Colin Powell presents the case to the UN...

A valuable thing, yes.

The stuff about the weapons is more convincing than the Al Queda ties. Especially since by the same logic the US would be guilty. After all, we had operatives training Osama back in the day. Not to mention we gave a whole lot of weapons to Saddam before he was the enemy. If the two of them are in a "network," we're in that network too.

But that's irrelevant really, because it's the evidence re: weapons that's going to make the difference. Has Iraq reacted to the evidence yet?

While disarming Hussein is something we "should" do, there's a lot of stuff we "should" do foreign policywise and I still resent the current administration for the reasons I believe that they're doing things when and how they do them. Not to mention I resent that they've implied you can't support efforts to disarm Iraq without also saying you support the Bush doctrine/regime.

I'd like to see longer transcripts of the intercepted conversations, the quotes used were vague circumstantial evidence at best.

Interesting to see the Ally-Q link whittled down to the fact that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi went to hospital in Iraq. Hardly solid evidence.

The photographic evidence seems the "best", but hardly the smoking gun I was expecting.

Ugh. I await stern faced newsmen talking pornographically about bombs.

I think doubting that Iraq has the weapons or that if they did have hard links to terrorist organizations interested in attacking Western cities that they would somehow be incapbale of doing so is a rather weak position in this debate. However, I still think there are very large questions to be made about the Al-Qaeda link to Iraq, and that is definitely a "strong" position. Consider me still sceptical, but, not being a pacifist, leaning about 5 degrees or so more in the administration's position than I was before (leaves me about 175 to go before I'm a full supporter, hah).

-
Alan

'Unmovic and the IAEA shall have the right... to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof'

So there's the answer. If the inspectors do find any of these weapons we keep hearing about, they just have to render them harmless. No need to kill anybody, you BLOODTHIRSTY OILTHIRSTY WANKERS!

Um, no. The Bush cartel has said that having WMD is a basis for declaring war on Iraq, and, in fact, is grasping at any straw it could use to justify a war on Iraq. It keeps switching between reasons because none of have validity.

As for the "real" reason for the war, its anybody's gues, but it probably has to do with ensuring the US has a foothold and oil in the Middle East in the case of Saudi Arabia has a fundamentalist Islamic revolution.

Not at all true. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld have made it clear that they had their eye on attacking Iraq well before 9/11 because of their belief that by erecting a democracy in Iraq a domino effect would be created, making the Middle East more pro-U.S. It seems a naively rosy idea for the Defense Department (who, by its very nature, seems pessimistic in its world view) to base foreign policy on.

That said, I think the case for attacking Iraq has been made. However, a solid case for what a post-Saddam Iraq should and will look like has been largely ignored, in part because I doubt the administration really knows. While the goal may be for Iraq to be a prosperous democratic nation, I think the White House's real goal is just for Iraq to be relatively stable and passive. To do that, of course, will require what U.K. and U.S. leaders have acknowledged will be perhaps a three-year occupation to ensure that the transition (which is an awfully bland word for what will surely be a painful process) happens. But I think three years will be more like five to ten, if they really do want to see it through to some sort of positive outcome.

Emmanuel Todd, in his book 'Apres L'Empire', calls this technique 'theatrical militarism', summarised in the http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/DL04Aa01.html">Asia Times thus:

'America of course will always need staggering provisions of goods and capital. To make this happen, the strategic objective was long ago amplified to exercising total political control over the world's resources. But how to control these resources and eliminate competition when there are too many literate people and too many democracies around? The US is not really threatened by the Axis of Evil: Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il or the intolerant mullahs faithful to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have only rhetorical firepower. The real strategic competitors are in fact the European Union, Russia and Japan in the short term, and China in the long term. It's unthinkable to apply the preemptive Bush doctrine against these players. In each of these cases, the US has to negotiate.

The problem of its economic dependency remains, but the US also has to find a way to be at the center of the world - at least symbolically - to convince all of its "hyperpower". This mechanism is what French historian Emmanuel Todd describes as "theatrical militarism".

The strategy means that Washington should never come up with a definitive solution for any geopolitical problem, because instability is the only thing that would justify military action ad infinitum by the only superpower, anytime, anywhere.

