The US, The UN and Iraq

ehBeth
My comment about college kids was strictly a poor attempt at humor trying to lighten things up. Things were getting a bit tense there.

perception, it seems to me that Americans are very concerned about what is happening in some areas of the world, much less so in others. There are atrocities across the globe, literally on a daily basis. Why are the rights of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia so important? Why are they important now?

I'm not particularly innocent or naive. Just looking for straight answers (though that in itself may be naive). Bluster doesn't impress me. Honesty does.

perception, the entire world is tense right now, watching America. That's being reflected here.

ehBeth

When you consider that Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait represent at least 50% or more of the total oil reserves in the world then it really does become a question of oil. Not our oil but for the world economy. I heard today that the US gets less than 12 % of its oil from the middle east. Now unless Canada has a secret oil reserve that no one knows about then Canada should be very concerned about what happens to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. If Saddam controls that much oil, he can control the world price of oil. That should concern the entire world----where do you think your country and every other country that has free everything including healthcare get the money to pay for it------a lot of it comes from gas tax. It costs the same the world over to produce a gallon of gas. In Canada you pay about $3.00 a gallon(since its sold there in litres it's difficult to calculate) In England it costs about
$4.00 a gallon. Today I bought gas for $1.26 per gallon. Our gas tax isn't nearly as high but then we don't have free health care either.

Iraq is not just our problem-----I can't really understand why people in other countries see it as the US trying to steal the oil in Iraq. WE could walk away and say good luck guys and not really have to worry for about 20 years. Then when the other countries are gone then Saddam turns out the lights on us.

One of the great features of our Forum is that people may feel comfortable to discuss their views openly, and in a mature fashion. Each member is entitled to hold their own ideas around ISSUES, and express them freely.

It is understood that certain subjects elicit strong emotional reactions. Nonetheless, please keep your remarks focused on the topic at hand, and refrain from turning the thread into a personal attack. Thank you.

I have locked this thread for the evening and removed several inflamatory posts for the time being.

Gentleman please step back, take a few breaths and attempt to maintain civil discourse. Hurling insults is both counter-productive and unnecessary.

I'll unlock this thread again in the AM (EST) and perhaps we can resume with the discussion with cooler heads.

I have "unlocked" this thread again and hopefully we can continue on with rational discussion at this point. As the thread picks back up again I'll remove this comment and my post from last night to remove all trace of this issue from the thread itself.

I thank you all for your patience and persistance!

more
fishin

Thank you. I've always been a fan of the 'moderate' approach.

Tantor


(Mandatory preface: I stand foursquare against evil and Sadaam is a bad guy) I think your response slightly disingenuous. Claims of the target's evilness always accompanies the drum beat for war or attack - as in "Jews are like rats", as in the claim forwarded at the beginning of the Gulf War that Iraquis had been busy pulling the plug on hospital incubators. At least be forthright regarding the wonderful facility such claims of High Evil always have for getting the folks at home to go rah rah and the boys about to die to do the "Let's gettem!" thing.

Regarding an earlier comment, I think your reasoning continues to be faulty re Sadaam and nukes.

Let's leave out, because you seem to want to, any possibility that the UN inspection teams and world intelligence capabilities could, for the next ten or fifteen years until he dies, constrain Sadaam from ever getting nukes.

So he gets a nuke. What is he going to do with it? Send it by Greyhound to Chicago? How is it going to help him gain Kuwait? He'll threaten to mail it to Chicago?

He could threaten Israel (which seems to me THE good reason for prevention). But, of course, if he used it there, or anywhere....big mushroom curtains for him.

If mutually assured destruction was a hindrance to the Soviets, you'd think it might work when he's got one and we've got ... 500, 5000?

PS In relation to fishin's and Phoenix's comments -

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is the season for good will, is it not? And, actually, shouldn't all of our seasons be those of good will?

Kindly refrain from hurling invective, even if it was hurled at you first. If you feel you're being insulted or that the debate has degenerated to name-calling, step back. Contact a Moderator or go to the Help Page and send a note to Support. Those are your avenues to a remedy, not hurling the invective back.

You're all intelligent people. And I'm sure you all want A2K to be and remain a civilized, intelligent and fun forum for all. Please recognize that the responsibility for keeping it that way sits with all of us.

Many thanks in advance for helping keep it this way.

perception

First, I appreciated your attempt to bring a space of levity into the goings on last day.

Second, I consider that your analysis likely accurate regarding the realities of the Western (mainly) world's dependence on oil. Consequently, at least for the time being, the West is prudent to do what it can to maintain an adequate flow of oil from the mid-east.

But leaves open a couple of big barn doors. How urgent is the present situation? and what latitude of actions are morally/strategically justified presently...which are the two doors we all seem to be shouting at each other through.

