thread.

>And here's the thing, if this war is all about securing cheap gas,
>it makes no sense, or we really don't need it anyway.

See.. you say you understand the arguments being made when people discuss control of oil resources (as opposed to access to) as a motivation for war with Iraq, but then you make a statement like this, which clearly shows that you don't understand. I'm not sure what I can say to you except that "securing cheap gas" is not what people are talking about as a motivation for war. It doesn't matter if "we don't need it anyway" since that's not what we (ie the US/Britain) want.

[Diezel]

svero:

Because Fumento worded his rebuttal in a way slightly different than the way the "War for Oil" camp worded their objection does not mean Fumento was wrong.

War for Oil camp: We are only going to war to get control of the oil resources.

Fumento: We already have control of the oil resources, by being the chief consumer of the export.

Forget all the other symantics around the issues. I didn't even bother saying "regain". Can you agree that the "War for Oil" camp believes it is about control of the resources? Then, can you see that Fumento is only arguing that we already have control of those resources now?

Now, if you want to argue that Fumento is wrong and we don't have control of those resources (by being the chief consumer), we can argue that. But dismissing his argument as a strawman is false. You have picked a single point in a multi-point article to dismiss the whole argument.

And I admit I am just as guilty of doing the same of Chomsky's statement. For that, I apoligize. I still don't agree with his statement, but I can't dismiss the argument over a single statement.

[svero]

>Because Fumento worded his rebuttal in a way slightly different
>than the way the "War for Oil" camp worded their objection
>does not mean Fumento was wrong.

No... This is not an objection about wording. This is an objection about a basic basic understanding of the ideas that are relevent to this discussion. To use an Analogy... in a debate over a virus between two camps of biologists, what Fumento has done is argued that virus X can't penetrate the cell wall because the cell wall is made of concrete, and then gone on to show examples from Alcatraz and other jails about cell walls.

>Forget all the other symantics around the issues.

Well regain was not a symantic issue, and I certainly could argue whether or not it's reasonable to say regain vs gain control of from history, but I just didn't want to get drawn down that path since it had little to do with my rebuttle.

>Can you agree that the "War for Oil" camp believes it is about
>control of the resources?

Maybe. You'd first have to explain what you mean when you say that because the statements that Fumento made that you agreed with and statements that you made seem to point out that you're not entirely sure what is meant by this. I suppose I could just try to state it succinctly, but in reality this is a pretty complex issue that doesn't lend itself to a "they hate our freedoms" catch phrase. But understand that we are talking about strategic control over an economic resource over the next 20-50 years, and not about the price at the pump next month.

>Then, can you see that Fumento is only arguing that we already
>have control of those resources now?

Not really... Certainly not in the sense that anyone who understands the issue discusses. I mean EVEN if one could agree that we in a sense have some measure of control over the resource of oil in the middle east, so what? At the end of the day the kind of control that Bush/Blair are interested in is something else entirely, and the whole point of the argument is whether they are willing to go to war, in part, for *that* goal. Not some other fanstasy consumer control goal. So even if Fumento is competely correct in his hypothetical scenario, it simply has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

>Now, if you want to argue that Fumento is wrong and we don't
>have control of those resources (by being the chief consumer),

But again... the point is.. was Nader correct in saying that bush/blair want to go to war, in large part, due to oil resources? It would be ridiculous to assume they do if they already had all the control they wanted, but the point is that they don't.

>we can argue that. But dismissing his argument as a strawman
>is false. You have picked a single point in a multi-point article to
>dismiss the whole argument.

I rebutted that point because it's the one you brought up, and then someone said there was no cognent rebuttle of it. The point was so poorly made that I had to respond. So in a sense I was asked to focus on that.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Diezel

I found this article quite interesting, bringing up some very good rebuttals to some of the anti-war arguments, mainly the "It's all about the oil!" argument.

http://www.fumento.com/military/nader.html

What really struck me was this idea:


It is so simple, but it is true! Eliminating the embargo would create a larger supply, bringing down the prices (as would the diminished fear of war.) So, if it was really just about oil, we would be better off letting Sadaam do whatever he likes and just buy his oil.

