RE: IRAQ sort of: Re: Tim May calls for nuking of D.C.

From: Barbara Lamar (blamar@satx.rr.com)
Date: Sun Feb 23 2003 - 14:34:29 MST

  • Next message: Spudboy100@aol.com: "Re: IRAQ sort of: Re: Tim May calls for nuking of D.C."

     Kai Becker wrote:

    > ... But you don't think you'll ever be in danger
    > from iraqi chemical weapons, do you?

     The greater danger to the U.S. than any direct harm that could be done by
    Iraqi weapons is the harm that would result from disruption of the oil
    supply. I've heard a number of people, including Saddam Hussein, make
    accusations that Bush and his allies are concerned about oil. For the most
    part, Bush, Blair et al seem to have avoided addressing the extent to which
    an attack on Iraq is motivated by Iraq's oil. But I suspect that the fear of
    disruption of the oil supply from that region is a major motivating factor,
    given that Saddam has exhibited a willingness to attack neighboring
    countries and a lack of ordinary prudence bordering on insanity. It's
    politically unpopular to suggest that the main reason for attacking Iraq
    would be to maintain control over the oil supply. But given that every
    aspect of the U.S. economy (and the economy of every other nation that
    depends on synthetic fertilizers, industrialized farming, modern
    transportation, industrial production of goods, etc.) is heavily dependant
    on a steady supply of relatively cheap oil, it seems that far more damage
    could be done and ultimately more suffering and death inflicted on Iraq's
    enemies by torching Iraq's oil fields than by setting off a dirty bomb or
    turning lose some anthrax bacteria in a NY subway. The economy of the U.S.
    is too fragile at the moment to easily weather a significant increase in the
    price of oil.

    It does not matter whether or not the U.S. itself imports significant
    amounts of oil from Iraq. A disruption in any segment of the world's oil
    supply affects the entire global market. A large % of the current proven
    reserves of oil (well over 50%, I believe) are located under Iraq and
    neighborning countries.

    Pragmatically speaking, given where we are today, the question is whether an
    attack on Iraq would decrease or increase the liklihood of a significant
    disruption of the world's oil supply. If the decision is that attack would
    be the preferable course of action, then delay will hurt the chances of the
    hoped for outcome.

    My own position on this is that I hate the idea of war. I would support, and
    fight in, a war to defend my own land, and I would support a war to defend
    an ally under some circumstances. I think there's a lot I (and most people)
    don't know about the present situation with Iraq. From the facts I do have,
    I think an attack against Iraq is probably necessary at this point in order
    maintain the U.S. standard of living (i.e. avoid major unemployment,
    homelessness, soup lines, etc.) and that it has been inevitable for some
    years. The only way to have avoided this would have been an internal revolt
    in Iraq. I would never have wanted the U.S. to be in a situation where its
    economy depends on the global oil supply. That this is a tragic situation
    goes without saying. For many years I have done whatever was within my power
    to support the development of alternative fuels, alternative agricultural
    methods, and alternative life styles. I think we're moving in that
    direction, but it hasn't happened fast enough, so here we are.

    Barbara Lamar



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 14:36:54 MST