Iraqi war forecast in 1920's

[Brian Hughes]

> And since it reportedly takes several times as much oil to build a car as it will ever use in its
> lifetime, SUVs are sucking the planet dry even when standing still with the engine off.
>

You know, I've heard that factoid mentioned several times before. I don't know if it's true. But I'm
curious, if it is indeed true, how many cars are built per barrel of oil Vs SUV built per barrel?
And what about this idea of hybrid (electric and gas/diesel) cars, trucks and SUVs that supposedly
are going to get twice the fuel mileage or more--what's the point if the real oil usage is in
production of the vehicle itself? I doubt these hybrids will be built at twice the rate per barrel.

Also, how much oil does it take to build a new recumbent bike? Would it in fact be better for the
overall oil supply to buy a used car instead or even a used SUV (since that oil used in production
has already been used) instead of having a new recumbent built (which will perhaps cause even more
oil to be used in production than you will ever burn while driving your used motor vehicle)?

Seriously, I would like to know the source and credibility of the "several times more oil in
production versus in use" statement. If it is indeed true, the solution seems to me to be
encouraging people to keep their vehicles (even their large monster SUVs) much longer, and avoid
buying new vehicles every few years--that would lower the world's oil requirements much much more
than improving the average fuel mileage of the vehicles. Also if true, Detroit (and other auto
makers around the world) should focus primarily on improving the energy efficiency of producing
vehicles, and forget about the minor benefit of improved mileage of the vehicles themselves.

Brian -- Still a skeptic

 

[Freewheeling]

Guy:

"Al-Quaeda offered to go in and finish Saddam off last time round with their US-trained and equipped
shocktroops, because they hate Saddam's largely secular government even more than Duby hates his
having humiliated his father."

Not a chance. From the Al Qaeda side, UBL barely stops short of refering to Saddam by name in his
*Declaration of War Against the Americans*, paraphrasing Ibn Taymiyyah: "if the danger to the
religion from not fighting is greater than that of fighting, then it is a duty to fight them *even
if the intention of some of the fighter is not pure i.e.. fighting for the sake of leadership
(personal gain) or if they do not observe some of the rules and commandments of Islam*."

From the Saddam side, it's a myth that he is a doctrinaire Ba'athist any longer. Not only has he had
a falling out with the Ba'ath regime in Syria, but the intricate infrastructure of the Ba'ath Party
that enabled him to come to power has been almost completely destroyed, and replaced by a tight
group of close family and clan members from Tikrit. Essentially a tribal structure. Moreover, Saddam
will use any imagery, or make any alliance, that allows him to vanquish his enemies. He will portray
himself as Saladin, who defeated the Christian Crusaders, as Nebuchadnezer, as the king of the
Assyrians, as a devout Muslim cleric, even as the modern incarnation of an Abassid Caliph. However,
his most durable personification is as the tribal Shaykh of Shaykhs, of both his own Sunni tribesmen
and of the Shia Shaykhs he has managed to coopt with land deals. Sound "secular" to you?

There may be no great love lost between Saddam and UBL, but if Saddam will forge an alliance with
the very Talibani Kurdish tribesmen he gassed in al-Anfal he'll forge an alliance with anyone.

*Vanity Fair* had an article a couple of weeks ago about CIA evidence of a direct link between Al
Qaeda and Saddam. I seem to have misplaced the citation though. The problem is that the evidence
involves informants that they consider very trustworthy, but that they don't want to compromise, and
it probably does not involve physical evidence.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:28:46 -0000, "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I am alone in wondering why, when Robert Mugabe is just as big a scumbag
as
> >Saddam Hussein, why the UN is not coming down on Zimbabwe in the same
manner
> >as they are on Iraq?
>
> Or indeed why Iraq is being mentioned in the same breath as Al-Quaeda, when Al-Quaeda offered to
> go in and finish Saddam off last time round with their US-trained and equipped shocktroops,
> because they hate Saddam's largely secular government even more than Duby hates his having
> humiliated his father.
>
> And of course it was the Brits, in the person of Winston Churchill, who gave Saddam the idea of
> bombing the kurds with chemical weapons - we did it first.
>
> Not that US foreign policy is in any way influenced by the fact that half the top people in the
> administration come from oil companies, of course. Their morals are beyond question - hardly any
> of them worked for Enron. Much.
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.