Washington knows it is unable to confront the real players in the world - Europe, Russia, Japan, China. Thus it seeks to remain politically on top by bullying minor players like the Axis of Evil, or even more minor players like Cuba. The US propaganda machine will always be warning of tremendous threats (Iraq has the fourth-largest army in the world, its renewed nuclear program will incinerate us all, etc). And to keep the illusion going, Washington continues to develop new weapons designed to increase its already smashing military supremacy, fuelled by the Pentagon's astronomical budget and benefiting the US military-industrial complex. Gore Vidal is one of the few US insiders to deconstruct the process which feeds on the logic of an unending, unstoppable arms race.

Does all of this constitute an American Empire? Hardly. A little more than a decade after the implosion of the Soviet Empire, the world may be confronted by the possibility that the American Empire is beginning to decompose.'

N = T+1

It would be great if what we're seeing really were 'theatrical militarism'. Unfortunately I think they really do intend to shed blood. Baudrillard famously said the first Gulf War never took place, but this one probably will.

My position is actually tending towards legal-political obstruction and, failing that, civic insurrection. For instance, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2727551.stm">the Australian parliament has just passed a vote of no confidence in PM John Howard for having 'sent 2000 of our defence personnel off to a war undeclared in the northern hemisphere without any cogent explanation of his actions'. Chirac must veto any UN security council war resolution, because it is actually the will of the vast majority of the French people.

If it comes to war despite the wishes of the majority of the populations of the countries invading, we should have demonstrations that make the anti-Vietnam protests look like a picnic. They should be low-key disruptions of everyday life. Wear too much perfume! Send the lift to the wrong floor! All take your money out of the bank at the same time! Walk to work and let it take as long as it takes! Only go to Iranian films! Cough loudly during the national anthem! Hack into the BBC news website and write 'This space reserved for theatrical militarism' over the top story slot!

This doesn't sound like it would be too inconvenient for me.

2) "If it comes to war despite the wishes of the majority of the populations of the countries invading, we should have demonstrations that make the anti-Vietnam protests look like a picnic."

Maybe the case is different in Europe (to which the American response is 'remind me again why we should pretend to care what Europe thinks? '), but in America the majority of the people are pretty strongly in favor of this war - the numbers were high already, jumped higher after the SOFTU (higher than Bush's actual approval ratings, and I don't think anyone who wasn't in a cave last November can pretend the majority of the American public doesn't approve of Bush). Here's the freaky part - among registered Democrats Bush still beats the Dems on foreign policy by 30%! As for the volatility of the protests....
America is at war with itself!

2. If this happens without democratic backing in the nations participating I want leaders of the nations and the fuckpig middlemen involved put in prison for the rest of their lives.

3. And this is the most important to me - If this happens without full and proper debate I want leaders of the nations and the fuckpig middlemen put in prison for the rest of their lives. It's a crime against democracy. At least give me some debate, not this awful inevitability.

The amount at which I am personally powerless to stop this mass murder depresses me beyond words. Before you start I'm a supporter of the removal of Hussein WMD or not. I just object to the way this is being done. The fact the US is treating the UN as its bitch is depressing. The fact we've been powerless at every stage of this shellwank from inception to action is minky piss. The fact so many leaders, my own included are wagging tails despite the complete undemocracy and sheer fucking cheek of how this is being carried out depresses me. The fact I find myself becoming dis-interested in this pissyard gungame due to its sheer monotony and its bland newsness again depresses me. More than anything the fact it is being so deliberately separated from the general public is now making me physically sick.

I don't care if its oil, I don't care if its a strategic air base, I don't care whether WDM I don't care whether human rights abuses within the state, I don't care I don't care I don't care. The humanitarian need is cause enough for "regime change". It needs doing. The guys a medieval wierdo. What fucks me right off is the fact its all going on with so little input from the populace behind these giant killing machines. I get the feeling about this sort of thing that its the government(s) saying "THIS IS INTERNATIONAL POLITICS THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU". I'm sick of being dictated to as far as international politics go. As a British citizen I must look to Blair and Blair looks to spout a lot of determination without wanting to reveal any cause and detailed evidence to his nation or any other. He sounds as if he knows the whys and the wherefores but just can't tell us. How fucking dare he. Democracy should extend further than rosettes, press junkets and NHS policy. The world of politics stretches far beyond the local or even the national now. Especially when you're living in a G8 country. Fucking hell. I want to be involved.

