Colin Powell presents the case to the UN...

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.