Oddly, I have never heard this rebuttal before... You missed my thread Is Oil The Reail Reason For War With Iraq? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12284) I made that argument a month ago. Nader must be reading this forum. :D

The thread is up to 10 pages and from what I can tell, no one has yet punched a hole in that argument. That is not to say that there hasn't been some good arguments. There has but none of them address why if it realy is "all about the oil" bush wouldn't take the easier road.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Diezel
I must apologize to RandFan. I did not see his post about the same subject (not the same article, but the same questioning of "War for Oil".) After a quick scan of that thread, I don't know if any more can be said than what has already been said. My apologies to Diezel. I did not see this post. :D

[svero]

Originally posted by RandFan
You missed my thread Is Oil The Reail Reason For War With Iraq? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12284) I made that argument a month ago. Nader must be reading this forum. :D

The thread is up to 10 pages and from what I can tell, no one has yet punched a hole in that argument. That is not to say that there hasn't been some good arguments. There has but none of them address why if it realy is "all about the oil" bush wouldn't take the easier road.

It's very simple. Bush can't take the easier road because the easier road discussed in this argument fails to address Bush's desire. Or let me put it to you this way. "all about the oil" can be interpreted in many different ways. Fumento interprets it as meaning that the west wants a cheap and abundant supply of oil to consume. That is incorrect. When discussing Bush/Blair's motivations in terms of oil, you have to talk about who has strategic control over an important economic resource over the next 20-50 years. Will it be the french, germans, russians, chinese or will it be the english, the US, and it's allies? Lifting oil embargoes does not give the US strategic control, and so while it may be an easy to path to "something" it's not an easy path to the desired thing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Diezel

Now, AUP argues that it is twist of logic to state that we control the oil market, because we are the biggest customer. This is no twist of logic at all. Come to Detroit and talk to a Tier I, Tier II and sometimes even Tier III auto supplier. They are controlled by the Big 3. Because they are so singular customer focused, they are sometimes at the mercy of that customer. So, yes, a dominant consumer can become a controlling factor.

And yes, they are producing oil now, but at 1/3 their pre-war capacity. With the lifting of the emargo would come spare parts and help to return them to their pre-war capacity of around 3.5 million gallons/day. Then the market would be flooded with a surplus, driving prices down.

Yes, it is kind of self-referential, but true. Eliminate the threat of war and you eliminate the fear. All indicators point to the fact that if we wanted cheaper gas prices, the best thing to do would be to leave Saddam alone and start doing business with him.

You also missed the point that the US has been ramping up it's imports of Iraqi oil.

As to control of the market, I am sure if the US could buy elsewhere, it would. The US is not about to show what a demanding customer it is by stopping the process of buying oil, or only buy it from, say, Angola instead. It cannot decide to drop it's demand for oil, and go solar instead.

There have been rumours for years of alternate oil suppliers. However, these are not in anything like the league of the current ones, because it is so much more expensive to do so, and the price could drop again even if prices do go high for a while.

[corplinx]

I guess when we are all driving hydrogen cars and President Jenna Bush is launching an invasion to liberate Saudi Arabia, everyone will be saying its so we can guarantee cheap oil for our dependence on plastic and vaseline.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx
I guess when we are all driving hydrogen cars and President Jenna Bush is launching an invasion to liberate Saudi Arabia, everyone will be saying its so we can guarantee cheap oil for our dependence on plastic and vaseline.

The technology, and infrastructure to support it, is still years away. And, as has been pointed out already, all you lead foots out there aren't going to be too happy with the response of a hydrogen car.

[fsol]

The technology, and infrastructure to support it, is still years away. And, as has been pointed out already, all you lead foots out there aren't going to be too happy with the response of a hydrogen car.

