I'm a bit tired of the paradigm that we're in Iraq for the oil...

[Diego Van Derveld]

To all the people who say the war against Iraq is so Bush and his oil buddies can make money...have you ever considered the laws of supply and demand? Oil (gasoline included) is what is known as an inelastic commodity. That is to say, you're really unlikely to give it up if it gets pricey, and you're almost guaranteed to use it in the same quantities as before a price change. Now, if the war was actually over oil, which it isn't, you would expect that Dubya and his robber baron tycoons would want to line their pockets, right? The only problem is that waging war costs money. When the war is won, taking over, building, or maintenancing refineries...costs money. To what end? You plunk down a mighty gob of cash, to increase the supply of oil at hand. According to supply and demand, this would cause the supply curve to shift outward. Prices and quantities are determined at the point where supply and demand curves meet. Supply is positively related to price, while Demand is inversely related. Shifting the supply curve outward causes a DECREASE in the price of oil and gas, and since the commodities are inelastically demanded, with steep demand curves, demand for this cheaper oil and gas only rises a tiny amount, if at all.

So, hypothetically, if we're waging the war for oil and oil profits...we've now officially shot ourselves in the foot, because the oil companies lose money for doing this.

So, think about this next time you think the war is about oil. The last thing Bush's CEO buddies want is to snatch Iraqi oil. Their profits would disintegrate.

Just something I thought I'd share. Had a moment of common sense hit me like a lightning bolt this morning :)

[ReaperFett]

I disagree. I feel oil is important.


Iraq enlists a few guys with explosives

Iraq sends them to certain important places in the Middle East, involving oil

guys with explosives blow up important places

Western World loses majorly from 3/4 of their oil



But to pooh-pooh it is daft.

[Diego Van Derveld]

I'm talking about snatching Iraqi oil. Defending assets currently under possession is another matter entirely. Staging a war to put a reserve supply of oil in our hands "just in case" such a left-field attack occurs is extremely farfetched. But, I'll play another hypothetical. Weigh the cost once again of waging a war, and locking down oil refineries that would undoubtedly be even MORE insecure than safer assets we already use. Now, compare that to the cost of repairing a refinery, or at worst, capping an oil fire. Its an ocean versus a raindrop.

[JediBoricua]

I understand all about Supply and Demand. And you do have a point, but I don't believe the drive for this is to start producing oil the minute Irak is taken over.

The drive in all of this is for the US to have a lot more participation in the oil cartel. Right now S. Arabia is the world's biggests producer, and although they are 'friends' to the US, when it comes to oil they look after themselves. Now if the US puts a mock government in Irak that answers to the CIA and the State Department, the US will control indirectly the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world, add that to what they already have, what they will pump in Alaska, and the Russian oil reserves that are being developed with billions from US companies, and soon you have the US as a major player in the intl. oil business, something they have wanted for decades. End Result, in the long run the US will be able to determine the world oil price and keep those SUV's running strong.

I sincerely don't swallow the Iraqui threat. Why? Because North Korea is ten times worst (today they said that if the west were to attack them the whole Korean Penninsula will lay in ashes) and the Bush Administration seems to ignore them. Why? Because they haven't found oil there.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by JediBoricua
I understand all about Supply and Demand. And you do have a point, but I don't believe the drive for this is to start producing oil the minute Irak is taken over.

The drive in all of this is for the US to have a lot more participation in the oil cartel. Right now S. Arabia is the world's biggests producer, and although they are 'friends' to the US, when it comes to oil they look after themselves. Now if the US puts a mock government in Irak that answers to the CIA and the State Department, the US will control indirectly the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world, add that to what they already have, what they will pump in Alaska, and the Russian oil reserves that are being developed with billions from US companies, and soon you have the US as a major player in the intl. oil business, something they have wanted for decades. End Result, in the long run the US will be able to determine the world oil price and keep those SUV's running strong.

I sincerely don't swallow the Iraqui threat. Why? Because North Korea is ten times worst (today they said that if the west were to attack them the whole Korean Penninsula will lay in ashes) and the Bush Administration seems to ignore them. Why? Because they haven't found oil there.

You're basing your flawed conclusions on a paradigm that was disproven in the first post of this thread.

