OT: Rummy's brilliant idea

Oh, you mean like "Whatta ya mean that's the best youse can do! We ask ya nicely and that's the best youse can do? You know who yur talkin to here? Maybe next time we's can do some bizness. This time we just get acquainted."

What's goin on in Somalia these days? I never hear about it.

Reply to
mark
Loading thread data ...

Indeed. While I hardly ever jump up and down to emphasize the second amendment - I doubt I could ever put a single drop in the bucket compared with gunner's splendid efforts along those lines - it seems like folks here are all too willing to allow the first amendment to be shit upon to any degree.

It's not an either, or, situation. They *all* deserve the dilligence that somebody like gunner brings to the subject.

It's flabbergasting to think that somebody might ignore Ashcroft's desecration simply because, 'he's not tinkering with gun ownership.' For guys like that, any bill of rights issue is fair game. Consider that he's taking them one at a time, starting with 'one.'

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

clay wrote in article ...

answer, ever. Why

I thought the administration got a specialist for that?

Reply to
mark

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 22:27:38 -0400, gfulton wrote in Msg.

Absolutely. And they're not the only ones, in my experience: I did spend 1 yr. in Texas and found the average Southern Baptist to be open, friendly, industrious and fair-minded. I liked 'em. Just don't ever, ever, ever argue religion with them.

So what do you believe the US administration is trying to accomplish? This is not a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely interested.

Fact 1: Iraq was never threat, militarily or otherwise, to the U.S. population, as the U.S. administration knew DAMN WELL in advance and has since admitted.

Fact 2: The average American, just like the average Frenchman or German, doesn't give a flying shit about the living condition in some desert state somewhere else on the globe, let alone is willing to spend thousands of dollars PER TAXPAYER to do anything to make those folks' life easier.

So what DO you think is going on? Do you think your administration fabricated all those phony WMD threats to have an excuse to be NICE to the Iraquis? Get real.

Yes, you'd better, considering that Iraq never shot back at all (disregading the occasional U.S. soldier getting clipped).

--Daniel

Reply to
Daniel Haude

If this question is open to anyone, I think the answer of why we made war on the Iraqi regime is pretty straightforward, even if the reasons our administration gave for it are not at all straightforward.

The fact is that the Middle East is a two-pronged threat to the Western democracies, and we want to change the political landscape of the entire region to eliminate the threats. We want it to be peaceful and more compliant to the world order as we've defined it among ourselves, and which we've managed to impose on all of the important Asian countries to sufficient degrees (China is a long-term project in that regard); on Eastern Europe; and, with mixed success, on the former countries of the Soviet Union and on South America. It's the WTO/representative-democracy/Western-liberalism regime.

Iraq was (and still is) a threat because Iraq itself was trying to become an independent center of power that would challenge the Western regime (Bush the First's "New World Order," originally conceived by Winston Churchill) by accumulating oil wealth and its coercive power. Saddam was trying to run the whole Middle East show. He wanted only a very narrow base of power, but it would be an extremely powerful coercive weapon if he could control all of it: Middle East oil.

The second prong of the threat was that it would exploit religion to provide justification for polarizing the Middle East against the West. Between the Muslim fundamentalists and a ruthless manipulator such as Saddam, religion could become a wedge that kept the Middle East antagonistic to the West, and it could become a solidified basis for separateness and conflict.

Therefore, we wanted to accomplish several things. First was to destroy Saddam himself, because he would be the architect of the whole antagonistic regime. Second was to install some kind of secular representative democracy, because our administration has unquestioning faith that it's the magic elixer that will keep the waters settled and, at the same time, would demonstrate to other governments in the region how they have to evolve in order to thrive. Third was to weaken any threat to the market-based buying and selling of oil, because we have enough money that we can control events if they respond to money above all. That's what serves for the idea of "market-based" in international trade.

Saddam had to go first, because he was a threat on his own, and because he stood in the way of reshaping the Middle East.

-- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply)

Reply to
Ed Huntress

That was well stated.