We've been told in a Bush speech that "UK intelligence has evidence of Iraq attempting to buy nuclear materials in the 90's". Really? As a British citizen I'd like to have seen this in parliament, special committee, fuck it a LEAK before I'd like to see it as a throwaway line in a bullshit political speech in another country. So our intelligence is property of foreign speechwriters more than our own. Lovely. We've been told of the "small war now stops bigger problem later" arguement. Whats this bigger problem, guys? Explain it to us. Now. No more rhetoric, I want to be treated with a shred of intelligence. I want detail, I want all context revealed, I want evidence. And I want the international politics of a country to be a reachable resource for everyone which they can comment on and effect.

I get the feeling that what I'm being told is - You don't need to know the whys and wherefores for our country to enter into a war do you? You don't need to debate or have opinion on something which Blair looks so stone-faced about. He must be serious. We don't need to influence this anymore than a rape victim doesn't need to influence is happening to their sexual organs during violation, do we?

I'm drunk and rambling. Please tear my shitsweep metaphors apart. But don't please fall into my trap of seeing this as something out of my control. If this goes down the wrong way and you feel bad about it, then lets you and me do something about it. This is dictatorship under the guise of global realpolitik. Me and you will not be dictated to.

Whether you agree or disagree with this inevitable war is by the by. The fact we've been bypassed when there is blood in the air is an insult to each and every one of us and to our democratic rights.

(to appreciate this post fully, stick a hip hop instrumental on and put the text through a voice synth)

"These men have things to do".

I can't even muster a response to that. I really can't.

Yes, actually, I do.

See how jm did it?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bush_iraq_poll030202.html

You obviously didn't follow.

The claim the administration makes about a war on Iraq is that Iraq have connections with terrorists and have WMD, and therefore, it is imperative that they prove not only that Iraq is in breach of the security council (which is justification for a multilateral military action in order to disarm Iraq, as it is illegal for them to possess WMD under international law), but that Iraq poses a serious threat to the US and Britain (who seems to be going to war with the US) because they will hand these weapons to terrorists. Otherwise, there is no delivery system in place for Iraq to drop these things in the US or UK, and therefore they are not an immediate threat.

So, in order to do that, the US must try and prove that A) Iraq has ties with international terrorism aimed at Western Nations (especially the US and UK) and that B) Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and finally C) that A and B will be brought together in almost complete certainty and therefore poses a threat to the US and UK. Otherwise, there is no justification for a unilateral military action. The US is just trying to show that Iraq is lying about its stockpiles of WMD (which almost certainly exist except in the mind of only the most hardened pacifist) and therefore get international approval for the act of invasion.

I'm not claiming that this isn't Wag The Dog. I'm not claiming that this isn't a cover for the US to gain a foothold in the Middle East with a puppet gov't. All I'm stating is the official position as to the US government and action in Iraq. And frankly, if they were somehow able to prove all of this without a shadow of a doubt, I'm not sure how anyone could ignore what would then be a certain attack by terrorists using chemical or biological means. As I stated, I've yet to be impressed to the point where I support war.

>>That said, I think the case for attacking Iraq has been made. However, a solid case for what a post-Saddam Iraq should and will look like has been largely ignored, in part because I doubt the administration really knows. While the goal may be for Iraq to be a prosperous democratic nation, I think the White House's real goal is just for Iraq to be relatively stable and passive. To do that, of course, will require what U.K. and U.S. leaders have acknowledged will be perhaps a three-year occupation to ensure that the transition (which is an awfully bland word for what will surely be a painful process) happens. But I think three years will be more like five to ten, if they really do want to see it through to some sort of positive outcome. <<

I brought this up in the last thread on the subject, and it was one of my two huge sticking points as to why I don't believe that (war at this point) is the best solution. Three years is nowhere near enough time. If that ends up being the case, then there will be nothing short of a US supported dictator in that country, and likely insurrections from the north (and perhaps military action involving Turkey). Japan and Western Germany (which were sucessful rebuilding projects) took many, many years to get them to being industrial powerhouses. 3 years isn't enough. Period.

-
Alan

Salon magazine on the recent Knight Ridder poll which found that 50% of Americans believe there were one or more Iraqi terrorists on the 9/11 planes (click through the Well ads to read the whole thing free):

'At best, the administration hawks have only lukewarm support among the American public, with various polls suggesting that less than one-third of Americans would support military action outside the aegis of the United Nations Security Council. Though we regularly hear talk of drawing together U.S. allies if the U.N. does not sanction war, the only materially committed members of that allegiance appear to be the British and the Australians. Similar recent polls in those nations reveal support of 13 percent and 6 percent, respectively -- thrusting leaders like Tony Blair and John Howard into politically hostile territory with their own citizenry should they choose to follow George W. Bush into non-U.N. battle.