[Sigil Roland]

Uh... I thought we were going into Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction. I didn't think that oil had anything to do with it.

[Rmiao]

Come on, a little intro to micro theory doesn't prove anything here. What you describe above only applies when 1) no firm has the power to set prices, and 2)profits are zero in the long run. OPEC is close to a monopoly. It sets supply and prices and the US wants to break that. The fact that oil is an inelastic good means little.

[Sigil Roland]

Uh, seeing how it would take 10 years to get the pumps working again at previous levels, plus the amount of money needed to start a project makes the X-box look like christmas (means a loss for every X-box sold.) I'd rather see that money spent on the rebuilding of Iraq then putting it into a project like that.

[JonathanLB]

We're invading Iraq to give all of the Iraqi citizens X-Box's? What?! It's not THAT good of a system! :D

[Jedieb]

Now if the US puts a mock government in Irak that answers to the CIA and the State Department
I'm reminded of one of the reasons why Bush Sr. DIDN'T continue the rout of Iraq into the streets of Baghdad. The removal of Saddam would have destabalized the country and led to an all out civil war. A war that could have had unseen consequences in the region. Whatever government ends up in place of Saddam's, it will NOT represent all of the factions that will vie for power in the country. So how long do we occupy the country to lend support to the new government? How much of the population will it represent? What effect will the prolonged presense of U.S. troops on Iraqi soil have? The invasion itself is not likely to be that difficult. It's the AFTER that concerns me. This is only going to stir MORE anti-American sentiment and it's going to be a virtual recruiting tool for terroists around the world.

[JediBoricua]

I agree wholeheartly with Eb.

And yes Rmiao has the right idea. What I'm talking about is in the long term of things, and the fact is that when it comes to oil the US can do nothing but buy at OPEC's prices. And why does OPEC works and other cartels don't (like the sugar cartel or the cofee cartel), because oil is an extremely rare resource that can only be found in a handful of countries and of those countries S. Arabia holds the biggest chunk. Which means that they have a strong grip on the production of other countries and they can determine the international oil price that serves their needs.

For example, almost two years ago Venezuela said it wouldl raise it's barrell per day production a couple of millions more so it could sell cheaper oil to it's latin american neighbors. What did OPEC do, they raised their production, putting the price tag on their oil lower than that of Venezuela. End result, Venezuela's oil was not selling, even though it was cheaper than before, and they were force to comply with OPEC's regulation and return to what the organization dictated to be their daily production. OPEC being a bigger organization could absorb the losses and produce at a level that no single country could, except for S. Arabia.

The US wants to break this monopoly given the fact that all recent recessions started when oil prices became to high. Everyone says that Irak can be rebuilt fairly easily because of it's wealth in oil, and who do you think is going to pump that oil. Newly founded iraqui companies that will form in what? Two months after the war is over. Please don't be so naive, I am sure multi-billionaire oil companies can absorb losses for a couple of years until they begin pulling a huge profit.

[Kirreessaa Midarruu]

you forget that America trained Hussein's troops, put him in power, sold him weapons and supported him wholeheartedly not too long ago.

and america just wants the oil to be stabilised as theirs, not content to have it nearby, they want it on tap. the one thing in their way is a dictator, so they get rid of him, and put in a puppet king. Just like they got rid of the regime before Hussein's before him.

my (completely irrelevant) two pence worth. feel free to remove.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Kirreessaa Midarruu
you forget that America trained Hussein's troops, put him in power, sold him weapons and supported him wholeheartedly not too long ago.

Wrong, wrong, 99% wrong and not too correct. 2 cents is a ripoff for that. Honestly, where do you people get your information? ignoramus.com? You're thinking of the CIA putting people in power, and we did that in Iran, not Iraq-and to a nice constitutional monarch, not a homicidal stalinist dictator. Some of the people who go spouting this nonsense need to use google, read some actual information, then start communicating on this issue intelligently.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Go to google???? how about a library I wouldn't trust anything I read on the internet, I don't think half of it is legit. I don't think the U.S. put him power, we just supported him over the Itolla who I admit was evil and it looked like he was going to spread his craziness to Iraq, if he had won that war who knows what could have happened, so actually it actually makes sense that we supported the regime, then.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Some of the people who go spouting this nonsense need to use google, read some actual information, then start communicating on this issue intelligently.

like you vis. its well known iraq was well supported by the usa up to 1990. only you seem to be forgetting that fact.

and for some reason your forgetting the shah was no nice person either. go to a library and find out some of the things that regime did to it's people.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah he was a dictator as well, maybe Saddam is worse but the Shah did some awful things which is part of the reason he was overthrown.