Well that's not exactly right. The technology is here now and it works. It can be packaged into a family sized car. The infrastructure is another matter. It is something that will take time. There first has to be a consensus on the source of the hydrogen. The reason that hydrogen powered trucks and buses are used at the moment is that they can make use of a central refuelling point so the infrastructure doesn't matter.
The response of a hydrogen powered car can be as good as that of a petrol car if not better. This is because an electric motor has a flat torque curve. So you get maximum torque at all motor speeds. An I.C. engine however has a variable torque curve, so it takes time to before it can generate maximum torque and the response is slower.

As for using hybrids, the most likely package for a hydrogen vehicle will be as some type of fuel cell hybrid vehicle.

Sorry for wondering off on a bit of a tangent there but I thought it should be said.

[Diezel]

Again, I have been busy elsewhere, so I will try to answer svero and AUP in one post:

Svero, you say that Bush/Blair are after strategic control over oil resources for the next 20-50 years. AUP states that we can't/won't prove out power consumer status because of our dependence on oil. He also states that it will be 20 years before the infrastructure for hydrogen can be implemented (I think that is a little on the pessimistic side, but I will grant that as being close enough.) Bush has already thrown money behind hydrogen fuel cell technology.

So, why would you want to fight an expensive war over securing oil resources for the next 50 years, when you might not need that oil in 20 years? (or, only need a tiny, tiny fraction of said oil) Why not do business as usual, with all sanctions intact? Like AUP said, we have already ramped up our oil exports from Iraq as it is. For the last 13 years, we have been able to control Iraqi oil exports through sanctions, why not keep it that way? Things are relatively stable this way (the main reason we kept Saddam in power in the first place.) Why fight a war and disrupt the apple cart now, when we are only riding things out for the short term?

[svero]

>So, why would you want to fight an expensive war over
>securing oil resources for the next 50 years, when you might
>not need that oil in 20 years? (or, only need a tiny, tiny fraction
>of said oil) Why not do business as usual, with all sanctions
>intact?

Well that's AUP's argument and I'm not really sure I agree, but it doesn't matter anyway. Here's what I do know...

1) Those people in the US govt and other govts who support war do so in part for control of oil resources. They've said that on many occasions plainly and clearly, and while it may not be a part of the every day rhetoric and propaganda used to gain support for war, if you look closely enough at US govt papers and books written by us officials etc... you can see that it's true. I don't think this is at all ambiguous.

2) Since they've said this unambiguously we can assume they don't believe that we won't need oil in 20 yrs.

3) Control of oil resources is not entirely about our need for oil. Suppose the US didn't use oil in 20yrs? Does that mean that other countries also won't use oil? It's like any valuable resource. If you control all the water everyone who's thirsty eventually has to make their way to you. That gives you negotiating power on other fronts which are completely unrelated to your use of the water.

Like Margeret Thatcher said in the quote above, it was important to stop Saddam from controlling 65% of the oil resources because he would be able to blackmail other countries. In other words someone with control over the oil has power to affect decisions made in other countries regardless whether or not they need that oil themselves.

>Like AUP said, we have already ramped up our oil exports from
>Iraq as it is. For the last 13 years, we have been able to control
>Iraqi oil exports through sanctions, why not keep it that way?

Because the kind of control you're talking about is a weak form of control. We may control some aspects of oil exports or how it's used but it's nothing like being able to cut off the chinese or squeez them politically for something else we want.

>Things are relatively stable this way (the main reason we kept
>Saddam in power in the first place.) Why fight a war and disrupt
>the apple cart now, when we are only riding things out for the
>short term?

Well that's your assertion. I don't think US foreign policy is about the short term. These are more general ideas about the proper positioning of the Country for the greatest benefit down the road. It's about where the US will be relative to china. Suppose the US takes no interest in the middle east and then 20 yrs from now most of the oil has to come from there and the french, germans, and chinese control all the supply. They could squeeze the US to remove tariffs on chinese imports and exert all sorts of pressure. US foreign policy is designed in part to position the US for the future and energy is a major factor. Even if we say that scientists will reduce the need for oil to 0 in 20 yrs, the only thing that really matters is what the US believes. If the US believed that oil wasn't important decisions would be made differently. So even if I or AUP or you think that in 20 yrs it won't matter, none of us are the one's making the decisions. Personally I believe oil will still be a very important energy resource in the world in 20 yrs. Perhaps much more so than today.