What makes this particular administration the least credible voice of such arguments for urgency and wide latitude in action are a whole string of clues and question marks that suggest forthrightness in motives is NOT present.

I posted earlier the analyses of the Perle, Wolfowitz, Rummsfelt crowd's hegemony strategy. There are the near ubiquitous connections between this adminstration's main personnel and the oil industry. There was Cheney fighting tooth and nail to not release information on what input the oil industry had in forming energy policy. There are the ongoing activities of this administration to blunt legislation at federal and state levels which limits emissions which, for example, California citizens desire ( http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/12/16/war_on_california/index.html ) to thwart Kyoto, etc.

A big chubby irony in all this is that the EU is far ahead on alternate energy research and legislation. It's entirely conceivable, as a recent book has proposed, that thirty years from now, IF America continues to follow present energy policies, that the EU could gain distinct and significant economic advantages from their research and technology applications and sales over the US, leaving the US as a second rate power.

jespah, You are right! One of the major reasons for my departure from Abuzz was the personal attacks. I shall do everything possible to keep A2K a place for civilized discussions on any subject. Therefore, I extend my hand to Tantor, fishin and perception to declare a cyber-friendship, and to promise not to engage in personal attacks or insults. c.i.

Blatham
Thanks for bringing me back into the conversation---my apologies to everyone for the rude interruption of this thread.

ehBeth
I'm sure you were disturbed by the goings on --- my apologies to you in particular

Blatham
Re your post---you voice concerns that all of us share. Let's examine the key players----Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell---when the president picked his cabinet what were his options? Generally from two groups of people. First ,there is the group of think tank types who are long on theory and analytical ability but short on experience. Second there is the group of experienced proven leaders in certain fields who now have the three key positions.(remember that most people never get the first chance to serve in these positions) these three now have have a second chance to correct mistakes that anyone could or might make the first time around. The only other proven figure that I really wanted to see was/is Jim Baker. I don't know if he was asked but he is not there and he is probably the most important figure in the last 15 years of government. He never made a visible mistake in action or ethical behavior---anyway he is absent. All three men want their correct place in history and they now have the experience and the ability to achieve their objective----we must wait for the curtain to fall on their performance but if we take a neutral stand and not prejudge the motives of these men then we can only hope they rise to the call. Sure we have seen questionable behavior by Cheney on energy but Powell and Rumsfeld have never provided even a hint off questionable motives, and Cheney's actions as CEO of Haliburton may or may not provide any real evidence of unethical behavior----would any of us have turned down that job if offered to us---I think not

Now where does that leave us---there have been many unforeseen events we have observed in the past 23 months which have caused modifications in our overall strategy that make it appear that we have no coherent strategy at all---to me it all seems quite logical---to other people it appears incoherent at least and dangerous at worst. Your actual perception has to do with your previous predjudices and political affiliation.

That leaves us with the President---we have witnessed that he does listen to reason(the recent change of course to include the UN actions by the US) but it is also evident that he dominates his cabinet as a President should for the final decisions which he cannot delegate to anyone else and contrary to perceived opinion that Cheney calls the shots----that is pure fantasy as also proven by Woodward in his book. He may appear to act like a cowboy out of control---but how would you have perceived Teddy Roosevelt if he were taking his actions today?

I will not try to answer your accusations which are valid----I would only ask for patience on your part and to add that I would be doing exactly the same as the Administration regarding Iraq and the war on terror.

Regarding the alternative energy problem----I can only quote what someone else stated somewhere here just recently: Americans are at our best when things are worst---we are also at our worst when things are best. Conclusion--we are very slow to admit that things are approaching the danger level. With energy the general public does not want to give up their gas guzzling SUVs---I myself drive a 91- 4cylinder Volvo that gets 25 miles to the gallon. I should be driving a hybrid that gets 55 miles to the gallon. What else can I say.

Tell me more about the alternative solutions that the EU has actually come up with---please provide some links---I want to learn.

Sorry---I have only dealt in generalities but the answers you want are similar to--what is reality? The answer in unknowable at this time--be patient--to me we have almost the best team available.

C.I.

Thanks to Blatham, with whom I have enjoyed many PMs, Fishin', Lola who invited me, Setanta whose intellect and knowledge I admire greatly, Tantor, who shares my views and concepts almost to the letter according to his recent posts, and everyone else whose opinions I try to respect, I pledge my complete agreement and support of the concept of civil discourse.

perception

We all mess up sometimes.

I'm a Colin Powell fan, and would actually be not unhappy if he were in the big chair. But I think you are severely underestimating the pool of people not only capable in these positions, but with experience as well...the huges staffs from every administration from Ford on up, for example. Not to put too fine a point on it here, but Rumsfelt has been associated with the Perle/Wolfowitz crowd and they are not bit players here, so that speaks to the earlier idea of taking out Iraq as detailed in those links. And we are still left with the reality that this administration is more tightly linked to oil interests than any other any of us could remember.

