Iraqi Oil

[Occhidiangela]

Despite the risk to be clueless again, I will reply to some points here.

He who will not risk, cannot win. ==John Paul Jones==

My problem was that you insulted those who protested against this war, by calling Most (are) too stupid or ignorant to think. Are you saying you didn't? Anyway, I still don't see why those against this war have to present explanations that can withstand any form of debate or judgment. If they could do so, we wouldn't have this war, or would we?

The problem with many protestors is that they use single issue appeals, or beg for peace
a: without looking long term
b: without coming up with an alternative to aggression and risks that poses
c: without make a parody of their protests with their focus on the sound bytes.

What's not to hold in contempt? When protesting a serious and deep issue, more than soundbytes are necessary. The same is true when presenting complex policy. :o

So, you are afraid that Hussein will develop methods to blackmail the world. Ofcourse. In a few years time, he will threaten to drop an 'dirty' bomb on New York, and because the USA will be unable to stop him, you will have to pay a billion dollar ransom. After that, he will threaten to attack Europe with biological weapons, and I will have no other choice then to pay. Or worse, he could blackmail the West into lifting the 'Free Market' limitations, so that all countries in the world would have equal chances at prosperity. Or is he just evil, skipping the blackmail, and simply trying to destroy us all?

1993, some men tried to blow up the WTC with a truck bomb. They screwed up, it did not work.
2001, tried with an airplane loaded with gas. Ah, it worked that time.

1948, 1956 Iraq in two wars attacks Israel with other allies and loses.
1967. Iraq and Arab League fight Israel again, lose.
1973 Arabs attack Israel and lose again.
1978 IIRC, Israel bombs Iraqi Nuclear Power plant, French Built.
1980-88. Iran invaded by Iraq. During this war, gas used on Iranian troops. Ballistic missiles of modest rante, Scud, Frog, et al, used to attack cities.
1990 Kuwait invaded and occupied by Iraq.
1991. Iraq tossed out by US led UN coalition
1991 to present Iraq rearms and continues to pursue WMD development

Now, what should the world do? Wait until a WMD attack happens? Or, what I think Pres Bush fears, wait until a WMD made in Iraq is to a proxy, like Abu Nidal or Al Qaeda operatives who did the little number on the WTC, and hope not too many thousands die? Relying on your enemy to be nice to you is a bankrupt policy.

What sane person waits for their enemy to attack them when there is every reason to believe they will? Note the French in 1940. They waited all through 1939, not helping Poland, who got squashed . . . and then they too ate it.

The very real possibility that attacks on US and our allies will happen again?

1982 Beirut Truck Bomb
1993 WTC
Lockerbie Bombing (Forget the year.)
1998 Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed
1998 USS Cole
2001 WTC

Just a sampler, there have been others.

Do you see a pattern here? Some folks do. Is there any reason to wait for more to happen?

I agree that the world would be a far better place without Hussein, and without many other people, for that matter. However, removing them all would be a long and truly costly process, and it could eventually arrive at our own door. If this was a reason to go to war, we would never again know peace. Luckily for us, most politicians realize this.

Whether this latest drive to a war is 'the answer' is anyone's guess. In war, the outcome is never final. :)

No, instead of making Hussein the target, many politicians claim to rescue his subjects. By bringing war to their country. Without being certain it will make a difference. But being very certain it will be good for the economy, so why look for other options. Yes, I'd rather glorify the peace protesters with "they cared about the wellfare of other humans". You remember it was actually a good thing, to care about others, years ago? Or was it crap, also?

OK, about imposing Democracy at the point of a bayonet. I suggest that Iraq is as likely to evolve into as Islamic Republic, per the Iran model, as any other direction should Saddam and his power elite be dispatched.

As for alternative energy sources, there are plenty of those. The only problem is that they are currently not cheap enough to compete with other sources, which makes large scale use of them harmful to economic growth. Another 'problem' is that those methods would be durable. You can't make much money with a product that could be nearly costless and available in unlimited quantity, so how can you expect people to invest money in the exploitation of it? Regarding the people in the developing countries, who will increase the need of energy because they want the same gadgets as we have, how about meeting them halfway? Or is that too much cutting down? I don't think it is fair to blame those people for our current shortages, wouldn't you agree?

Politics is the art of the possible. Alternative energy has been steam rolled by both parties over the past 30 years, and by such interests as the Virginia coal lobby. Alternative energy is not the answer to the Middle East crisis in the short term, and we have seen how badly the long term has been screwed by 30 years of Congressional buggery.