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