[Diezel]

Again, sorry I haven't gotten back to you and I haven't had the time to devote to this topic that I would like.

I'm not sure we are very far off in opinion here, but we differ in degree. You confirm this in your first point:

1) Those people in the US govt and other govts who support war do so in part for control of oil resources.
(emphasis mine)

You see, I have never said that oil wasn't a factor in the war. It is. Where we differ is how much a factor.

I'll put my position as clear as I can - if WMD and the threat to the region were not in the equation, we would not be going to war. The oil is a side factor and a bonus of the action.

My objection is to those that believe we are going to war for the sole purpose of the oil and only using WMD and the threat to the region as an excuse to do so.

Which side of that do you fall on?

[Trollbane]

The war for oil argument is valid.. After all the US buying oil directly would creat great wealth and at the moment Saddam doesnt really need the money for anything (Although I suspect that he would gladly exchange a few million barrels to one ICBM) and the risk is that some of the revenue might end up to "wrong" people aka. opposing fractions like the shias or kurds undermining his authority..

After all the first thing you learn in the evil dictator academy is to keep the populace poor, while it might create some revolting the starving, ill equipped people are far easier to tame.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by svero


It's very simple. Bush can't take the easier road because the easier road discussed in this argument fails to address Bush's desire. Or let me put it to you this way. "all about the oil" can be interpreted in many different ways. Fumento interprets it as meaning that the west wants a cheap and abundant supply of oil to consume. That is incorrect. When discussing Bush/Blair's motivations in terms of oil, you have to talk about who has strategic control over an important economic resource over the next 20-50 years. Will it be the french, germans, russians, chinese or will it be the english, the US, and it's allies? Lifting oil embargoes does not give the US strategic control, and so while it may be an easy to path to "something" it's not an easy path to the desired thing. You presume that Bush is smart enough to think in the long term and that Bush is willing to sacrifice his political career for long term benefits. If he follows your plan Bush will not be around to reap the benefits.

Most importantly, lifting the embargo is a far safer thing than going to war. You are presuming that Bush is gambling short term gains for long term benefits that he can't possibly enjoy and he may not secure anyway.

Edited to tone down.

[svero]

Originally posted by Diezel
I'll put my position as clear as I can - if WMD and the threat to the region were not in the equation, we would not be going to war. The oil is a side factor and a bonus of the action.

My objection is to those that believe we are going to war for the sole purpose of the oil and only using WMD and the threat to the region as an excuse to do so.

Which side of that do you fall on?

Well I wouldn't say that oil is the only reason, but I would say that disarming Iraq is not really the major concern they're playing it up to be. The two are kind of one in the same anyway. It's reasonable to say that Saddam, left to his vices, poses a certain threat to middle east stability. Saddam's Iraq is not friendly to the US. Strategically the US would be better off if he was gone. Two birds - one stone. Links between iraq and terrorists and things of that nature are mostly scare tactics. They know the threat posed by these sorts of things is worse in other areas of the world. While I don't think it's a driving motivation, I think the US govt is also pretty aware of the benefit this war has with regards to distracting the public from what has been a pretty poor record regarding domestic issues.

[svero]

Originally posted by RandFan
You presume that Bush is smart enough to think in the long term and that Bush is willing to sacrifice his political career for long term benefits. If he follows your plan Bush will not be around to reap the benefits.

Most importantly, lifting the embargo is a far safer thing than going to war. You are presuming that Bush is gambling short term gains for long term benefits that he can't possibly enjoy and he may not secure anyway.

Edited to tone down.

I don't presume anything. I read papers like the document below amongst many other publications and try to formulate reasonable opinions that aren't entirely based on a few ra ra ra "they hate are freedoms" catch phrases I picked up on CNN.

- Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century -
http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/Pubs/workingpapers/cfrbipp_energy/energytf.htm

I think I made it very clear in my last post but I'll repeat it one last time in the hopes that you can understand. Lifting an embargo, while safe, does not achieve strategic US energy goals and is therefor not an answer.