Re Bush...I have reformulated my opinion of him due to the excerpts from Woodward's book I've bumped into, and also from the recent Esquire piece (which cast Rove as a Machiavelli). But even if he is well-intentioned, or even if he takes a command position with his cabinet, or even if he is smarter than his sentences indicate, I'm still of the opinion he isn't up to this task. On the other hand, neither would I be. Tantor could do it. He could bend metal bars with his teeth, dodge bullets, and do it all without hurting a thread of the two flags coming out his ears.

Re the energy issue and what the EU is up to....I heard the author in interview, and recognized his name, but can't for the life of me remember it. I'll dig around and see if I can come up with it.

I can't provide good information on 'alternative' energy solutions in the EU, but within a recent WSJ article was the surprising news that our (USA) gasoline prices were lower than expected due to exports from Europe. It seems that crude oil can produce just so much gasoline, diesel, asphalt, etc. and Europe is so heavily committed to diesel fueled vehicles that they are running a surplus of gasoline.

This is the print version of WSJ, btw, and I do not subscribe to the online version, so no links.

Blatham

Yes, I would vote for Powell for President if anyone could ever persuade him to run. RE--the pool of qualified people for the three subject positions. One point I omitted---they must share the general philosophy of the President which would eliminate a huge number and I want to reiterate a point I made earlier. All three men have a SECOND shot at essentially the same jobs they had earlier and with Rumsfeld the exact same job. To me this is a huge advantage----can you imagine how overwhelmed most people would be for a least 2 years in a job of this magnitude?
Look what happened in the Carter administration----Washington ate them alive. Then of course there's the chance that some men would be completely destroyed by the experience. These three have been there before so now they can shrug off guys like Paul Krugman and get on with the job.

I loved your shot at Tantor and I'm sure he took it like it was intended, in good humor.

The Suskind article was excellent and that guy Dilulio(spelling?) comes over as a giant in every way. He really needs to be in a very high position in gov't but apparently he can't stomach it.

There is one quality that a great(any ) president must have in order to survive and function (elephant skin) and in addition to this he must have trusted confidants who can reasure him that he is doing the right thing and staying on course. That is what allowed Reagan to keep the pressure on Russia until the wall came down.
In the case of Reagan, I think Nancy kept him on track by constantly reassuring him.
That MAY be what will allow Bush to bring back the economy and conquer terrorism. These are the two main issues today---the others are all important but really he must keep focused on those two primarily. I see Rove as the tactician that will keep him focused because Rove knows that he must do these two things to get re-elected and he can't conquer terrorism if he doesn't get re-elected.

It is unacceptable for Saddam to conquer Saudi Arabia and Kuwait because with their oil revenues he can fund more evil, specifically more WMDs, more nukes. We should seek to constrain his evil regime, not reward it.

Tantor

Here is a link to a shortish description of the recent book I mentioned on the future of energy sources and the possible economic and political consequences... http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=0745630413

perception

We are, I think, in close agreement as to the realities of the support a President needs from a cadre of dependable and similarly minded juniors. But there is a danger in the system too, which was made most clear during the Nixon administration when a small group of unelected folks assumed effective control of rather more than the constitutional framers would have been happy about (see Anthony Sampson's 'The Palace Guard', for example). As always, in a democracy, it's a balance act. But it seems clear that if you were to interview 100 Americans on the street of some Ohio town, very few would recognize the names Perle or even Wolfowitz and those two are, I think clearly, far more consequential to Americans' future than would be their congressman.

re Rove working so that terrorism will be vanquished...Rove would surely be doing his thing even if 9-11 hadn't happened, it's just his particular job. And that job right now is presentation of the President and his problems and his opponents in ways that forward poll results. And it is a happy thing for Bush to be seen to have a nice big fat simple evil enemy - it's theatre (again, Didion's 'Political Fictions' for an eye-opener - even as regards the Clinton administration). The rhetorical options are tossed around in back rooms, run past test groups, fed to reporters...truth isn't the game, polling is the game. In 6th century BC Athens, the Oracle at Delphi got busted for for taking money from a power-competing family in exchange for predicting particular futures.

In short, these guys are not to be taken at their word.

Tantor

As I described elsewhere, your Sadaam with nukes boogeyman doesn't cut the rational mustard...what the hell is he going to do with it? Could you lay out some scenario (carefully, please, you do tend to sound like one of the scriptwriters for heroic save the world Bruce Willis in Independence Day) which shows what advantage this might give him, or how he might use it (keeping in mind REAL delivery and REAL consequences to himself).

blatham, Good question! c.i.