'The Knight Ridder poll raises the specter of an unsettling truth. It suggests that whatever support there is for a war against Iraq, it owes much to the erroneous belief of at least half of the American people that it was Saddam Hussein's operatives who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.'

I fail to be convinced by the args. of Bush administration that attack = the only way. I will be going to Hyde Park on the 15th to add my voice to others who agree with me.

I don't think public opinion whether pro- or anti- war is neccessarily to be trusted or even taken into account: war fever can grip a population quite easily, as can a disinterested global nimby-ism. What were the public saying before Kosovo, for instance? Or before the Boer War or WWI?

Does it ever occur to you that you're making someone against the war defend the arguments for it? This is persuasive how?

ditto to suzy also; again the evidence means nothing or little to me - I never doubted the worst about Iraq; I still don't think it makes war neccesary.

Oh come on, they can't even get spares for their tanks! The reason Bushco wants to invade now rather than later is because Iraq doesn't have the scary nuclear weapons that bristle from every European country -- and North Korea. The message they are sending to the world is 'Get nuclear weapons quick, because otherwise we'll just roll into your capital, humiliate your leadership, and take your resources.'

(Hey, what's with the HTML syntax checker, it's gone haywire!)

(What's all this bullshit about no debate? I just watched Tony Blair on C-SPAN the other morning doing the back-and-forth in the House of Whichevers...)

The problem we've got is the opposition party are vehemently pro-war. There were minor kickoffs by cuddly Charles Kennedy and a few backbenchers but the debate happened in the mid afternoon when everyone is at work and was 3/4 item on the evening news, buried by more "positive" war news. As a debate it wasn't a debate. PMQ's stopped being a debate a long time ago anyway and this one was particularly ridiculous as no-one was actually going to change their views based on it.

(Powell did it in the UN today... Fleischer and Rumsfeld do it with the press every day)
Dagnammit, those press boys ALWAYS ask the questions I want asked. That 10 second soundbite on the news tells me EVERYTHING I need know. Grow up.

(What the hell are you asking for? What would it look like? Who would participate? You want Bush or Blair on TV taking calls from the public?)

Yes. Yes I am. The Paxman interview tonight should be decent, but is a little too late now things seem inevitable.

(There's a WAR ON. These men have things to do)
Well, you say later on in this thread that "I don't think it's that outrageous that there hasn't been a lot of official explanation of what we will do after we win a war that hasn't started yet". Sort your point out. The line "these men have things to you" . . . sorry that sounds like the tag line to a Steven Segal / Sly Stallone teamup. I can't take it seriously.

judgments of "mood of the country" are doubtless pretty specious (you pick the experts who give you the figures you like), but i wz struck by the absoluteness of the claim (political correspondents don't like to be caught out by events so mostly they just hedge meaninglessly)

The last time the US went into the Middle East in force, to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, did the US seize Kuwaits natural resources? And since they were in Iraq at the time, did the US seize Iraqs natural resources?

If your answer to this question is 'no', then why is it going to be different this time?

Which in turn managed to turn the radical Islamists (more) ferociously against them with consequences we're all now aware of - though nobody was predicting them at the time. One of the tactically astute things about this war is that it provides a great opportunity to give in to Al-Qaeda demand #1, getting American troops out of the Muslim holy places, without looking like it's giving in.

Once the Iraqis were kicked out of Kuwait, the royal family were painlessly restored to power, and they then proceeded to pump away as before (after they put out the fires). The US did not need to sieze anything. If Iraq were invaded, it would be in virtual anarchy for at least a year or two, maybe longer, and would produce nothing without the US "seizing" the oilfields and taking over production.

>And since they were in Iraq at the time, did the US seize Iraqs >natural resources?