It's like I tell you Bush is driving to New York, but the road is full of potholes and all uphill, and then you tell me, well why doesn't he take the brand new super-highway to Los Angeles? The answer is... while the road is nicer, that won't get him where he's going.

[Torlack]

Originally posted by Diezel
I found this article quite interesting, bringing up some very good rebuttals to some of the anti-war arguments, mainly the "It's all about the oil!" argument.

http://www.fumento.com/military/nader.html

What really struck me was this idea:


It is so simple, but it is true! Eliminating the embargo would create a larger supply, bringing down the prices (as would the diminished fear of war.) So, if it was really just about oil, we would be better off letting Sadaam do whatever he likes and just buy his oil.

Oddly, I have never heard this rebuttal before...

I know nobody will believe me, but I have been saying this for a LONG time. Maybe just not on this board.

Even if Iraq doesn't sell directly to the U.S. the U.S. still gets cheaper oil prices since the gut would be global and not just local to Iraq.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by svero
I don't presume anything. I read papers like the document below amongst many other publications and try to formulate reasonable opinions that aren't entirely based on a few ra ra ra "they hate are freedoms" catch phrases I picked up on CNN. Well then, the argument does and it presumes alot.

- Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century -
http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/Pubs/workingpapers/cfrbipp_energy/energytf.htm

I think I made it very clear in my last post but I'll repeat it one last time in the hopes that you can understand. Lifting an embargo, while safe, does not achieve strategic US energy goals and is therefor not an answer. Well thank you for your patience. It is so kind of you to repeat it and note my lack of understanding.

It's like I tell you Bush is driving to New York, but the road is full of potholes and all uphill, and then you tell me, well why doesn't he take the brand new super-highway to Los Angeles? The answer is... while the road is nicer, that won't get him where he's going. I don't think your analogy adequately portrays my opinion.

In truth it's actually like I'm telling you, he doesn't have enough time to go to New York much less California. But perhaps he would like the car to get to New York eventually, If he did "just" want to go to New York then he could take the expressway. But there is a very important destination that is much closer that can't be reached by the expressway. He will have to take the road with the potholes to get there. Since his destination is on the way to New York why not see to it that the car arrives at both places even if he can only go to one of those destinations personally?

I think your argument has merit. I have admitted a month ago in my first thread that oil "is" a significant reason for this war. In light of that I can accept that Bush is taking into account the long term needs of the nation and has considered arguments like those laid out in the link you posted (I do assume he is smart enough).

Let's look at the original argument a little closer. "Bush is going to war because he has friends in the oil industry and he wants to make them rich".

I don't know if you subscribe to this view or not but it was the purpose of my original argument and it is the cynical motivating force behind many if not most of the protestors.

This argument simply does not make sense. If the motives for Bush were that simple then it would make much more sense to lower the embargo. Bush would be a world hero, the economy would improve and he would be re-elected.

I reject absolutely such an argument.

On the other hand I do think that there are a number of reasons for this war. Oil being just one of many. After 911 George Bush met with his advisors and they considered all threats. Iraq was honestly considered to be on top of the list of threats. It was also pointed out that Iraq had not complied with the resolutions and that it was a serious problem that had never been resolved. To underscore the need to address Iraq, oil was considered with all of the ramification discussed including many if not all of the arguments laid out in your link. Also the fact that Saddam tried to kill George H. W. Bush was taken into account and I accept that there were other reasons

In other words, Oil was not the single driving force for the war. I personally don't even think it was the major one. A real and healthy concern for terrorism and the importance of seeing Saddam comply with his obligations coupled with the nations energy needs was considered when making this decision.

...ra ra ra "they hate are freedoms" ... I don't know of anyone that believes that the only motivation for terrorists is the fact that they hate our freedom. However, it is demonstrable that they do "hate" or freedom and that it is a very significant motivating force behind terrorism.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Diezel
I found this article quite interesting, bringing up some very good rebuttals to some of the anti-war arguments, mainly the "It's all about the oil!" argument.

http://www.fumento.com/military/nader.html

What really struck me was this idea:


It is so simple, but it is true! Eliminating the embargo would create a larger supply, bringing down the prices (as would the diminished fear of war.) So, if it was really just about oil, we would be better off letting Sadaam do whatever he likes and just buy his oil.