 

[Freewheeling]

Brian:

If it's true then it might be more economical to hang onto your SUV if you already have one, rather
than sell it and purchase a more economical car off the production line. Just drive it a little
less. And stay out of my way, 'cause you're blockin' my view.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > And since it reportedly takes several times as much oil to build a car as it will ever use in
> > its lifetime, SUVs are sucking the planet dry even when standing still with the engine off.
> >
>
> You know, I've heard that factoid mentioned several times before. I don't know if it's true. But
> I'm curious, if it is indeed true, how many cars
are
> built per barrel of oil Vs SUV built per barrel? And what about this
idea
> of hybrid (electric and gas/diesel) cars, trucks and SUVs that supposedly are going to get twice
> the fuel mileage or more--what's the point if the real oil usage is in production of the vehicle
> itself? I doubt these hybrids will be built at twice the rate per barrel.
>
> Also, how much oil does it take to build a new recumbent bike? Would it
in
> fact be better for the overall oil supply to buy a used car instead or
even
> a used SUV (since that oil used in production has already been used)
instead
> of having a new recumbent built (which will perhaps cause even more oil to be used in production
> than you will ever burn while driving your used
motor
> vehicle)?
>
> Seriously, I would like to know the source and credibility of the "several times more oil in
> production versus in use" statement. If it is indeed true, the solution seems to me to be
> encouraging people to keep their vehicles (even their large monster SUVs) much longer, and avoid
> buying new vehicles every few years--that would lower the world's oil requirements
much
> much more than improving the average fuel mileage of the vehicles. Also
if
> true, Detroit (and other auto makers around the world) should focus primarily on improving the
> energy efficiency of producing vehicles, and forget about the minor benefit of improved mileage of
> the vehicles themselves.
>
> Brian -- Still a skeptic

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:41:18 GMT, "brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote:

>You know, I've heard that factoid mentioned several times before. I don't know if it's true.
>But I'm curious, if it is indeed true, how many cars are built per barrel of oil Vs SUV built
>per barrel?

Good question. I have always assumed that it varies by mass of car, since the proportion of
plastics and amount of steel is probably not dissimilar between vehicles, but I hadn't thought too
hard about it.

>And what about this idea of hybrid (electric and gas/diesel) cars, trucks and SUVs that supposedly
>are going to get twice the fuel mileage or more--what's the point if the real oil usage is in
>production of the vehicle itself?

To say nothing of all those high-tech batteries being replaced every few years. The cost of
recycling batteries can be pretty high. One of the problems with environmental economics is that it
can get quite hard to find out what all the hidden future costs are.

>I doubt these hybrids will be built at twice the rate per barrel.

Although they are foten built using light alloys and composites to maximise efficiency, which may
make a difference.

>Also, how much oil does it take to build a new recumbent bike? Would it in fact be better for the
>overall oil supply to buy a used car instead or even a used SUV (since that oil used in production
>has already been used) instead of having a new recumbent built (which will perhaps cause even more
>oil to be used in production than you will ever burn while driving your used motor vehicle)?

Never! First, a new recumbent bike is a "lurve thang" and second a bike has an almost indefinite
service life, which should compensate for the small amount of material used in manufacture.

>Seriously, I would like to know the source and credibility of the "several times more oil in
>production versus in use" statement.

Don't know if this helps:

<http://www.geocities.com/davefergus/Transportation/3CHAP3.htm>

>If it is indeed true, the solution seems to me to be encouraging people to keep their vehicles
>(even their large monster SUVs) much longer, and avoid buying new vehicles every few years--that
>would lower the world's oil requirements much much more than improving the average fuel mileage of
>the vehicles.

But that would undermine the whoe capitalist economy! Buy things and NOT THROW THEM AWAY?!?! You
pinko commie subversive!

