Iraqi Oil

[kandrathe]

My predictions are that American oil companies will be given a better chance of dealing for Iraqi oil than otherwise.

My prediction is that you will be wrong, and that the French and the Russians will get the oil contracts they've already signed.

[kandrathe]

Alright, let's get something straight here. The Gulf War, as successful as it was, was not even close to being a textbook campaign. Baghdad was left pretty open, and a textbook campaign would have shown troops rushing in, taking over, and demanding peace. Why didn't they do this? At the time, it wasn't a 'not important / not a goal' issue with the regime. They were afraid of the results of Saddam falling from power.

Also, most of our coalition partners lost their stomach for driving into Baghdad. Most importantly, Saudi Arabia said, "Ok, that's enough." So, Bush Sr. figured we had acheived the liberation of Kuwait, and defeated the Iraqi army, so we could now show our humane face and win the moral victory as well. No one in the Bush Sr. administration thought that with that level of devastation of the Iraqi regime, that Saddam could hold onto power. We made a mistake in the armistice agreement to allow Iraq to fly their helicopters, which allowed them to crush the uprisings in the north and south. Then during the Clinton years, we let victory slip through our fingers by allowing Saddam to re-arm, bypass sanctions, and essentially use that armistice for toilet paper.

[cheezz]

The irony is that most processed fuel rods ARE used for weapons materials. Just not the sort people think of. Depleted uranium is commonly used to make armor-piercing shell casings for anything from machine guns to missiles.

As far as safety of nuclear plants is concerned, I suggest you look up the emerging pellet technology. (sorry, I don't have a link) It involves coating small spheres of enriched fuel in ceramic pellets. Apparently, they don't release enough energy to cause a meltdown, and they can safely be dumped anywhere once they are spent. Interesting reading, if nothing else.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Good way to win arguments, Pete, go after the people on your side.

I'm not looking to win arguments. I'm looking to increase my knowledge and clarify my opinions. I can't do that if the arguments presented are wrong, based on falsehoods, or illogical. I'd much sooner see a good argument that is devastating to my point of view than a crappy one supporting me. I can learn from the former, the latter is just so much noise.

So, it is not your viewpoints I disagree with, it is your arguments.

--Pete

[Taeme]

I can't do that if the arguments presented are wrong, based on falsehoods, or illogical.

True. Your opinions certainly do not become much more clarified by misrepresenting my arguments and then attacking them in a blind rage. I don't know what that says for my arguments, only that you clearly have a bone to pick with the peace movement.

Kandrathe :

My prediction is that you will be wrong, and that the French and the Russians will get the oil contracts they've already signed.

That's interesting. So, if people are attackinh the French/Russians and so on for being in on the money, what exactly are they afraid of in that the deals will hold? That's an interesting point. Actually, to back you up...

Meanwhile, outraged Iraqi exiles report that there won't be any equivalent of postwar de-Nazification, in which accomplices of the defeated regime were purged from public life. Instead the Bush administration intends to preserve most of the current regime: Saddam Hussein and a few top officials will be replaced with Americans, but the rest will stay.

So, essentially the same government will remain in power post-war, and you're probably right, the deals with that government will remain much the same. However, the oil in the north I'm then not so sure of...

Turkey has reportedly been offered the right to occupy much of Iraqi Kurdistan. Yes, that's right: as we move to liberate the Iraqis, our first step may be to deliver people who have been effectively independent since 1991 into the hands of a hated foreign overlord. Moral clarity!

I'm just quoting a source here, though. These are new facts for me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/opinion/21KRUG.html

Blech.

[kandrathe]

The US will use Iraqi oil to pay for war reparations, just as they did after the last war.

So, essentially the same government will remain in power post-war, and you're probably right, the deals with that government will remain much the same. However, the oil in the north I'm then not so sure of...

I agree that would make sense, temporarily, to maintain order and a smooth transition to a democratically elected new government. The transition would take years not months.