[Darth23]

It's not necessarily about Bush and Chaney (BOTH oil men... coincidence?) and their buddies making money themselves, it's about the U.S. control of the region.

The US as intervened in countries for purely ecomonic regions DOZENS fo times. Usally the interventiosn are so quick because of out superior firepower that they barely even register in history books. Actually I have a theory that that's a main reason George Bush I lost his re-election bid.

You see, the Gulf War I wasn't REALLY a war, it was an Thirs World Intervention, like Grenada, or Panama, but Bush made the mistake of hyping it like it was WW II all over again.

That's the reason we support the dictatorships in (the Liberated) Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region. If there wasnt' a lot of oil there the region would be considered important to 'US strategic interests'. By the way, how's the whole Democratization of Kuwait thign going? I mean, ti's been 10 years since we liberated them in a war for 'freedon and democracy, so they should be pretty democratic by now, right?


This basic US policy is not a Bush thing, or even a Republican thing. When he was running for President in 1976, Nobel Peace Price winner Jimmy Carter was quoted as saying that he thought that it woudl be appropriate for the US to go to War in the Persian Gulf "To protect our interests".

This is BEFORE the whole Iranian hostage thing, the Iran-Iraq war, the arms for hostages deal, the periodic bombings of Lybia (remember them?), Gulf War I and now Gulf War II.

If the oil wasn't there, or if oil wasn't as important to the economy of the west, then the US wouldn't be supporting so many autocratic and dictatorial governments in the region so vigorously.

As far as the current sutiation goes, apparently there are deal beogn worked out between Russia and other countries who want to get involved in oil production in Iraq, but after the next war it's not to hard to predict that it will be US (and probably UK) companies that will reap the spoils of war - I mean "help rebuild a free Iraq".


Marine Corps General Smedley D. Butler probably provided the best account of US 'economic militarism' in 1931:


"I spent 33 years in the Marines. Most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I helped make Mexico safe for oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints."

Marine Corps General Smedley D. Butler

New York Times August 21, 1931 Reprinted in Morrow Book of Quotations in American History

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by JediBoricua
... I am sure multi-billionaire oil companies can absorb losses for a couple of years until they begin pulling a huge profit.


The major players in the petroleum industry are worse off that you think. They aren't getting rich off of high gasoline prices... they have to raise prices just to maintain their profit margins, as OPEC continues to raise the barrel price of crude oil. Many of them were barely treading water after the Gulf War. 8 of the largest oil companies in the world effectively paired off in to joint ventures with one another for that very reason (Marathon & Ashland, Shell & Texico, BP & Amoco, Exxon & Mobil).

The major oil companies have no love for OPEC... they could line their pockets a lot easier if OPEC's virtually monopoly was at least cracked a little, if not broken.

[JonathanLB]

It is absolutely correct, and not debatable, that the United States *helped* arm Iraq and Hussein. That's a fact. If you don't know that, YOU need to go to Google and do the research because you must be an idiot. If you've seen Bowling for Columbine even, you'd know this. We helped Iraq before and armed them against the "evil communists," but they became no longer useful. Then when they stepped into Kuwait, we had to do something about it.

[Darth Viscera]

*helped* being the key word. I'd say the Soviets did 1000x more than we did to fully arm Saddam. In other words, our assistance to Iraq was relatively INSIGNIFICANT.


and for some reason your forgetting the shah was no nice person either. go to a library and find out some of the things that regime did to it's people.

I'm sorry Marcus, how many Iranians who lived under the Shaw have been to your house in the last year? What kind of conversations did you have with them? For a middle eastern ruler, the Shaw was nice. The positive things that the Shah did for his country far, far outweigh the things that were done to dissidents and wacko muslim fundamentalists by intel. Don't quibble with me.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Don't quibble with me.

your clearly unprepared to listen to other pov's. fine, i wont quibble with you.