Because old George (the "wimp") wasn't as foolhardy as his son. And at that time Saudi Arabia didn't look as shakey as it does now. Things change in ten years.

the pro-war line — including genrally unspoken part — is this: the US economy is in the diciest condition it's been in since probably the 1890s, and ANY economic-resource shocks to it which actually induce the crash (which will have huge knock on effect on other economies) will put a vast strain on actually existing democracy (as it exists in the US, Europe, Japan but not eg China)

actually existing democracy is something worth defending (as opposed to throwing it away and hoping we can build it up all over again later) => pre-emptive action*

(i've said elsewhere that i think momus's and stuart's baseline moral positions are much closer than either of them recognise: a specific emotional-idealist attachment to a kind of constitutionality as unshakeable moral core)

*i think that strategically and tactically this is a terrible approach to the defence of democracy; i also think the economic problems are much deeper than a small quick war can solve, while a long war including extensive nation-building worldwide will tremendously deepen the MAJOR MAJOR recession we are headed for anyway

But Iraq has only a finite oil supply. Are we going to continue to wage war after war to extract the last remnants of oil? At some point we will have to fight with real powers (e.g. China) over the final scraps, and it will not be pretty.

>the pro-war line — including genrally unspoken part — is this: the
> US economy is in the diciest condition it's been in since probably
> the 1890s, and ANY economic-resource shocks to it which actually >induce the crash (which will have huge knock on effect on other >economies) will put a vast strain on actually existing democracy (as >it exists in the US, Europe, Japan but not eg China)

All first-world economies at this point are houses-of-cards built on oil. There is no way to save them, only delay their fall.

eg if true that the only hope is to delay the fall of first-world economies, rather than save, then why is it out of order to be working for slowing the change, to give us more to time to find a comfier place to land

(*teenage nostalgia notwithstanding i do not think we are in the end times)

'Whose oil is it?' is an important question in a trade / contract / constitution world. 'I don't care whose oil it is, secure our energy needs' is the attitude of those who have already capitulated to the 'naked imperialism / endless war' model. Let's not do that.

One way it could go is for oil production to gradually decline to nothing while oil prices gradually increase. At some point, if one is optimistic, prices would rise high enough that people will get a clue that they better find a way to get by without oil, and have enough time do so.

The other way is for production to remain constant right up to the very bitter end. Prices would remain the same, then suddenly skyrocket, and then soon after there would be no oil. No society will survive such a catastrophy.

If we were to invade Iraq and control it oil, the production curve will resemble more the second way than the first.

hence momus's floundering when faced with facts abt economics: since he's never given any thought to these, he's reduced to handwaving

i've been arguing since the beginning of last year that 1, the us economy was in an extremely dicey state (this wz based somewhat on ther assumption that enron and worldcom were more the norm than anomalies, a guess that's been proved uncomfortably correct), and that 2, as an attempt to distract us voters from this fact, the bush-push to war would fail, that the us polity is far more divided than bushco are counting on, and that this is a massive political opportunity for his opponents

i think war will make the us economy worse, much much worse: but to make THIS the basis of an anti-war position seems to offend the anti-american wing of the anti-war movement ("why are we suddenly making such a fuss abt the hard times the american middle classes are facing" etc etc)

International agreements which allow full access to markets, less protectionism, etc. All that stuff which was starting with GATT.

and what happens when nations a. fail to agree to agree, or b. break agreements? (when, for example, their inability to grasp the disastrous house-of-cards nature of their own economy — viz the US from the late 90s to date — forces govts to take steps completely out of whack w.such agreements?)

the us isn't out of step w.the idealism at the heart of gatt bcz of the books its presidents read (or didn't) as kids, it's out of step bcz the turning of its own machinery, as currently fashioned, leaves it very little option (this is why the actual economic interests of us citizens who aren't like CEO of CitiGroup shd be key to the anti-war movemement's thinking)

The problem with almost all current economics, especially the dominant-in-the-US neo-classical economics, is that it completely ignores the REAL PHYSICAL WORLD. Witness Momus saying " Most advanced economies continue to grow, if slowly". The physical reality of this "growth" is that advanced countries are wasting more finite natural resources in order to produce a trivial increase (if even that) in the "standard of living". Yet somehow "growth" is the all-important goal of economists.

If the price of oil goes up, then the price of everything goes up, because it takes energy to do anything, and a huge portion of our energy comes from oil. This will cause massive, unavoidable inflation. Then people will look to Mr. Greenspan and think he will work his magic by messing around with interest rates or whatever and solve everything, but they will find out his fancy theories are all shit, because physical reality will lay the smack down on his sorry ass.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/04/cpac/index.html

for a good portrait of the ideology in all its hideous irrationality.