Oddly, I have never heard this rebuttal before...

I have said exactly that.

[svero]

Originally posted by RandFan
Well then, the argument does and it presumes alot.
I don't think your analogy adequately portrays my opinion.

IC.. well I thought we were discussing Fumento's idea. I think I demonstrated clearly why his argument was wrong in terms of discussing US decision making and a war with Iraq, and if I try to clarify any more I'd simply be repeating myself.

>I think your argument has merit. I have admitted a month ago in
>my first thread that oil "is" a significant reason for this war. In
>light of that I can accept that Bush is taking into account the
>long term needs of the nation and has considered arguments
>like those laid out in the link you posted (I do assume he is
>smart enough).

Well that's not just some random document. It was commissioned by Cheney to help the US govt decide on an energy policy for the future.

I'm tempted to respond directly to the rest of your points, but I think I'll just stick to Fumento's argument and why it's incorrect.

I will point out though, unless I'm really out to lunch here, and maybe you can enlighten me, that lifting embargoes does not make Bush's friends money. So far as I know they sell oil, and cheaper oil prices don't directly benefit them. What is of benefit is opening up Iraq to US foreign investment in the oil industry. But again, this is about the benefit of controlling oil supply and positioning the US strategically for the future. Not about making some buddies a few bucks, although it's likely they would stand to gain in the long run.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by svero
I will point out though, unless I'm really out to lunch here, and maybe you can enlighten me, that lifting embargoes does not make Bush's friends money. So far as I know they sell oil, and cheaper oil prices don't directly benefit them. What is of benefit is opening up Iraq to US foreign investment in the oil industry. But again, this is about the benefit of controlling oil supply and positioning the US strategically for the future. Not about making some buddies a few bucks, although it's likely they would stand to gain in the long run. Thanks for the response svero,

Yes we are probably arguing apples and oranges. Probably because the argument is similar to mine and my ego wants to think that someone significantly smarter and more enlightened would make the same argument.

My understanding is that most people think that the war is to make Bush and his friends rich. Bush will control the oil resources of Iraq and he and his buddies will get rich. The evidence is that Bush is from Texas and he has a background in oil as well as friends in the oil business. Cheney is with Halliburton and Rice also has oil contacts (never mind that most politicians have strong links to the oil industry).

My argument is only valid if you accept the following. Bush would have about as much control of Iraqi oil if he made a deal with Saddam. All of those lucrative French and German contracts could be re-written. The rebuilding that France and Germany are chomping at the bit to do would be transferred to Bush's friends and the floodgates of oil would be opened and everyone would get rich.

I of course don't ascribe to that view. But to those that do it is demonstrable that it doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny. The links that Bush has or the fact that he, cabinet members and his friends are in the oil industry are no more enriched by war as not. In fact, no war has less down sides than actually having a war.

And keep in mind that if Bush did make a deal to help Saddam he could make agreements to let Bush regulate oil and gas to control world prices. I can't imagine Saddam turning down such a deal.

The argument that Bush is starting a war to enrich him and his friends is completely specious.

On the other hand, the fact that Bush is interested in our long term energy needs coupled with a real desire to solve the very real problem that Saddam presents and other factors are the reason for the war.

"No war for oil" is simply misguided propaganda. A more accurate slogan would be "no war for long term security, economic stability and a secure energy policy"

But it makes for a bad sound bite.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
But the ultimate problem with Nader's reasoning is that, if all we wanted was cheap abundant oil, we could get it peacefully by simply lifting oil-export sanctions against Iraq and demobilizing.

For that matter, our government could get rid of the Federal gasoline tax and prices would automatically drop 19.5¢/gal. Guess what the chances of that happening are?

[svero]

>My understanding is that most people think that the war is to
>make Bush and his friends rich. Bush will control the oil
>resources of Iraq and he and his buddies will get rich.