[ReaperFett]

I'd say the Soviets did 1000x more than we did to fully arm Saddam. In other words, our assistance to Iraq was relatively INSIGNIFICANT.
Relatively. Point is, there was still assistance. Some British citizens helped Germany in WW2. Their assistance was also relatively insignificant. But they were still guilty of assisting Germany.

[Sanis Prent]

Rmiao, you also forget that we have enough of our own oil stocks to break such a monopolistic scenario. I find it amusing that the same ultra-left are protesting the "War on Oil" in DC, and then can hop on a plane to Alaska, to chain themselves to a caribou to keep them from drilling our own reserves.

That, and OPEC is an oligopoly, not a monopoly.

Why wouldn't the long-term push profit to zero? You have an increasing overhead and capital expenditure ratio to maintain production. This eats into those revenues, and shrinks retained earnings.

[Darth Viscera]

No, I'm prepared to listen to other pov's-i've been doing it for a long time. I still reserve the right to argue against them, however :). I'm very passionate about this subject because i'm half-Iranian, and I still have relatives in Iran who might one day be able to get out and come to this country if their own governments shape up.

@Fett
Well, we made a boo-boo. So did many other western countries in dealing with Iraq. However, France and Germany still have not learned from their mistakes. France, for one, has invested (according to FNL) an estimated $60 billion in discreetly transferring illegal oil from Iraq-and they're still doing it. They're persisting even now. The Germans seem to be egging them on and/or taking kickbacks.

[Rmiao]

ok.
Have you taken any class on industrial economics or industrial organization or just micro classes? OPEC is THE classic example of a monopolistic cartel. What kind of oligopoly would you describe OPEC as? A duopoly(right...)? OPEC falls under the model of Dominant Firm with Fringe Competition.


You have an increasing overhead and capital expenditure ratio to maintain production. This eats into those revenues, and shrinks retained earnings.

ok, OPEC is an increasing returns to scale industry. This is not true.

[Jedi Master Carr]

So, I sorry Saddam is meaningless in the long term, I mean he is a two bit dictator in countrol of a meaningless country (if it didn't have oil there would hardly be anybody there) he can't conquer anybody and what could he do except kill people in the neighboring countries, which would be minor to what India and Pakistan could to do themselves. And I am sorry that worries be 100 times more that situation is still unresolved us and the UN have ignored, both countries have sent their diplomats home and their are about a million troops on the border, all it will take is one incident to start a war and if that happens I have a feeling their will be a nuclear exchange there, because of the hatred between the two nations, plus Pakistan can't win a war with India and they might use there nukes plus there easily could be a miscalcuation that would be devistating. If that happen I guess Iraq wouldn't be much of a problem anymore the radiation would probably kill a 1/3 of the Iraqi population in next 10 years and maybe Saddam himself.

[JediBoricua]

Quote by Figrin:


The major oil companies have no love for OPEC... they could line their pockets a lot easier if OPEC's virtually monopoly was at least cracked a little, if not broken.

You see, you've just proved my point. When the US takes control of the Iraqui reserves they could very well break OPEC's control, at least it's power will be greatly diminished. American oil companies loose money when prices go up because most of the time they are not the ones doing the pumping. Most OPEC's countries use government owned operations to extract the oil. But if the US takes control of Iraq it will be the multinationals doing the extractions there. I really believed they are running behind the marines, drill in hand.


Rmiao, you also forget that we have enough of our own oil stocks to break such a monopolistic scenario. I find it amusing that the same ultra-left are protesting the "War on Oil" in DC, and then can hop on a plane to Alaska, to chain themselves to a caribou to keep them from drilling our own reserves.

I am not kwnoledgeable of what the current US reserves are, but I am almost positively sure that they are nowhere near to what the country consumes on a daily basis. Also, last time I check the US does not export oil. Believe me, if they could break the monopoly they would have done so by now.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't think we have much oil, there is that pipe dream about Alaska but after all the time and money to get to it, it really wouldn't be worth it. The Russians probably have a lot in Siberia and in the Eastern Provinces but it very hard to get to and would take a lot money and a lot of time to dig to get to it.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by JediBoricua
You see, you've just proved my point. When the US takes control of the Iraqui reserves they could very well break OPEC's control, at least it's power will be greatly diminished. American oil companies loose money when prices go up because most of the time they are not the ones doing the pumping. Most OPEC's countries use government owned operations to extract the oil. But if the US takes control of Iraq it will be the multinationals doing the extractions there. I really believed they are running behind the marines, drill in hand.