>Also if true, Detroit (and other auto makers around the world) should focus primarily on improving
>the energy efficiency of producing vehicles, and forget about the minor benefit of improved mileage
>of the vehicles themselves.

That presumes that Detroit has any desire to improve, which has never been demonstrated to be the
case. SUVs are just another footnote in "Unsafe At Any Speed" showing that nothing has
fundamentally changed.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Bandjhughes]

Scott:

I believe your impression of me couldn't be further from the truth. I don't own, nor have I ever
owned, nor do I intend to ever own a SUV. Also, I'm a 5-day per week, year round, bike to work
commuter. More weeks than not I put zero miles on my motor vehicle (a pickup truck that I last went
almost 6-months between fill ups)--how much less should I drive?

If I seem like I'm defending SUV ownership, it may be because I just don't buy this notion that we
can single out a group of people (such as SUV owners) and tell them--and actually believe--they're
the cause of our oil dependence and the rest of us are not. When I see BS statements like "If you
ride an SUV you ride with osama" I just want to puke.

Brian

"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Brian:
>
> If it's true then it might be more economical to hang onto your SUV if you already have one,
> rather than sell it and purchase a more economical car off the production line. Just drive it a
> little less. And stay out of my way, 'cause you're blockin' my view.
>
> --
> --Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.
>
>
> "brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > And since it reportedly takes several times as much oil to build a car as it will ever use in
> > > its lifetime, SUVs are sucking the planet dry even when standing still with the engine off.
> > >
> >
> > You know, I've heard that factoid mentioned several times before. I don't know if it's true. But
> > I'm curious, if it is indeed true, how many cars
> are
> > built per barrel of oil Vs SUV built per barrel? And what about this
> idea
> > of hybrid (electric and gas/diesel) cars, trucks and SUVs that supposedly are going to get twice
> > the fuel mileage or more--what's the point if the real oil usage is in production of the vehicle
> > itself? I doubt these hybrids will be built at twice the rate per barrel.
> >
> > Also, how much oil does it take to build a new recumbent bike? Would it
> in
> > fact be better for the overall oil supply to buy a used car instead or
> even
> > a used SUV (since that oil used in production has already been used)
> instead
> > of having a new recumbent built (which will perhaps cause even more oil to be used in production
> > than you will ever burn while driving your used
> motor
> > vehicle)?
> >
> > Seriously, I would like to know the source and credibility of the "several times more oil in
> > production versus in use" statement. If it is indeed true, the solution seems to me to be
> > encouraging people to keep their vehicles (even their large monster SUVs) much longer, and avoid
> > buying new vehicles every few years--that would lower the world's oil requirements
> much
> > much more than improving the average fuel mileage of the vehicles. Also
> if
> > true, Detroit (and other auto makers around the world) should focus primarily on improving the
> > energy efficiency of producing vehicles, and forget about the minor benefit of improved mileage
> > of the vehicles themselves.
> >
> > Brian -- Still a skeptic
> >

 

[Freewheeling]

Guy:

Sorry, but I've just read Sandra Mackey's rather comprehensive history of Iraq, and she makes
absolutely no mention of any such US involvement. Since Iraq was, at the time, a British Mandate
under Faisal I (the first of the Hashemite kings of Iraq) it seems unlikely that we'd have been
mucking around with the Kurds even if we were of a mind to use chemical weapons. According to Mackey
(who is a fairly unbiased source) the Kurds revolted after the Lusanne Conference under the League
of Nations had invalidated the Treaty of Sevres and eliminated the future state of Kurdistan.

"In the mountains, both the use and threatened use of poison gas held the rebelling tribes in check
while a League of Nations commission sent in between January and March of 1925 assessed Kurdish
wishes for their future." (Sandra Mackey, *The Reckoning*)

Certainly the use of chemical weapons is unconscionable, and it is clear that Faisal I was directly
implicated, and by extension the British. But there is absolutely *no* mention of US involvement.
Indeed, the US under Wilson had been the "holdout" against the British desire to carve up Middle
East, favoring the principle of "self determination" over such imperialistic designs. He was, in a
word, overruled.