Turkey has reportedly been offered the right to occupy much of Iraqi Kurdistan.

What Turkey wants, and what Turkey gets will be different. For good or ill, we will need to live with the artificial borders drawn up by the Brits after WWII.

[Taeme]

I agree that would make sense, temporarily, to maintain order and a smooth transition to a democratically elected new government. The transition would take years not months.

It makes sense to leave the corrupt government even partially in power, post-war? I agree it might smooth the transition, but it seems like putting a towel over a mudpuddle instead of getting rid of the mud. My point is, however, that if that power base remains in place then the contracts the French / Russians signed remain as well.

What Turkey wants, and what Turkey gets will be different.

Let's hope so.

[kandrathe]

Iraq is a totalitarian state, where all power is held by less than a few dozen at the top. All free thinkers have been "removed", and only rule following "yes" men remain to preserve the bureacracy. So in this case, if you remove the head, the body will just continue to do as it is told by whomever is in power.

[Occhidiangela]

To get really juicy info from a foe, it often requires an inside job. Some facts, when known, are easily traceable to a source. Thus, in our country and in most NATO countries, the classification category of "sensitive sources" is one that is aimed at saving the life of the source. The human being who is putting his nuts on the block to get the info out.

Secretary Powell knows good and well that if you lose a source, as in that person dies, then the juicy info you need simply evaporates. There was a guy named Agee, back in the 1970's, who wrote a CIA tell all book. According to my friends in the intelligence community, that got a few dozen people killed.

The espionage game is deadly serious business for those who uncover that which folks want to keep hidden. Deadly serious.

[Occhidiangela]

Politics is messy, is it not? It is a game of uncertainties. The risk that Saddam would not fall from power once the war gave some of his opposition an opening was taken, and Saddam showed once again why he got to his position in the first place: he is crafty, ruthless, and does what it takes to acquire and retain power.

[Zenda]

Not all of them. Most are too stupid or ignorant to think.

Why are people ridiculed, when they protest against a war? Is it fair to do so, just because some of them mistake themselves in the motivations of politicians? How many of those in favor of a war, can claim to truly understand why we will have it?

Those who protested against this war might not always give you a perfect reasoning for it, but at least they tried to stop it. In fact, they did't need good reasons for themselves at all, because they cared about the wellfare of other humans.

And why is it, that the pollution of coal power plants makes nuclear power plants safer? How does being against nuclear power make you in favor of pollution? Don't we have other energy sources to explore? Is cutting down on our energy use (waste, rather) out of the question?

Catching your opponent on a badly chosen statement might win you a discussion, but does it help to solve the conflict?

Like everything else in the modern world, this war is about money. No, they don't plan to rob Bhagdad of its oil. The war is needed for one thing only: to keep the ever expanding Western economy going. You see, the biggest problem of modern economy is finding customers to sell the growing amount of products to, and wars increase demands like nothing else. The more destructive a conflict is, the more it will cost, and the more profit can be made. That's why nobody really cares about bombs costing half a million, for example. In particular the industries in the USA have become increasingly dependent on the production of high tech goods for the military. This has drawn America into many conflicts before, and it will get worse. But we Europeans are no better. Without a decent war every few years, our combined Western economy could easily loose its worldleading position, and we don't want that. Without our healthy economy, we will lose everything. At least we think we will.

Btw, the USA is not the first to benefit from wars. Here in Europe, it gave Germany and France their powerful economy, and that is why the governments of those countries are now against this war. They actually know what it is all about, and view upon this matter as an unfair move from an economic adversary, at their expense. Ofcourse, politicians are not going to admit that in public.