What bothers me most is that I think Iraq was an experiment to prove out Wolfowitz's proposal for projecting US military power to "shape the world to our benefit." He came up with the idea in the Reagan years and got laughed down but Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearl and others formed the Partnership for the New American Century to promote it. Once those guys got back in power they hijacked the war on terrorism figuring that Iraq would be an easy test. To bad they were dead wrong and to bull headed to take advice from the State Department professionals who had the experience.

We are in deep do-do now because of an overdose of testosterone in the DOD.

Reply to
Glenn Ashmore

antagonistic

This strikes me as a very plausible line of thinking that might infect the foreign policy arm of the government i.e. the Dept of Defense. It strikes me as a nearly identical line of reasoning as the justification for the war in Viet Nam. The logic is just a flawed in both cases.

1) In Viet Nam we were fighting to prevent the Communist Monolith from taking over the region and then the world. In reality, the various communist governments hated each other as much as they hated the US. They cooperated to fight a foreign invader but afterward they went their own different ways. There was no Communist Monolith.

The Arabs hate each other almost as much as they hate Israel and America. They would fight an Iraqi domination as the Vietnamese fought an attempted Chinese domination. Of course they will cooperate to defeat their foreign invaders, Israel and America, but once that is accomplished they will revert to their traditional rivalries. The is no Arab Oil Monolith.

2) If we want oil to be traded at a price that the market dictates then that will occur naturally. The Arabs have a long history as traders. The Arabs are used to doing business in bazaar and that is how they will trade oil. They will do what we want them to do by natural inclination. 3) I like Milton Freedman's description of Capitalism as the Natural Order. Capitalism was a term coined by Karl Marx as a pejorative. The Natural Order is a better term in that is describes a system that will happen naturally in the absence of any coercive forces. Capitalism or the Natural Order will operate in the Middle East without our imposing it. Indeed, our imposing it will be the coercive force that prevents it from fully blossoming. Not many fair deals are done when one side is looking down the barrel of a gun. 4) Our ability to reshape the Middle East in a positive way is zero. We can blow things up and kill people but nothing else. Our credibility in the Arab world is non-existent. We say that we want democracy in the region but we prop up a racist thug of a regime and other various monarchies. When we say that we want democracy for them, they look around at what we have done for them in the past. The best that we can do for the Middle east is get out.

Pete.

Reply to
Peter Reilley

I have to agree. This is analgous to southeast asia as you suggested - we lost the war there, but won the peace. The VC governement wants the US to bring capital into their enterprise zones. We accomplished more just by being our own capitalist selves than the army ever could.

While what you say in (4) is all true, their credibility after sept 11th, is at the rock-bottom here in the US as well.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

Well.. I suppose the first thing is to decide if the word "steal" applies to governments or just to individuals. I'd say that it can apply to governments who have done a similar thing to what individuals do which is considered to be "stealing"- when they take what everyone else (and possibly even themselves) seem to agree is the property of another, without any sort of due process or mutually agreed upon compensation.

I think the US has had diplomatic relations with Saddam's regime, this should demonstrate that we have admitted that they were a valid government- different from, for instance, the Confederacy, or Communist China for a lot of years.

The US has bought much oil from Iraq during Saddam's regime- by purchasing this oil, did we not admit that it was his to sell? The UN restriction on the amount of oil Iraq could sell was also an admission that the oil belonged to the Saddam regime (otherwise the vote would have been over the issue of whether or not he was allowed to sell

*any* oil at all, right?)- every country that voted to restrict the amount of oil they could sell was, by voting in that way, confirming that they oil was Saddam's to sell. Our representative voted for this, correct? At the time of the beginning of the invasion we were purchasing the majority of the oil that Iraq exported- a further confirmation that it was Saddam's oil.. if it was not, then we were purchasing stolen property. If we weren't purchasing stolen property then, can we have not stolen now?