The Kurds, by the way, acting as agents of the Ottoman Turks, where the very people directly
responsible for the first genocide of the twentieth century against the Armenians of Anatolia. When
you're talking about the Middle East it's very difficult to find anyone who meets the standards set
by Western idealists. But I really do not think the US has ever knowingly participated in the use of
WMD against any of the peoples there. These are myths that can ultimately harm Americans by
inflaming resentments and hatreds that have little rational basis. It is totally irresponsible to
make such vague references as though they are substantial.

Another good source of information on the history of Iraq is Robert Kaplan's *The Arabists*.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:59:40 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >When did we bomb the Kurds with chemical weapons???
>
> 1920 or thereabouts.
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:00:10 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Sorry, but I've just read Sandra Mackey's rather comprehensive history of Iraq, and she makes
>absolutely no mention of any such US involvement.

I appreciate what you say, but I think you may have the wrong "we" from my post - Sir Winston
Churchill, who approved the gassing of "uncivilised tribes," was every bit as American as I am

The function of the Brits in the forthcoming score-settling is obvious: a fig-leaf of respectability
in case of UN failure to accede to war, and to share the body count for the benefit of home news
consumption. Hopefully it won't be necessary for US forces to actually inflict the casualties
themselves this time :-/

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Freewheeling]

"I appreciate what you say, but I think you may have the wrong "we" from my post - Sir Winston
Churchill, who approved the gassing of "uncivilised tribes," was every bit as American as I am "

There isn't much doubt that most of the problems of Iraq can be traced to the legacy of the British
mandate, however the Hashemite monarchy under the mandate probably governed Iraq better than any of
those administrations that followed the 1958 "revolution."

As for the "function" of the Brits, I would hold that the UN has a certain responsibility that it
may choose *not* to meet. In so doing it undermines the legitimacy of the UN, and therefore its
ability to resolve these kinds of disputes in future. The UN resolution clearly estiblishes the onus
of responsibility on Iraq to facilitate and cooperate in it's own disarmament, and the willingness
of the French and Germans to change the rules to place the onus on the UN mission, to "prove" that
the Hussein regime has WMD, just reinforces the notion that the UN does not stand behind it's own
resolutions... even when the stakes involve the potential use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Unlike
the past, the current position of the British is based on principle and the long term viability of a
supranational authority that deals with such thorny issues effectively. Indeed, without the
effective and realistic threat that the US poses Saddam would not even be cooperating to the extent
that he has.

By the way, the behavior of the Iraqi regime, particulary their rather obvious suppression of the
effort to interview their scientists in sanctuary, counts as evidence. Unless you actually believe
the Iraqis really have, unsuccessfully, attempted to convince their scientists to participate, as
they claim to have done. Believing that would involve accepting the twin notions that Iraqis prefer
their own climate and social conditions to those prevailing in mediterranean Europe, and that the
Iraqi administration just doesn't have very much influence over their scientists. And I'm frankly
loathe to leave the security of the US, or civilization for that matter, up to those with such
questionable powers of judgment.

I'll give you a some points for recognizing the undeniable fact that "our" motives aren't always
pure, and for the equally undeniable fact that we make too-frequent foreign policy errors,
especially in the Middle East in the past (and currently in the Caucasus). If that's the nub of your
argument I'll give it to you.

And I'd also say that what is done in the wake of another Gulf War is probably far more significant
than whether we go to war in the first place. I really wish there were a bit more focus on that.