So, we won't fight this war because of the oil (In fact, marketingwise it would be better for the West if the sources in Iraq dried up today), not because Hussein is a 'evil' dictator and supressor (Do we really care so much how he treats his subjects, that we would spend billons for them?), not because Iraq has mass destruction weapons (They will never be able to compete with the USA in this, will they?), not because of terrorism (We are still bombing Afghanistan for this, with continued negative result), not because Iraq ignores UN resolutions (Who doesn't? The USA even reserves the right to attack member countries like mine, if we ever dare to arrest an American for crimes of war), not because of Human Rights (Many countries have death penalties, and deny thousands of prisoners a proper trial. On both sides), and not because of crimes against the ecology (It wasn't Iraq who opposed the Kyoto Treaty, was it?). No, it's because we don't mind becoming rich at the expense of others. At best, we wonder how long we can go on like this.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Why are people ridiculed, when they protest against a war?

Hmm, did you read what led up to my comment? Let me review it for you:

Occhi: Why don't these folks argue 'points against' that have a bit more value to them? Are they afraid to think? There are opposing arguments with greater merit, even if I personally disagree with some of them.

Me: Not all of them. Most are too stupid or ignorant to think.

You see? It is *not* people who protest a war, it is people who protest *anything* that they have no clue about. The loud and ignorant. Or, as Al Capp used to call them in Li'l Abner: SWINE. Those that have an opinion based on some facts and logic are *not* included in those comments. In fact they are explicitly excluded by Occhi's last sentence.

OK, that's your answer to your paragraph 1 and 2 straw man. However, one more comment: you make it sound like being against war is good. You glorify the peace protesters with "they cared about the wellfare of other humans." If a tyrant and a madman were to take advantage of their protests, of their opinions, at whose feet do we put 60 million dead? Before spouting your nonsense, read the history of the intra war period. Of how the people who wanted peace at any price gave us WW II. But when the fighting started I wonder how many of those people discovered that they were conscientious objectors and let others do their fighting. When their ideas were shown to be bankrupt, how many admitted their error and paid the price for correcting it? War is bad, it should never be engaged in unless the alternatives are worse. If you have *valid* arguments as to why Saddam should be permitted to continue developing the capability to, at the least, blackmail the world, then please give them. Especially since he is doing so in defiance of agreements he entered into.

And why is it, that the pollution of coal power plants makes nuclear power plants safer? How does being against nuclear power make you in favor of pollution? Don't we have other energy sources to explore? Is cutting down on our energy use (waste, rather) out of the question?

Gee, you didn't understand a word of it, did you? The pollution of coal plants makes nuclear plants *cleaner* not safer. Since the nuclear plants produce less pollutants (including radioactive pollutants) and less wasted heat, they are better for the environment, but that has nothing to do with safety. The fact that there have been a lot more deaths related to coal power than to nuclear power is what makes the nuclear plants safer. You see, they are "safer" because less people get killed per megawatt produced. You know, the same standard that makes airplane travel safer than driving?

No, we don't have any other sources of energy to explore. All the alternative forms are limited. Solar by area (or cost if you want to talk about beamed solar). Wind and water by where the plants could be located to generate any energy at all. Ditto geothermal. We've just about run out of dam sites for hydro. Fusion is still twenty years off, just like it has been for the last 50. Biomass is a joke. All this is well documented but ignored by the anti-nuke people.

Cutting down our use? Three answers: first, we have been cutting down our use. It is helping but it is not enough. Second, as population increases and more people move to cities, the *need* for energy to pump water, sewage, heat or cool, bring in food and keep it edible, move people around, etc. goes up. Third, the world population is increasing, and much of that increase is in developing countries. They are using less per capita energy presently than the industrial nations. But, guess what, they want air conditioners and fresh food and clean heat, too. They don't have any usage to cut down, they are going to use more. So, sure conservation is a good idea. But it is *not* a solution. At best, it reduces the rate at which new generating capacity is needed. But, whatever the rate, more capacity is going to be needed for more people all of whom want to live better lives.

Catching your opponent on a badly chosen statement might win you a discussion, but does it help to solve the conflict?