Well, considering that there are currently no available alternative technologies that can take over of oil immediately, let alone in 10-15 years, I'm not particularly sure what anyone could do about this. I'd put some major hopes into the hydrogen car deal and the nuclear fusion reactor I've heard is being built for powerup in 6-8 years or so (no, not cold fusion).

>>If the price of oil goes up, then the price of everything goes up, because it takes energy to do anything, and a huge portion of our energy comes from oil. This will cause massive, unavoidable inflation. Then people will look to Mr. Greenspan and think he will work his magic by messing around with interest rates or whatever and solve everything, but they will find out his fancy theories are all shit, because physical reality will lay the smack down on his sorry ass.<<

::sigh::

Oh, the coming doomsday scenario when we suddenly run out of oil. What a completely nonexistant problem that won't hit us for at least another 40 years. By that time, I'd sincerely hope Greenspan was dead, otherwise he's going to be extremely, extremely old and probably incapable of holding a bowel movement, let alone working for the gov't.

I'm sure that damned "physical reality" also had a lot to do with the downfall of companies like Enron and Worldcom, as well as the bankruptcies (sp?) of United Airlines and Tyco. How could it just be bad business practices and corporate greed?

-
Alan

I'm not claiming that this isn't Wag The Dog. I'm not claiming that this isn't a cover for the US to gain a foothold in the Middle East with a puppet gov't. All I'm stating is the official position as to the US government and action in Iraq. And frankly, if they were somehow able to prove all of this without a shadow of a doubt, I'm not sure how anyone could ignore what would then be a certain attack by terrorists using chemical or biological means. As I stated, I've yet to be impressed to the point where I support war.

And of course the problem with the Iraq + Al Qaeda = KILL THEM ALL equation is that Pakistan easily solves A, B and C of yr hypothesis above (Seymour Hersh detailed why in the New Yorker a few weeks ago), but they're not in the crosshairs. What's obnoxious about this is that the administration has made the case without resorting to bullshit reasons like this, which lessen their case considerably. No wonder the results of that Salon poll mentioned above are the way they are when Bush makes statements like these in the SotUA:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

I mean the clear implication is Saddam = Al Qaeda (will Time run a cover piece asking: "Is Saddam the New bin Laden?"), and I was expecting Powell to make that at least feasible for the UN, but he didn't. I seriously doubt the AQ-Iraq connection, since the White House, I would imagine, has been looking for an Iraqi connection to 9/11 since the moment the first tower was hit. And since they haven't been able to (the administration told investigators to find a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but the person in charge of the investigation came back saying that he could not. The administration's response? They fired him and told someone else to try.), they've decided to indict Hussein by implication and innuendo, and, with the American public at least, it's worked. All of this lessens the U.S.'s case for war (which, while not overwhelmingly strong, is certainly justifiable). Meanwhile, rather than seize a true opportunity, the Democrats are scrambling around saying, "Yeah, but..." over and over and over in a way that makes you know that Daschle will never be satisfied and just wants to be contrarian. There needs to be a real opposition asking: "WHAT AFTER?" as loudly as they can, because then REAL BONAFIDE seeds of doubt will be planted, and we might be able to see this whole situation through with at least a marginally happy ending.

Lynskey's right about legislative debate on this for the US, as well (dunno quite how it's shaping up in the UK): during the State of the Union it was a bit disappointing to me to watch our entire government collectively cheer sentiments that -- even going by the most flattering polls -- the barest majority of their constituents favor. One wishes to see some contingent, however wrongheaded, staying seated.

The answer to Lawrence -- i.e. "why would we grab oil this time" -- is that it's a necessary part of the plan: I haven't seen anyone here argue that the U.S. is not planning to install a hand-picked regime after Saddam's removal, which does in fact amount to a grab whether we mean it that way or not. And we will grab. My only concern about this sort of thing is whether oil money actually profits the drilled nation's citizens or not -- so I'm not hugely worried about this, because in the short term I think a puppety "democracy" would, however bad, result in better retention and distribution of the wealth than an autocracy ever would. In the long term, well, I'm a bit less confident.

Its not what we can do, it what we should have done. Its too late. People listened to economists who talked about infinite growth in a finite world, and we will all have to pay the consequences.

>I'd put some major hopes into the hydrogen car deal and the
> nuclear fusion reactor I've heard is being built for powerup in 6-8
> years or so (no, not cold fusion).