I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm simply pointing out that the "multi-billionaire" oil companies can't take as great a hit as you think they might be able to.


The US oil reserves are bigger than you guys think. No, it's not a long term solution by any means, but if it were utilized properly, it's enough to keep the nation running long enough to force OPEC to drop crude prices. Such a scenario won't occur though, as tapping into them was intended in the event of a total short term shutdown of foreign oil imports.

[JonathanLB]

This is all I have to say about this whole issue:

http://www.heatherfirth.com/index.html

[Sanis Prent]

Rmiao...I was referring more to an industry-wide appraisal of the situation. As more reserves are used, overhead and capital expenditures to finance new facilities, or deal with upkeep of existing ones will rise. If you understand that oil is nonrenewable, and that some of its easy to extract, and some of it isn't...then you also know that what we've got left is a lot harder to extract and refine than previous reserves. Dig deeper, look harder, etc. Its a long-term appraisal of the situation, admittedly...but one that's on the money.

And no, this isn't ramblings from a basic micro course. I'm minoring in economics.

[Rmiao]

If you're talking about the untapped oil reserves in Alaska I understand, but in keeping with the original post, I think that oil is a definite factor as a motivation for this war. Is it the only factor? no, but the Bush administration would claim a massive political victory at home if it takes control of Iraq's oil fields (for the purposes of rebuliding iraq of course, but what will that turn into?) There is no way that this isn't weighing onto their minds. Yes, I agree that making personal wealth isn't a motivation for them as was stated in the original post, but they would be picking up a ton of political capital nevertheless.

[Rmiao]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
This is all I have to say about this whole issue:

http://www.heatherfirth.com/index.html

:lol :lol :lol
Might be fun to send to someone

[Sanis Prent]

I'll discuss this with Dr. Temini (my intermed. econ professor), but I'm still sticking to my point. You can't cite OPEC as a monopoly in this, because they can't set any price and expect consistent returns on it. At a certain point in pricing, the consumer (U.S.) simply turns to domestic reserve, and OPEC gets the shaft. Yes, they're the leading exporter, and they have the major global market share, but I object that it is sufficient to claim monopolistic behavior.

Or ask yourself this:

Hypothetically, if we were invade, win, and help Iraq in reforming their nation...do you think that they'd seriously operate outside the OPEC fringe? Even if we managed to nurture an extremely pro-american government there, there's almost no chance for such activity. So, you're back to square one. You'd literally have to turn Iraq into an American colony to put these limiting factors on their economy...which isn't going to happen.

[Rmiao]

No monopoly can set any price it wants. If you're going to ask your professor whether it's a pure monopoly, don't bother because obviously it isn't. OPEC can set its output, and consequently prices, so it has monopoly power. In industrial econ, the relevant question would be how *much* monopoly power it has. This just isn't taken into a consideration in a micro class where you go from PC to monopoly to oligopoly with n firms all producing on a cobb-douglas function.

[imported_Eve]

I paid 11 more cents/gallon for gas today than last week.

So anyway, to respond, if I may:

Sounds like Bush wants to change our dependency on oil (hydrogen car tech. - whether you agree with it or not). Why would he want control, when it isn't his goal to need it.

The oil factor has two fronts, not just economic. Always when talking about the world economy one must factor politics. We have several trading relationships which benefit OTHER countries. For instance, we sell a peice of dirt for 10 dollars to Country X. They sell the same peice of dirt to us for 100 dollars. This is all because the world economy is "uneven", and the rich are filthy rich, and the poor are filthy poor, and the rich MUST PAY!

The US takes over oil indus? For what then? So we can sell it for nothing? So we can have our own reserves? We don't have the problem of availability in the first place (just move the tree-huggers out of the way).

If this was about oil control, we could have taken control long before now and created another excuse if need be. Like it or not, if we were going to do it, no one would physically be able to stand in our way. And since countries of the UN (save England) seem to be apathtic to hostile takeovers, I'm sure they wouldn't mind if we made our way around in Iraq. I mean... there just wouldn't be ENOUGH EVIDENCE that we were hostile.