Here's the URL of an article written by Robert Kaplan outlining an humanitarian case for War
with Iraq:

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021021&s=kaplan102102

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:00:10 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Sorry, but I've just read Sandra Mackey's rather comprehensive history of Iraq, and she makes
> >absolutely no mention of any such US involvement.
>
> I appreciate what you say, but I think you may have the wrong "we" from my post - Sir Winston
> Churchill, who approved the gassing of "uncivilised tribes," was every bit as American as I am
>
> The function of the Brits in the forthcoming score-settling is obvious: a fig-leaf of
> respectability in case of UN failure to accede to war, and to share the body count for the benefit
> of home news consumption. Hopefully it won't be necessary for US forces to actually inflict the
> casualties themselves this time :-/
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:44:11 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'll give you a some points for recognizing the undeniable fact that "our" motives aren't always
>pure, and for the equally undeniable fact that we make too-frequent foreign policy errors,
>especially in the Middle East in the past (and currently in the Caucasus). If that's the nub of
>your argument I'll give it to you.

Thank you, yes, that is essentially it. Nobody is pretending that Saddam is a particularly nice man,
but there are worse terrorists, and the whole UN thing wouldn't even be on the agenda if he wasn't
sitting on a huge amount of oil. There are other nations who have ignored UN mandates, including
Israel, which are not on Dubya's hit list.

Personally I would wait a couple of years until Saddam croaks anyway.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Freewheeling]

Guy:

"and the whole UN thing wouldn't even be on the agenda if he wasn't sitting on a huge
amount of oil."

Why wouldn't it? Not that the notion of using "oil as bait," as outlined by Robert Kaplan, isn't a
sound one. The analytical error you've made is in assuming that because our motives may not be pure,
the merit of the exercise is in question. As far as Kaplan is concerned the merit even transcends
the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

But because of the role that Iraq plays in the Middle East, especially with respect to Israel, it
would hardly be on a back burner. And chances are that if there were no oil in Iraq the Hashemites
might still be in power, and Iraq would look a lot more like Jordan than Stalinist USSR.

I don't think we can afford to wait a couple of years. Saddam broke the sanctions in 1999 and has
been importing pretty much whatever he desires since. Assuming he only lasts a couple of years, not
only will the entire social fabric of Iraq be utterly destroyed by then, and that the regime would
be a nuclear power, but there's no guarantee that he won't be succeeded by a son equally as severe.
After all, Kim Jung Il succeeded *his* daddy Kim Il Song, and look where that got us.

I don't think there's any real way to duck this responsibility. What I'm concerned about is that we
lack the know-how to deal with the aftermath. Frankly I think we'd be better off under a Democrat
administration on that score... after Bush takes care of the dirty business, that is. Sometimes
being able to change "regimes" by simply voting them out is a geopolitical advantage. It makes the
whole good cop/bad cop thing a lot more credible.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:44:11 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I'll give you a some points for recognizing the undeniable fact that
"our"
> >motives aren't always pure, and for the equally undeniable fact that we
make
> >too-frequent foreign policy errors, especially in the Middle East in the past (and currently in
> >the Caucasus). If that's the nub of your argument I'll give it to you.
>
> Thank you, yes, that is essentially it. Nobody is pretending that Saddam is a particularly nice
> man, but there are worse terrorists, and the whole UN thing wouldn't even be on the agenda if he
> wasn't sitting on a huge amount of oil. There are other nations who have ignored UN mandates,
> including Israel, which are not on Dubya's hit list.
>
> Personally I would wait a couple of years until Saddam croaks anyway.
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:42:34 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The analytical error you've made is in assuming that because our motives may not be pure, the merit
>of the exercise is in question.

But you could make an equally good case for going in against plenty of other places. Ultimately the
credibility of the whole thing is shot to pieces by the fact of Dubya being GHWB's son and
surrounded by his former aides, many of whom are in oil. However you look at it, nobody can possibly
trust these people to make an objective judgement in the matter - which is probably why the
international community is proving rather less than enthusiastic about the whole thing.

As for sanctions-busting, well the British government was prepared to issue "gagging orders"
withholding vital evidence of innocence in the trial of British businessmen who were shipping
military hardawre to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, in order to cover up the fact a senior minister
lied about this being done with official approval. Many of Saddam's weapons were bought wth money we
lent him under our export credit guarantee scheme - the same scheme we used to sell Hawk jets to
Indonesia, which they then used to bomb civilians in East Timor.

You want violence and oppression, visit Burma. No oil, no intervention. See what I mean?