If all the opponent has are "badly chosen statements" (or, as I prefer to call them, "BS") then the only reason there is a conflict is because of that opponents stupidity (inability to learn the truth) or ignorance (failure to know it). The solution to that conflict does not lie in my power, it lies with my opponent's educating himself and then either countering with valid opinions or admitting his error.

Like everything else in the modern world, this war is about money.

One of the things you learn in logic is that from a false premise, any conclusion can be draw. Since this premise is false, and only accepted by unthinking fools or those that have been brainwashed, then everything following it is not worth considering. But I ask you to consider the number of people who devote their lives to science and I ask you to name me all the millionaire scientists. Or why all the teachers are so rich they retire at twenty five? Or all those greatly overpaid doctors and nurses working in those emergency rooms, especially those in countries that have socialized medicine? And don't forget the mercenaries, especially all those American mercenaries in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines who do their job for such vast sums of money that they can almost afford to give their families all the necessities they need.

Yes, indeed. I'll gladly listen to an argument whose basic premise is "Like everything else in the modern world, this war is about money." And I'll have a high opinion of the intelligence and logical ability of him that proposes it.

BTW, most of what you say in the following paragraphs is pure crap. But you've already shown that you don't care about reality with your shot at nuclear power, so I'll save myself the effort of answering.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

You cover much ground in your post, but here it goes;

Why are people ridiculed, when they protest against a war? Is it fair to do so, just because some of them mistake themselves in the motivations of politicians? How many of those in favor of a war, can claim to truly understand why we will have it?

I don't respect gung-ho pro-war, racist, bigotted idiots either. War is the natural consequence of a failed politic. The UN was founded as a forum for nations to arbitrate and negotiate to avoid war. In this case you have individual nations politics and self-interest interfering with what some others nations see as a threat to their security. If the UN fails to find a way for the nations to resolve the conflict peacefully, then they will solve it with war.

And why is it, that the pollution of coal power plants makes nuclear power plants safer? How does being against nuclear power make you in favor of pollution? Don't we have other energy sources to explore? Is cutting down on our energy use (waste, rather) out of the question?

Explore yes, let's do it! But, unless we have an alternative, the only other choice is to not use energy. So, will you choose who will freeze, and who will starve? So that leaves you with a choice between dirty coal, dirty oil, or nuclear. The only problem with nuclear is how to safely store the waste. Don't you think the toxic coal ash should have the same scrutiny applied? But, it doesn't. It just gets dumped into land fills.

Btw, the USA is not the first to benefit from wars. Here in Europe, it gave Germany and France their powerful economy, and that is why the governments of those countries are now against this war.

That is a ridiculous statement. Germany and France were devastated after WWII. The reason why they are doing well is from peaceful economic growth and capital expansion. The only nations that benefited from WWII, were those who had little reconstruction to do and transformed their wartime economies for peace.

not because Iraq ignores UN resolutions (Who doesn't?

There is a problem. The alternative to a strong UN is war.

The USA even reserves the right to attack member countries like mine, if we ever dare to arrest an American for crimes of war), not because of Human Rights (Many countries have death penalties, and deny thousands of prisoners a proper trial. On both sides), and not because of crimes against the ecology (It wasn't Iraq who opposed the Kyoto Treaty, was it?). No, it's because we don't mind becoming rich at the expense of others. At best, we wonder how long we can go on like this.

I don't get your point. What countries has the US attacked?

[--Pete]

Hi,

The only nations that benefited from WWII, were those who had little reconstruction to do and transformed their wartime economies for peace.

Not so. The only major nation that had little reconstruction to do was the USA. Because it realized that an economically healthy world was good for everyone and because it wanted allies in the Cold War, the USA helped the Japanese and many of the European economies. It did this with loans and materials and trade agreements that generated new manufacturing and industrial capabilities in those countries and by suppling almost the whole of the military protection for Europe (and all of that for Japan). This was all done at the expense of the taxpayers of the USA.