Which fusion reactor is this?

>Oh, the coming doomsday scenario when we suddenly run out of oil.
> What a completely nonexistant problem that won't hit us for at
> least another 40 years.

Was I talking about running out of oil? No, that is not for another 10-20 years (40 is *very* optimistic, but, either way, in our lifetime). What I was talking about is right now, oil reserves in the US are at an all time low, oil prices are rising, and with the economy as bad as it is right now, a steep rise prices will utterly cripple us. Even if we raid Iraq, it will take a few years to get production up, esp. if Saddam decides to blow up his wells.

>I'm sure that damned "physical reality" also had a lot to do with
> the downfall of companies like Enron and Worldcom, as well as the
> bankruptcies (sp?) of United Airlines and Tyco. How could it just
> be bad business practices and corporate greed?

::double sigh::

Companies can fail just fine from mismanagement/fraud. That is neither here nor there.

Although, I would like to point out that all airlines are doomed, since there is NO replacement for petroleum-based aircraft fuel, or, if their were, it would be so expensive it would make commericial flight uneconimical.

Easter Island is the classic example. The short version is, they came to a tree covered island, using timber they increased their population, they eventually cut down every tree, and then their population starved down to a fraction of what it was. When Cook landed there he found the remaining islanders in a wretched state of existence..

Which many companies and researchers are, though in numbers (and in timing) far less than needed and far too late than possible in Fletrejet's view. I'm more sanguine about it all, but that is also my nature, and I could well be wrong.

But ultimately, I think this -- with few exceptions, nobody knows exactly how they're going to die or what might be the eventual cause of their death, or whether everything around them will in fact be dead and gone the next day or decades or centuries later. Given that, plan ahead, act for what is right in the face of the odds, but retain hope. Cockeyed optimism? Not in my view, call it a gamble that makes more sense than Pascal's gamble with God, in that it's a little more tangible. The world, sad, brutal, idiotic as it is sometimes, is still here for now, and only if I am proven wrong am I wrong.

Jesus lord...how many times do I have to say it?

*IT'S NOT MY HYPOTHESIS AND I DON'T SUPPORT THE WAR*

Oy. Continuing...

>>Its not what we can do, it what we should have done. Its too late. People listened to economists who talked about infinite growth in a finite world, and we will all have to pay the consequences.<<

I'm sorry, but no one is stupid enough to believe that oil will not run out. Humanity is a bit smart for that. Maybe not this administration or the one after it, but perhaps subsequently. If something needs to get done, it will. I don't think 40-50 years from now, when South America and the Black Sea run dry, the world will just go "oops" and revert to the dark ages. For christs sake, think about all the innovations that have occurred in the last 50 years and the changes in life that have come with them.

>>Which fusion reactor is this?<<

ITER, AKA International Tokamak Engineering Reactor. Its being built by the EU, Russia, Japan, and Canada. Given the recent jumps in production from fusion reactors and the advanced design of this one in particular, it seems possible for the first time that a hot fusion reactor may create energy rather than spend it on heating plasma.

>>Was I talking about running out of oil? No, that is not for another 10-20 years (40 is *very* optimistic, but, either way, in our lifetime). What I was talking about is right now, oil reserves in the US are at an all time low, oil prices are rising, and with the economy as bad as it is right now, a steep rise prices will utterly cripple us. Even if we raid Iraq, it will take a few years to get production up, esp. if Saddam decides to blow up his wells.<<

10-20? LOL...right.

It would create a recession, yes. Hell, any war will do all the things you just spoke of (cause a rise in gas prices and lower emergency reserves). And I don't doubt for a second Iraq won't blow the wells sky high. Need I remind you, though, that I'M NOT A SUPPORTER OF THE WAR? ::shrugs::

>>Although, I would like to point out that all airlines are doomed, since there is NO replacement for petroleum-based aircraft fuel, or, if their were, it would be so expensive it would make commericial flight uneconimical.<<

Oh no! We're going back to boats!

ROFL

What a hilariously overblown doomsday scenario, man. Should we expect the second coming of Jesus to go along with all this? Or maybe that Mayan deal where all the man made things turn on humanity and the whole of the planet is killed by electric razors run amuck?

-
Alan

...and the whole of the planet is killed by electric razors run amuck.

Jesus shaves!