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Freewheeling]

Guy:

"But you could make an equally good case for going in against plenty of other places. Ultimately the
credibility of the whole thing is shot to pieces by the fact of Dubya being GHWB's son and
surrounded by his former aides, many of whom are in oil."

I have no idea what you're talking about. Where could you make a similar argument? There's a
superficial similarity with N. Korea, but there's no China in the neighborhood of Iraq. And what
does the position of the Bush cohort on the oil patch have to do with "the credibility of the whole
thing?" I assume you're talking about this whacky notion that they just want to tap Iraq's oil? But
the fact is that that concept has no credibility AT ALL. If anything, they could make a more
favorable deal with Saddam, as Uday has already suggested. Except, of course, that they'd be giving
a totalitarian dictator long term leverage over the populations of the open societies of the West.
But, apparently you don't think they care about that, so...

"However you look at it, nobody can possibly trust these people to make an objective judgement in
the matter - which is probably why the international community is proving rather less than
enthusiastic about the whole thing."

I haven't trusted them to make an objective judgment on this or any other matter. I made the
judgment myself, based on the evidence that we have at our disposal. At this point I really don't
need to see any direct evidence of WMD to know that Iraq has them. That's an obvious and unavoidable
inference. And the only former weapons inspector who ever thought otherwise turns out to be some
sort of violent sexual pervert. As though he was ever credible anyway. What a monumental dufus.

"As for sanctions-busting, well the British government was prepared to issue "gagging orders"
withholding vital evidence of innocence in the trial of British businessmen who were shipping
military hardawre to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, in order to cover up the fact a senior minister
lied about this being done with official approval. Many of Saddam's weapons were bought wth money we
lent him under our export credit guarantee scheme - the same scheme we used to sell Hawk jets to
Indonesia, which they then used to bomb civilians in East Timor."

Again, what the hell does this have to do with anything? I mean, we once had this notion that Saddam
was the bulwark against an Iranian takeover of the Gulf. So what? I mean seriously, you're
presenting a straw man as though it's relevant to whether Saddam is capable of expanding his WMD
arsenal NOW. It literally makes we sick to my stomach that you regard this as logically relevant. It
makes me wonder if you really know what we're talking about, or if this has degenerated into some
sort of ideological test.

"You want violence and oppression, visit Burma. No oil, no intervention. See what I mean?"

Burma is one of the "nasty 11" that's right. A double 7 on the anti-freedom scale, along with Iraq,
N. Korea, Libya, etc. But it doesn't have WMD, and more importantly has not systematically evaded
weapons inspections designed to disarm it of such devices for over a decade. So, again, Burma has
nothing to do with this. Good lord, you're not suggesting that I think Bush's motive is to free the
people of Iraq! I don't think he'd be especially opposed to that notion, nor to the notion of an
open society in Burma... but his purpose is the security of the US in an age of mass destructive
terrorism. This isn't about being "nice" or politically correct. No one ever went to war primarily
or exclusively for such notions, and no one ever will.

Eventually we'll need to deal with Burma and the others, because the only way to ensure the long
term security of the world is to expand open societies. (What Robert Dahl calls "polyarchies".)

I'll be honest. I don't think you've even raised a relevant issue. I'm trying to figure out what
sort of world you think would ensue after the destruction of Paris, or London, or Chicago? More
"open" do you think? I mean, we could just wait and see. But this really isn't a rehearsal. Try
thinking things through without the crutch of ideology and partisan politics. Have you ever taken a
class in Game Theory? Very useful concept.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:42:34 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The analytical error you've made is in assuming that because our motives may not be pure, the
> >merit of the
exercise
> >is in question.
>
> But you could make an equally good case for going in against plenty of other places. Ultimately
> the credibility of the whole thing is shot to pieces by the fact of Dubya being GHWB's son and
> surrounded by his former aides, many of whom are in oil. However you look at it, nobody can
> possibly trust these people to make an objective judgement in the matter - which is probably why
> the international community is proving rather less than enthusiastic about the whole thing.
>
> As for sanctions-busting, well the British government was prepared to issue "gagging orders"
> withholding vital evidence of innocence in the trial of British businessmen who were shipping
> military hardawre to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, in order to cover up the fact a senior
> minister lied about this being done with official approval. Many of Saddam's weapons were bought
> wth money we lent him under our export credit guarantee scheme - the same scheme we used to sell
> Hawk jets to Indonesia, which they then used to bomb civilians in East Timor.
>
> You want violence and oppression, visit Burma. No oil, no intervention. See what I mean?
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.