(Note my sarcasm please.)

The US isn't going to get all imperialistic on their <smallfont color={hovercolor}>-Censored-</smallfont>. One, it's a bad move, politically. We may do the deed, but we're not going to maintain their government with our people.

There's also no need to destroy their government. We'd end up sending aid. Who wants to do that? Everyone knows that leaving a country in shambles is never good, because the rich countries end up sending aid to fix them up, while they grow more hostile all the meanwhile. Then when they're strong enough, they'll bomb you.

I still say assassination is the word.

[Figrin D'an]

Unfortunately, this isn't a case of being able to cut off the snake's head and letting the body die without recourse. An assassination of Hussein would throw Iraq into chaos. Yeah, he fits the mold of the "overzealous dictator in a funny hat," but removing him solely would be a huge mistake. Take him away, and there will be a civil war to see who will take his place... count on civilian collateral damage being high in that instance. Bush doesn't want that kind of blood on his hands, not when he just reiterated his desire to help the Iraqi people.


Gasoline has been floating around $1.70/gallon for regular unleaded where I am for the last week or so. Anyone interested in doing a price comparison? I hear it's really bad in the northeast (or will probably get that way soon...)

Don't count on gas prices dropping any time soon, either.

[Admiral Lebron]

Northern VA: Regular = 1.39

[Rmiao]

Giving hydrogen power a minute of air time in his state of the union speech doesn't mean he wants it. It's not exactly a pressing goal of his.

We do have the problem of availability. The fact that there's oil sitting there doesn't mean it's at all available. You can say, "move the tree-huggers" but a majority of Americans don't want to tap anwr, so the oil is essentially unavailable.

I don't know what you mean by we have trading relationships that benefit other countries(implying they don't benefit us). I can't think of any examples.



Originally posted by Eve
I paid 11 more cents/gallon for gas today than last week.

So anyway, to respond, if I may:

Sounds like Bush wants to change our dependency on oil (hydrogen car tech. - whether you agree with it or not). Why would he want control, when it isn't his goal to need it.

The oil factor has two fronts, not just economic. Always when talking about the world economy one must factor politics. We have several trading relationships which benefit OTHER countries. For instance, we sell a peice of dirt for 10 dollars to Country X. They sell the same peice of dirt to us for 100 dollars. This is all because the world economy is "uneven", and the rich are filthy rich, and the poor are filthy poor, and the rich MUST PAY!

The US takes over oil indus? For what then? So we can sell it for nothing? So we can have our own reserves? We don't have the problem of availability in the first place (just move the tree-huggers out of the way).

[Jedi Master Carr]

Its 1.50 down here, and going up. About Hussein I see a civil war happening regardless, democracy won't work there will just be another dictator in power within 20 years, that is just the way the Middle East is.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Rmiao
I don't know what you mean by we have trading relationships that benefit other countries(implying they don't benefit us). I can't think of any examples.

China, they have a trade deficit with us. We buy their goods, they use that money to buy goods from Russia, France, Israel, Germany, etc.

[Rmiao]

yes, but how does that not benefit us? We're getting goods at prices lower than can be produced elsewhere.

[JonathanLB]

Well I thought it was just because I let my tank get near empty for the first time ever (ok it really wasn't that near empty, it was 15% full), but yeah I paid $19 to fill my gas tank the other day, which is far more than I've paid normally. I usually fill it when it's at around 35% though, so that's like $13-15 depending on its level of fullness, hehe.

I guess the prices must have gone up a bit here, but that station I went to is also in a nicer area of town and they kind of rip you off.

[Darth23]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Its 1.50 down here, and going up. About Hussein I see a civil war happening regardless, democracy won't work there will just be another dictator in power within 20 years, that is just the way the Middle East is.

What the <smallfont color={hovercolor}>-Censored-</smallfont> kind fo BUKLLSHIT thign is that to say?

What are the peopel just DIFFERENT over there? There wasa time when all of Europe was governed by dictatorships and power was inherited. One reason why terrorists like bin Laden have the support of a lot of people in the region is because they are criticial of the 'corrupt authoritarian governments in the region. (I'm not suggesting that bin Laden would be more democratic - but I AM suggesting that he plays the 'Democracy card' becuase that line works with a lot of peopel in the region)

If the US didn't and other western countires support so many autocratic and dictatorial regimes, perhaps there would actually be more democracies in that region.