I'm *against* unilateral action against Iraq because I believe the proof that they have strong ties to terrorism and therefore are an immediate threat to the US and its allies is very weak.

I'm *in favor of* UN action against Iraq in accordance with the 4-5 UN Resolutions banning WMD in the nation of Iraq (the result of the war in Kuwait). I believe there is still a month or two before for some very serious negotiations between the two parties (UN and Iraq) and they should be trying to get a hold of each other. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would deny Iraq has such weapons.

I need to add to something too....

>>And of course the problem with the Iraq + Al Qaeda = KILL THEM ALL equation is that Pakistan easily solves A, B and C of yr hypothesis above<<

The US went to the UN yesterday to prove that Iraq still has a chemical and biological weapons program, which they CANNOT have by international law and are subject to disarmament as a result. The US cannot do the same thing with Pakistan in the UN, even if they wanted to. Why? Because Pakistan can have as many WMD as it damn well pleases. It never lost a war so badly that it had to negotiate a cease fire that gave away its ability to have such things. Iraq does not have this freedom, thus the US went to the UN to try and drum up support.

>>How suprised will the Iraqis be when the hundreds of thousands of troops massed in kuwait and saudi come pouring over the border. <<

They aren't coming from Saudi Arabia, far as I know. The Saudis aren't housing troops this time because they're scared shitless of the possible "retorts" from their citizens.

-
Alan

Yup...just read that. They must be getting oil rights and a aid package then. They held out for a loooooong time.

-
Alan

interesting to read these threads 18 years later

pic.twitter.com/U32mZrjF8g

— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) October 19, 2021

ackerman: https://foreverwars.substack.com/p/the-only-man-who-could-have-stopped

momus OTM

The US is just trying to show that Iraq is lying about its stockpiles of WMD (which almost certainly exist except in the mind of only the most hardened pacifist)

Holy shit at how conservative/blinkered 2003 ilx was. "I just assume Iraq has WMDs and connections to Al Q", "Taking oil is a legitimate foreign policy action".

The invasion of Iraq was the turning point in my radicalization from a somewhat apolitical former conservative toward a progressive. So, thanks, GWB.

Momus and Lynsk3y as the voices of reason!

tbf I'm guessing a lot of what was happening here was ppl pushing back against Momus because of his hot takes on, like, a hundred other topics

I didn't expect to spend 40 mins yesterday destroying Colin Powell's rep on Facebook with Democrats.

Yeah lol same. I was raised v conservative yet entirely put off by W’s affect and evangelicalism. So even when I’d moved to voting solely for Democrats —mostly for aesthetic reasons tbh—I spent most the two years between 9/11 and the invasion and fallout thinking “well gee whiz they clearly know things we don’t and surely they wouldn’t just cook this up whole cloth. It’s just been eXeCuTeD pOoRlY”.

What a fucking rube. The absolute state of public school history classes in this country.

(Re - The invasion of Iraq was the turning point in my radicalization from a somewhat apolitical former conservative toward a progressive. So, thanks, GWB)

I'll admit being the first black national security advisor, chairman of JCOS, and secretary of state are important, and, according to the former State Department employees I argued with yesterday, he "modernized" the joint; but fuck him and fuck these people who accused me of lacking nuance.

*Black

(public school history classes and a compliant housebroken MSM)

robin wright’s take too, also apparently a very nice guy! she stumbles over cliched reverence for his path like only a white liberal could

https://www.newyorker.com/news/postscript/colin-powell-the-humble-american

After Bush was reëlected, in 2004, Powell drew up a list of things he wanted to work on during the second term. He took it with him when he was summoned to the White House. He never had a chance to explain it, he later told me. Bush blindsided Powell by announcing that he had just asked Condoleezza Rice to serve as his next Secretary of State. Powell had been fired. He was clearly stung. It was an ignoble end to a lifetime of public service.

Wait -- so he was fired? How did I not know this? This makes him more repugnant. I thought he'd resigned.

Apropos of nothing, did anyone go from opposing the war at the start to enthusiastically supporting it?

Colin Powell lol jk

no joke, him signing on was really key for me (and clearly a lot of people, which the Bush admin and pro-War media leaned on hard obv) initially thinking that It Just Has to be Done

Sorry I fired you, guy

https://www.bushcenter.org/about-the-center/newsroom/press-releases/2021/10/statement-by-president-george-w-bush-on-colin-powell.html