But, to make the situation worse, since the model was that industry wasn't supposed to be supported by government (that was *gasp* socialism), the support for modernization that was so freely given to our ex-allies (except, of course, the USSR) and our ex-enemies could not be given to the American industries that were struggling to re-invent themselves after WW II and who were trying to modernize at their own expense. So, while our ex-allies and ex-enemies developed a new and much more efficient steel industry, the mills of the USA, fifty years out of date could not compete. While Europe was criss crossed by a modern rail system, and Japan went on to build its bullet trains, the railroads in the USA continued their slide into neglect -- a slide that was accelerated by a Federally funded (OK, not completely, but most states never came close to the 50% contribution) highway system which gave the trucking industry a free right of way.

So, we helped out old allies, we helped our old enemies. And in return, we've had defaulted loans, a negative trade balance, loss of many of our larger industries, and the scorn and hatred of our old enemies and our old friends alike. As the kid remarked at the end of the joke, "You try to do someone a favor and you always get f*ed in the end."

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

And were told to piss off. About 1946 or 47, if I recall.

This from one of my profs back in the mid 90's. I guess the reason that the Russians could not overtly accept the Marshall Plan assistance was that it either would make them look weak, i.e. look like welfare recipients, or that ideologically, to accept them in form of loans was to cave in to capitalist methods and not be able to extricate themselves, as the Czars sort of had to do with the French and British and IIRC German banks for the century leading up to the Russian Revolution.

How odd, and fanciful for speculation, that had Stalin accepted Marshall Plan assistance, perhaps the Cold War might not have turned into an arms race. Pure speculation on my part, but the cold bucket of water on my face was learning that we had offered it as well.

[Occhidiangela]

The Marshall plan was crafted to allow a win win game, so that both US and its trading partners in Aisa and Europe could raise their standard of living.

Your comment about 'becoming rich at others expense" shows a nasty set of blinders in your understanding about how trade benefits economies.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Didn't know that. But it doesn't much surprise me, either. There was probably still a lot of "good old Joe" feeling left over from the war that early. It took a few more years (and a major airlift) to completely turn the nation around.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Taeme, it all boils down to royalties of the oil in the ground. :)

What is in question, and what I am unsure of, is who, once Saddam has left (if that is indeed how things pan out) has "rights" to the royalties for oil that is drilled for, pumped, refined, etc.

I imagine that any company from any country, and many are multinational in the first place, can bring forth an existing contract and press their case with the new regime that it be honored. The royalties, and maybe even tax provisions, would need to pass muster with whatever parliement or other authority as was put into place.

The transition period is wide open for abuse. I would suggest that either IMF, World Bank, or UN be tasked to put a team in place to assist whatever new government is trying to get on its feet so that Iraq is not taken to the cleaners insofar as its ability to accrue royalties and tax revenue from oil within its borders.

Knowing what I know about multinational panels and boards, they are as apt to be corrupt as not, and I am sure there are people planning even now to take advantage of the unsettled period after the war, if it comes to that.

Vultures: yes, that is the picture that comes to mind, and they come from every country on the planet, looking to get a sweet deal. Free and open media coverage by real reporters, real muck rakers, might be just what is needed there . . .

[Occhidiangela]

I get the impression that pre Keenan, pre containment, there was quite a move to use the momentum of victory to break down the wall that pre WW II red baiting (on our side) and antipathy (on their side) and avoid it being rebuilt. Keenan's containment model certainly crystalized once the Berlin Airlift succeeded.

I have a link to the Airlift. My dad served in West Berlin when that went down, in the Signal Corps. As a boy, I went to junior high with Colonel Halverson's son. Colonel Halverson, while a junior officer, was known far and wide as "the candy bomber" to German children. His crewmen used to drop candy, with handkerchiefs for parachutes, out of their cargo planes as the approached Templehof airport.

[kandrathe]

The only major nation that had little reconstruction to do was the USA.

Sorry, I was trying to imply that. I have a penchant for being obscure at times. I wasn't sure how Canada, and some of the other nations in the America's faired.