So.. we have invaded Iraq, a soverign nation, with no military provocation that I'm aware of, and taken control of the country and its natural resources- and we have taken this from the regime that we have admitted (by the above reasoning) has rightful claim to the resources.. Claims of doing good for the Iraqi people have nothing to do with it- we have no right to determine what is good or not good for another country, just as you and I have no right to determine what is good for our neighbors (and as, I think we'd agree, they have no right to determine what is good for us). Claims of doing good (and claims that Saddam was so threatening with the apparently non-existent WMDs and claims that we're really not after Iraq's oil) can be examined by considering the Bush regime's approach to N. Korea and comparing it to Iraq; I think it could be said that the level of misery in N. Korea is at least equal to, if not greater than, that of Iraq under Saddam but.. I've heard no plans for Operation Free North Korea in the works, strangely enough. I've heard it said that the fact that N. Korea has a couple of atom bombs and no oil, while Saddam had no atom bombs and much oil has something to do with the difference.. but perhaps that's a rash judgement.

As I said originally, it all depends on how you define "steal".. My reasoning forces me to feel that theft has taken place, perhaps yours is different. I would welcome any adjustment of my view of things that you might offer, as this whole thing pains me considerably.. Fraud has been committed- fraud by the American government against the American people and military. There seems to have been no WMDs, it seems that Saddam was really no military threat to us at all.. people are dying in Iraq, and for what? Where will the Iraqis be found for a new government? The ones that will be found will be the only ones with the skills, talents and desire for it- the ones who served under Saddam (I saw that his secret police are being recruited to work for our people, simply because they are the only ones who can do the job to be done.. interesting, no?).

Nothing will change because nothing *can* change. The people are still the same, changing the leader doesn't change the people. Governing within the exact same borders will require basically the same procedures and processes that it required under Saddam- the personality might change but the requirements for the person to take and keep power never changed, these requirements must be met if anarchy is not to be the case. Anarchy won't export much oil, so the condititions for stability will be met and the new regime will resemble Saddam's more than it will differ from it.

It's been claimed that we can do in Iraq what was done in Germany and Japan after WWII- this is faulty reasoning. The change that took place in those two countries was due to the people, not just to the leaders being eliminated. Both countries were savaged, reduced to rubble by daily air attacks. The point was to eliminate the *will of the people* to resist- the will of the leaders was of no consequence, as their will would be altered by their death. It was the people who were changed, the people who were driven to such a state that they welcomed those who would kill them, wishing for anything that would end the misery. That's the only way a true change can happen, nothing else will do. Also, this was a faceless process- bombs and fire from the sky but no personal contact with the attackers. The Russians produced their share of misery for Germans too, but in a more personal way- and the Germans fled to the Americans and British, the impersonal ones. There's something to be learned there too as our people die on the ground in Iraq. I suppose we'll find out in the future what we'll reap from this.. We live in interesting times.

John

Reply to
JohnM

Even before that you might want to hit the zetatalk.com homepage and see if these are the sort of people you'd like to believe or not.. Alien visitations, biblical end-time prophesies, conspiracy theories of uncommon strangeness.. A bit amusing, as long as you don't consider the personalities that require and participate in such things.. sort of sad if you do consider them.

John

Reply to
JohnM

I have a friend that travels to Viet Nam to sell power generation equipment. I asked him if they ever discuss the war. I thought that I might be a sore subject for them the way it is here. He said no, they were happy to discuss it, they won. They have a nightclub in Hanoi called the "B52" that has a B52 nose sticking out of the wall. The war was their finest moment, a thing of national pride.

When two societies have no other relationship other than hitting each other, it would be best if we separated for a while. In the Middle East that means that we must get out. Getting out now will be much easier than getting out later when many more will have died. The current logic against getting out, "we can't leave before the job is done" is the same logic that kept us in Viet Nam long after we realized that we could not re-make the Vietnamese in our image.

We have no credibility over there and they have no credibility (and respect) here.

Consider our views of the Arabs; we don't respect them. We don't respect their society, their traditions, their religion, their history. They are "gooks" to us. (to borrow a term from the Viet Nam war) The only Arabs that we like are our stooges, those leaders the reliably tell what we want to hear. Even if we win this war, we will never win their hearts and minds. We will always be at war until we change.

Pete.