Again it all comes back to O-I-L.

It's such a "Strategically Important" region, that the people there simply can't be trusted to run their own countries, and produce "our oil" themselves. A big reason third world dicatorships get support from countries that supposedly belive in Freedom ad Democracy and stuff is because it's so much easier to control/bribe a small elite group of people, and give them lots of weapons to control their own people, rather than actually dealing with democratic rulers who might be answerable to their own people, ans whose people might actually have an agenda different from the US administration.

Hell - just look as the support we're gettimg from Saudia Arabia, Kuwait and a lot of those smaller dicatorships in the Middle east, and compare it to the lack fo support from France, Germany and Belgium.

Speaking of democracy, who got the most votes in the last Presidential Election?

[JonathanLB]

Bush did. Only electoral votes count, the rest determines electoral votes. So the answer to your question is Bush, because in our system of democracy, that's all that counts for beans.

[jjwr]

$1.59 last I knew up here in Vermont, not exactly a big city but it did go up about $0.13 a gallon since last week.

[Sanis Prent]

D23, Don't bring up your state's arithmetic ineptitude, please. Die Horse ist dead, Herr Doktor.

[Jedi Master Carr]

D23, It is the truth the difference is in lot of the middle east countries 90% of the people can't read and have no education. And you can't have democracy with only 10% voting because that is not a democracy. Lack of education is the reason why Europe was dominated by monarchies until the 19th century, once the people began to get educated that is when things started to change. With the Middle East it will take decades perhapes a century or two for this to change, the problem there is the a lot of poverty and I don't see that changing when most of these nations are dominated by one resource oil.

[Darth Viscera]

Carr, please don't lie about the literacy rate of the middle eastern populace. The idea that only 10% of the population is literate could only come from the realm of fantasy. Here are the figures of total population (male and female), going from least literate to most literate:

Afghanistan-36%
Yemen-38%
Pakistan-42.7%
Iraq-58%
Syria-70.8%
Iran-72.1%
Saudi Arabia-78%
Kuwait-78.6%
Qatar-79%
United Arab Emirates-79.2%
Oman-80%
Jordan-86.6%
Israel-95%

United States-97% (for comparison)

[Sanis Prent]

I'd be interested in seeing a Marshall-esque type of policy enacted in post-war Iraq. Fix it up prettier than it was when we came in. I think that would really be a worthwhile investment.

Rmiao, I talked to Dr. Temini, and he's getting me some industry elasticity figures, and other bits of info to help me out. I'll post about it when I get it all collected. Right now, however, I need to study for his exam, so don't hold your breath.

[Rmiao]

Alright, I'd like to see the figures but like I said earlier, you're operating from a micro point of view which has pretty rigid definitions. You're not going to find opec producing at mr=mc and pricing that quantity onto the demand curve. It's just not realistic. It's a little bit like people saying the US is not a democracy since we don't follow the pure definition of democracy. This is true, but there is no need to qualify it each time we're talking about democracy.

[JMK]

Just curious Viscera, but what was your source for that data?

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah I can't beleive that Afgahanstan and Yemen are that high??? First off in most of those countries women have no rights and aren't allowed to be educated, I know in Afghanastan, Pakistan and Yemen that is the case so they wouldn't be allowed to read. Also that is still extremely low in Western Countries the average is 99%, the U.S is on the low end. Also one other thing I forgot about in some of the countries boys are taught at religious schools so their beliefs are going to be extremely radical, so they wouldn't believe in a democracy anyway.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Yeah I can't beleive that Afgahanstan and Yemen are that high??? First off in most of those countries women have no rights and aren't allowed to be educated, I know in Afghanastan, Pakistan and Yemen that is the case so they wouldn't be allowed to read. Also that is still extremely low in Western Countries the average is 99%, the U.S is on the low end. Also one other thing I forgot about in some of the countries boys are taught at religious schools so their beliefs are going to be extremely radical, so they wouldn't believe in a democracy anyway.