 

[Mikael Seierup]

"Freewheeling" skrev...
> I haven't trusted them to make an objective judgment on this or any other matter. I made the
> judgment myself, based on the evidence that we have at our disposal. At this point I really don't
> need to see any direct evidence of WMD to know that Iraq has them. That's an obvious and
> unavoidable inference.

What evidence? We keep hearing the US has evidence of those weapons. Why are they not telling the
rest of the world what it is instead of feeding us stale retoric.

I have no problems with a UN-sanctioned war against Iraq. I do have a major problem with the US
acting like the schoolyard bully based on evidence they won't share.

Call me a cynic but I doubt the Bush administration is doing this out of love of mankind. Oil plus
the "Wag the Dog"-effect if you ask me. They already have a plan seize the oilfields to make them
"perfectly safe". Wouldn't want the poor oilfields to get hurt now would we.

And would someone please learn Bush how to pronounce "nuclear". He sounds like Robin Williams doing
imitations in "Good Morning, Vietnam" when he goes "nu-ke-lar".

M.

 

[Freewheeling]

Mikael:

"What evidence? We keep hearing the US has evidence of those weapons. Why are they not telling the
rest of the world what it is instead of feeding us stale retoric."

I'm not talking about any secret smoking gun, for heaven sake. I'm talking about his obvious efforts
to confound the attempt to prove he has no WMD, which is *only* explainable if he has them. Either
that, or he's just wildly eccentric. And if the latter is the case, what a shame, huh? You'd think
somebody would slap some sense into him.

"I have no problems with a UN-sanctioned war against Iraq. I do have a major problem with the US
acting like the schoolyard bully based on evidence they won't share."

This is another one of those characterizations that just make no sense to
me. When has the US *not* shared, especially with western Europe? As for the noble UN, you *are*
talking about the same organization that just elected Libya, one of the "dirty 11" that are the
most repressive regimes on earth, to head the human rights commission, and elected Syria,
another member of the same infamous 11, to chair the security council? You mean *that* UN?

"Call me a cynic but I doubt the Bush administration is doing this out of love of mankind. Oil plus
the "Wag the Dog"-effect if you ask me. They already have a plan seize the oilfields to make them
"perfectly safe". Wouldn't want the poor oilfields to get hurt now would we."

No, call *me* a cynic about the UN. Have you any notion at all of the environmental and economic
disaster that would occur if Saddam torched the Iraqi oil fields? Basically equivalent to the use of
a WMD. And yet you're *faulting* Bush for protecting them? I'm phlumoxed.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Mikael Seierup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Freewheeling" skrev...
> > I haven't trusted them to make an objective judgment on this or any
other
> > matter. I made the judgment myself, based on the evidence that we have
at
> > our disposal. At this point I really don't need to see any direct
evidence
> > of WMD to know that Iraq has them. That's an obvious and unavoidable inference.
>
> What evidence? We keep hearing the US has evidence of those weapons. Why are they not telling the
> rest of the world what it is instead of feeding us stale retoric.
>
> I have no problems with a UN-sanctioned war against Iraq. I do have a major problem with the US
> acting like the schoolyard bully based on evidence they won't share.
>
> Call me a cynic but I doubt the Bush administration is doing this out of love of mankind. Oil plus
> the "Wag the Dog"-effect if you ask me. They already have a plan seize the oilfields to make them
> "perfectly
safe".
> Wouldn't want the poor oilfields to get hurt now would we.
>
> And would someone please learn Bush how to pronounce "nuclear". He sounds like Robin Williams
> doing imitations in "Good Morning, Vietnam" when he goes "nu-ke-lar".
>
> M.