I'm sure some people view it in simpler terms than that. Nobody would accuse the peace movement of being staffed by intellectual giants. You've got dumb hawks, you've got dumb doves. Do I think bush's oil contacts stand to gain wealth? Sure they do. Once Saddam is gone bush can easily open up Iraq to foreign investment. American oil comapanies will move in and provide the necessary infrustructure for a cut of the profits.

>My argument is only valid if you accept the following. Bush
>would have about as much control of Iraqi oil if he made a deal
>with Saddam.

I don't think it's too easy for Bush to move into Iraq and make deals. There's a political fallout from their stance. They've villified Iraq so much at this point it would be quite something to turn around and say, well yeah we hate saddam, he's a monster, but we're going to be doing a few pipeline contracts anyway.

>The argument that Bush is starting a war to enrich him and his
>friends is completely specious.

Well... as I said I expect the US oil industry stands to gain greatly if in a post war Iraq they're in a position to provide infrustructure and take a cut of the profits, so like everything else I expect that this is a motivating factor.

>On the other hand, the fact that Bush is interested in our long
>term energy needs coupled with a real desire to solve the very
>real problem that Saddam presents and other factors are the
>reason for the war.

This is perhaps the main driving force behind US foreign policy in the middle east, but you have to realize that long term secure energy and big us corporations making money are entwined. You can't really separate one from the other entirely.

>"No war for oil" is simply misguided propaganda. A more
>accurate slogan would be "no war for long term security,
>economic stability and a secure energy policy"

Sure. But let's face it the President has his own share of sound bytes. Now for the 2nd statement you have to decide if the US going to war with Iraq is the best approach to take. There are a lot of people who understand this and believe, quite reasonably, that it is not the best approach.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


For that matter, our government could get rid of the Federal gasoline tax and prices would automatically drop 19.5¢/gal. Guess what the chances of that happening are? [/B][/QUOTE]

that would only encourage the use of more oil and even greater dependence on it.

[RandFan]

My understanding is that most people think that the war is to
>make Bush and his friends rich. Bush will control the oil
>resources of Iraq and he and his buddies will get rich.

>>I'm sure some people view it in simpler terms than that.
>>Nobody would accuse the peace movement of being staffed by
>>intellectual giants. You've got dumb hawks, you've got dumb >>doves.

Agreed.

>>Do I think bush's oil contacts stand to gain wealth? Sure they
>>do. Once Saddam is gone bush can easily open up Iraq to
>>foreign investment. American oil comapanies will move in and
>>provide the necessary infrustructure for a cut of the profits.

Yes, the stand to profit at least as much with a war as without (see below)

>My argument is only valid if you accept the following. Bush
>would have about as much control of Iraqi oil if he made a deal
>with Saddam.

>>I don't think it's too easy for Bush to move into Iraq and make
>>deals. There's a political fallout from their stance. They've
>>villified Iraq so much at this point it would be quite something
>>to turn around and say, well yeah we hate saddam, he's a
>>monster, but we're going to be doing a few pipeline contracts
>>anyway.

This is where we disagree. I have little doubt that Bush could manuever to a different position. I can think of a number of scenarios. First, keep in mindwhat it is that Saddam wants and that is to Survive, keep face and power. Bush could announce that Saddam had quitely contacted Bush and offered a deal. But Bush told Saddam that only Saddams complete cooperation would work. Bush could then say that inteligent reports indicated a dramatic change in Iraq. The UN is very anxious to get this all over. If America said Saddam was cooperating then that would be it.

>The argument that Bush is starting a war to enrich him and his
>friends is completely specious.

Well... as I said I expect the US oil industry stands to gain greatly if in a post war Iraq they're in a position to provide infrustructure and take a cut of the profits, so like everything else I expect that this is a motivating factor.

Again, the outcome as to personal wealth is the same with or without a war. Bush holds all the cards. If he made a deal with Saddam he could call the shots.