Reply to
Peter Reilley

Gunner is right on the hand feeds the hand in Oil -

I worked for Schlumberger for 19 years - knew and still know some of the world wide names. However - I never knew Bush in oil or outside of oil until he became Governor of Texas.

His oil company in Denver was just to small to be on a world scene. He has a ranch in East Texas - oil country of sorts - coal and gas and wood as well.

The people I knew were those who would hand shake a contract of $200 Million and let the people at the home offices bill each other as needed...

The real oil men stick together because they live and die together.

We had crews burn up, get exploded up, attacked by Arab 'bandits', a rescue team was sent in to extract them.

They work in conditions most of us would not even bother.

The senior type are long time types typically.

'Last time' when the oil wells were torched - SLB was asked by the King to get together the various teams and clean it up. They did. You saw the teams working on TV.

This industry, oil services is less than 100 years old - and for the most part, less than 50.

Martin

Reply to
Eastburn

Actually, Gunner, Iraqi oil production is currently about 350,000 barrels a day. Prior to the invasion, Iraqi domestic consumption was 450,000 barrels a day, but current Iraqi refinery capacity is only about half that (due to damage and electric power shortages). So about 125,000 barrels a day is available for export.

All funds from oil sales are being deposited in an account controlled by Philip Carroll (former head of Royal Dutch Shell US). He was appointed by Bush to run the Iraqi oil industry and secure its income for the Occupying Powers.

The best estimate by industry insiders is that it will take at least 18 months and about $30 billion to get the Iraqi oil industry back to a position where it could export 1.7 million barrels a day (a level it hasn't achieved in the last 13 years). Quoting Carroll, "The industry is in a state of dilapidation."

Now that doesn't take into account the near daily sabotage being carried out by the Resistance. The Pentagon has told oil companies that they will have to "provide their own security", and that their movements would be restricted. Given that, getting large amounts of oil flowing is likely to be problematic for the foreseeable future.

Gary

Reply to
Gary Coffman

http://216.26.163.62/2003/me_iraq_08_04.htmlMonday, August 4, 2003 LONDON ? Iraq reports an oil production capacity of 1.7 million barrels per day.

Thamer Ghadhban, responsible for Iraq's oil sector, said the figure is the highest since the U.S.-led war in Iraq in March. He said Iraq is preparing to export as much as 800,000 barrels per day from oil fields in Basra.

"Iraq's production capacity has risen to unprecedented levels since the war ended, reaching 1.7 million barrel per day," Ghadhban told the International Oil Daily. "Production is actually running at a rate of

1.55 million barrel per day."

Ghadhban said sabotage has hampered Iraqi plans to increase oil production and exports. He cited attacks on the Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline from northern Iraq to Turkey, which was blown up on late July

  1. formatting link

Seems your production numbers are a bit off a bit.......probably from an old data point.

And if the funds are being put in a trust account..how could the US be stealing the oil? Petey and the LibSpinner have assured us that its happening as we speak.

Of some interest....

formatting link
MARKET METRICS Fri, Sep 19, 2003 Crude Oil Opec Basket 24.90 -0.26 ($/bbl) IPE Brent 25.32 -0.27 Nymex Lt Swt 27.03 -0.14 Products Nymex (¢/gal) Gasoline 78.70 -1.47 Heating Oil 69.89 -0.85 IPE ($/ton) Gas Oil 211.25 -3.50 Natural Gas New York 4.63 -0.25 ($/MMBtu) Henry, LA 4.33 -0.18 Chicago 4.40 -0.17 Katy, Texas 4.23 -0.19 S Calif Border 4.00 -0.35 AECO, Canada 3.88 -0.36 Oil & Gas Shares Oil Daily Composite 99.68 -0.28

----------------------------

From the looks of it, Iraqi crude is selling for $24.95bbl, currently down .26 cents. I believe Iraq is under the Opec basket at the moment.

Gunner

"Anyone who cannot cope with firearms is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house." With appologies to RAH..

Reply to
Gunner

Actually the USG didn't need to manufacture the threats, Saddam did a fine job and didn't backpedal fast or thouroughly enough when it backfired.