 

[Mikael Seierup]

"Freewheeling" skrev...
> I'm not talking about any secret smoking gun, for heaven sake.

Well your government is.

> No, call *me* a cynic about the UN. Have you any notion at all of the environmental and economic
> disaster that would occur if Saddam torched the Iraqi oil fields? Basically equivalent to the use
> of a WMD. And yet you're *faulting* Bush for protecting them? I'm phlumoxed.

Don't invade and the oilfields won't get torched. Same goes for any WMD. And you won't create hordes
of new conscripts for Al Qaeda.

Not really worth arguing over. We're going to get that war whether we like it or not. That has been
pretty clear from the outset.

Mikael

 

[Freewheeling]

I hope you're right about a war, assuming Saddam doesn't acquiesce on the interview question which
is make or break for me. One thing that puzzles
me. You seem to acknowledge that Saddam has WMD, but for some reason think he won't use them. On
the other hand you are concerned about obtaining "proof." I don't see those two positions as
compatible. By the way, he is reported by numerous very credible sources to refer to them as
"my special weapons."

You can email me if you like. Takes some of the edge off of the debate.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Mikael Seierup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Freewheeling" skrev...
> > I'm not talking about any secret smoking gun, for heaven sake.
>
> Well your government is.
>
> > No, call *me* a cynic about the UN. Have you any notion at all of the environmental and economic
> > disaster that would occur if Saddam torched
the
> > Iraqi oil fields? Basically equivalent to the use of a WMD. And yet
you're
> > *faulting* Bush for protecting them? I'm phlumoxed.
>
> Don't invade and the oilfields won't get torched. Same goes for any WMD. And you won't create
> hordes of new conscripts for Al Qaeda.
>
> Not really worth arguing over. We're going to get that war whether we like it or not. That has
> been pretty clear from the outset.
>
> Mikael

 

[Skip]

Don't do that. We are constantly getting TS's well known viewpoints on the subject along with those
of some in the English/European contingent. It's good to have a professional political scientist
respond to them in such a thoughtful way. I say keep it up - you are doing a great job.

"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message > <snip>
>You can email me if you like. Takes some of the edge off of the debate.

 

[Tom Sherman]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
> Or indeed why Iraq is being mentioned in the same breath as Al-Quaeda, when Al-Quaeda offered to
> go in and finish Saddam off last time round with their US-trained and equipped shocktroops,
> because they hate Saddam's largely secular government even more than Duby hates his having
> humiliated his father....

In a recent Knight-Ridder poll asking US residents how many of the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackers were
Iraqi, half thought some to most, a third had no idea, and only 17 percent had the correct
answer of none.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side) RANS "Wavewind" and Rocket, Earth Cycles Sunset and
Dragonflyer

 

[Tom Sherman]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> ... Realistically, though, one would hardly expect Mr. Tony Blair (a.k.a. "Nobhead") to come out
> and say "Actually, boys and girls, you're right, it *is* about oil." Remember he is a politician,
> and therefore everything he says must be treated with extreme suspicion. And the same goes for all
> the other politicians who fall over themselves to sell weapons to scumbag dictators while
> pretending to have an "ethical foreign policy"....

It would be an interesting survey to see what percentage of the poodles born in England in 2002 were
named "Tony" compared to previous years.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:04:46 -0000, "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Realistically, though, one would hardly expect Mr. Tony Blair (a.k.a. "Nobhead") to come out and
>say "Actually, boys and girls, you're right, it *is* about oil."

I don't think it is all about oil, Dave, I think it starts with the fact that Saddam humiliated
Dubyas Dad using weapons partly supplied by George Sr's friends and advisers; the fact that Iraq has
oil is mainly useful for getting Dubyas powerful friends on board. The pirate captain attracts his
crew with promises of treasure, as it were. Ultimately I think Dubya believes that corporate America
*is* America, a situation which is unlikely to be improved by his being surrounded by people who
made millions insider trading.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.