>On the other hand, the fact that Bush is interested in our long
>term energy needs coupled with a real desire to solve the very
>real problem that Saddam presents and other factors are the
>reason for the war.

>>This is perhaps the main driving force behind US foreign policy
>>in the middle east, but you have to realize that long term
>>secure energy and big us corporations making money are
>>entwined. You can't really separate one from the other entirely.

I concede the point.

>"No war for oil" is simply misguided propaganda. A more
>accurate slogan would be "no war for long term security,
>economic stability and a secure energy policy"

>>Sure. But let's face it the President has his own share of sound
>>bytes. Now for the 2nd statement you have to decide if the US
>>going to war with Iraq is the best approach to take. There are
>>a lot of people who understand this and believe, quite
>>reasonably, that it is not the best approach.

Absolutely, and to be intelectually honest my alternative slogan should be "no oil for [what Bush percieves will be the outcome of the war which is] long term security, economic stability and a secure energy policy

The truth is that we don't know if Bush's plan will work or is the best one. I honestly have a lot of concerns. There have been some very good arguments why we should not go to war. The effort by Wayne and Danish and others is not lost on me.

My point is that Bush is not doing this simply for cynical reasons.

Excelent post. I really look forward to your responses. Thank you.

[svero]

>This is where we disagree. I have little doubt that Bush could
>manuever to a different position.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure, that even if they managed to pull this off they wouldn't see it as being as good a position. They'd still be dealing with Saddam. It would still be a thorn in their side for years to come. Some changes could occur and Saddam could find himself in a better bargaining position, and then they'd be back at square one. So I don't think it's strictly equivalent.

>My point is that Bush is not doing this simply for cynical reasons.

I don't know. I guess I'm a softie at heart, and I'd like to believe that the people in the white house are merely misdirected, but there's so much badness elsewhere in drug policies, reduced freedom of US citizens, religious fanaticism etc... that I really have to wonder if that's the case. I suppose it's a minor point but when Rumsfeld covers up the breast of a statue, I start to think all kinds of cynical thoughts about the rationality of whitehouse staff. Maybe if we're lucky it's just an act to scare the bajeezus out of bin laden. It certainly has me terrified.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by svero
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure, that even if they managed to pull this off they wouldn't see it as being as good a position. They'd still be dealing with Saddam. It would still be a thorn in their side for years to come. Some changes could occur and Saddam could find himself in a better bargaining position, and then they'd be back at square one. So I don't think it's strictly equivalent. Oh I agree, I think that there are real reasons why we actually have to go to war. I think Saddam is a real problem that only removal from power will solve. The argument only stands if Bush is doing this for cynical reasons. Not going to war works as well for that purpose as going to war.

I don't know. I guess I'm a softie at heart, and I'd like to believe that the people in the white house are merely misdirected, but there's so much badness elsewhere in drug policies, reduced freedom of US citizens, religious fanaticism etc... that I really have to wonder if that's the case. I suppose it's a minor point but when Rumsfeld covers up the breast of a statue, I start to think all kinds of cynical thoughts about the rationality of whitehouse staff. Maybe if we're lucky it's just an act to scare the bajeezus out of bin laden. It certainly has me terrified. Well, I think that you are making two different points. And I'm not certain where you come down on. I never thought much of the shot gun method of arguing and I'm not talking about your cyinical views.

We have shrewed and stupid. Ciritcs of Ronald Regan always painted him in both these lights. I remember skits of Regan on SNL where he was shown as an idiot at one point and then as a calculating but pretending to be stupid when he planned armed for hostages. I thought they were damn funny but seemed to be inconsistent to me.

The drug policies have been around for awhile and Clinton did nothing to stop them so I question the relevence of the point.

Loss of civil rights is typical after an event like 911. I'm not defending the actions of the White House but I doubt very much that things would have been too much different if Al Gore had been in that position. The citizens of the United States demanded security. Our freedoms make us vulnerable. How easy is it to suspend some civil rights of "those" people?

Covering up breasts on statues is just silly and does cause won to wonder about the objectivity of the person that does so. Have you heard Aschroft sing "where the eagle soars"?