That they didn't shoot back is pure, unadulterated scheiße. They shot back a lot. Not too well, but a lot. Competence and conviction are not necessarily related.

Like most conflicts, who shot first depends on how far back you go. It's not too hard to link current events as the culmination of the invasion of Kuwait. Many in the region cite events back in the 11th and

12th centuries.

Their families, and those of effected Iraqis will disagree. I daresay this is not a statemant you'd make in their presence.

I'm more worried about reconstruction. It needs to go well, and I can't tell if it is or not. It simply not possible to know who to beleive. There are an abundance of postive and negative signs, but it'd hard to tell what's really significant.

Reply to
Rich Osman

You mean they paid to get GWB elected, and now they have to supply their own rent-a-cops - errr, make that, rent-a-soldier??

That's a gyp.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

Israeli fantasies have a way of coming true, at the cost of American blood and treasure.

Gary

Reply to
Gary Coffman

That's either wishful thinking or disinformation.

No, it is from Carroll's latest report.

Because it isn't a trust account. It is in the name of the Occupying Powers.

It is not. Read your own quoted sources more carefully.

Gary

Reply to
Gary Coffman

Of course they're dead wrong. The core cultural values are too different. They're trying to apply the lessons of Germany and Japan to a situation which more closely resembles Vietnam, or Afghanistan under Soviet occupation, or Chechnya and Palestine today.

Well, not the uniformed part. This isn't a soldier's fantasy (other than those who need a ticket punched for promotion). It is the fantasy of ivory tower ideologues of the neocon variety who've never carried a rifle in combat, or tried to occupy a fanatically hostile country.

As losses continue to mount, indefinitely, the American public is going to get tired of this exercise in futility. That's the lesson of Vietnam and Soviet Afghanistan (British Afghanistan a century earlier too). It is also the lesson of Palestine.

Only fanatics would attempt to occupy such places for long, and in the end, the American people aren't fanatics (at least not that kind of fanatic). Recruitment, and more importantly retention, in the Guard and Reserve are already down 15%. That's serious in our "new military" which depends so heavily on Guard and Reserve troops. It will only get worse as more people realize we've gotten ourselves into a perpetual war we can't win.

Americans like clear winners and losers. We don't like things to drag on indefinitely. We want a resolution, hopefully quickly, to any problem that presents itself. Unfortunately, many problems aren't amenable to quick or clear solutions.

Of course we can try the Vietnamization, er Iraqization, of the war, declare victory, and leave. But the results will be no better for us than they were in Vietnam. We'll only have succeeded in placing a new group of thugs in power in Iraq at a huge cost in blood and treasure. In 10 or 20 years, we'll have to go back to deal with

*them*, or their successors, or watch them swallowed by worse enemies (Iran).

The neocon fantasy is that we can use military power to radically reshape the core cultural values of our enemies. But that doesn't really ever work, certainly not in the first generation, and rarely even in the tenth.

The Romans tried to co-opt their enemies by making them pseudo- Romans. That only worked well for peoples who already shared many Roman values. For those who didn't, there was only perpetual war on the borders of the empire. When Roman mothers no longer were willing to tell their sons to return with their shields, or on them, the empire fell.

Of course what this is really about is resources. They've got oil, we want it. The only question is how high a price we'll be willing to pay to get it. That price could be in dollars, or it could be in blood. We've chosen blood.

At a 3 million barrel a day rate, we'll be pumping Iraqi oil for

205 years. I don't think we're willing to accept parity, ie a gallon of blood for a gallon of oil, but the open question is where the balance will actually settle. Will it be a gallon of blood for 1,000 gallons of oil, 100,000 gallons of oil, a million? The answer to that question will ultimately decide our strategies and tactics.

Gary

Reply to
Gary Coffman

Talk to Cliff Huprich about that, he could argue your points down with fact then I could. Mr. Huprich, often I heard supports the republican party could tell you his counter points Mr. Coffman in one sentence, that you are a liar.

John

Reply to
John Scheldroup

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.