CIA - The World Factbook 2002 (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/)

Read em and weep :D

[Admiral Lebron]

Thats one of the best internet resources ever. I can't wait for 2k3...

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I admit I was wrong I was exagerating with the 10 % anyway I was thinking around 30%, Yemen is at 30 so I was right at one of them, still that is very low and I also bet that the only book most of them can read is the Korean, at least in the poorer countries like Pakistan and Yemen.

[Cirrsseeto Quez]

What's the Korean about? ;)

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I also bet that the only book most of them can read is the Korean, at least in the poorer countries like Pakistan and Yemen.

That must be quite an accomplishment, to make absolutely sure that you can only read one book. How does one go about doing that? Selective eyesight? What would happen if one were to sneakily slip the cover of the Qur'an onto an arabic translation of The Best of Martha Stewart Living: Weddings?

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well in some of these countries Yemen I doubt people could afford to buy another book plus their aren't too many libaries in these countries, besides most people are more interesting in eating than reading as well. My point is that most people are uneducated or in poverty in the majority of these Middle east states (Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and several others) sure there are exceptions but in most cases democracy won't work because of poverty and a very low level of education.

[Darth Viscera]

You know, when our own country started out, the literacy rate was very low. In the 1790's, the government decided to change the way we speak English in order to make it easier for folks to learn. We changed "honour" to "honor" and removed other excess u's, etc-and here we are today, democracy intact and a high literacy rate. Don't you think that Yemen could do the same if given the chance?

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't think that was the reason people didn't read really the reason is wealth and time, the more money and more time you have the more you read. In countries like Yemen, most of the people are either poor or have to work twice as much as most of us here to live. So that it makes it difficult to read. Back in the 1790's in the U.S most Americans didn't have time to read as they had to work very hard, it really took a long time to get the literacy rate up to where it now, I think it has only got above 90% in the last 50 years. My point is the economic situation would have to change and I have no clue how to do that when some of these countries only resource is oil that makes it hard for Yemen and others.

[Jedieb]

Literacy rates may pose a significant problem in spreading democracy to many of these countries. But I think one that's just as important if not more is fundamentalism. Islamic fundamentalist aren't interested in democracy. Every dictatorial regime in the Middle East is supressing some form of fundamentalism. Take away the dictator in many of these coutries and you open the floodgates. Next thing you know you've got a civil war on your hands. I'll still never get over the subjugation of women in many Middle Eastern countries. Even in 'moderate' coutries like Saudi Arabia women are treated as second class citizens. Citizens who aren't allowed to drive, can't even ride in the front seat, have to eat in seperate sections of restaurants designated for women and children, and can be beaten in public for violating any of these customs. Then you've got those special Saudi traditions like public stonings. There are significant cultural and religous obstacles to democracy in many Middle Eastern countries and they are NOT going to be overcome by an invasion of Iraq.

[CMJ]

Democracy...rabid fundamintalism...bad idea. The fundamentalists would get ELECTED by the people and then how the heck could they be taken out? A Democracy(like the USA) would have a hard time making a case for toppling an elected leader.

You'd get an Osama Bin Laden type elected in many of those countries. This is bad news.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by CMJ
Democracy...rabid fundamintalism...bad idea. The fundamentalists would get ELECTED by the people and then how the heck could they be taken out? A Democracy(like the USA) would have a hard time making a case for toppling an elected leader.

You'd get an Osama Bin Laden type elected in many of those countries. This is bad news.

No, 90% of the time they wouldn't get elected. That's a common stereotype, that middle easterners are all in support of the muslim fundamentalists who keep them down. It's a very small cadre of loyal wackos who put the big wackos in power under the mask of Allahu Akbar, not even 10%. The Hezzbullah (army of God, which also serves as the special police) is quickly distributed AK-47s to keep the citizenry in line, and keep the leaders "popular".

@Jedieb

Point out to me one country that hasn't had to go through a civil war as part of its natural growth process. It's part of the process of making a nation.

[Jedieb]

So these aren't nations with established governments that we're talking about? Silly me. Is that what we're trying to do, build a nation? I'm sure the people in the Middle East are filled with joy at the prospect of the U.S. building Iraq's new government. The fall of Saddam is going to unleash forces that U.S. occupational forces and our government aren't going to be control for an extended period of time. This isn't going to decrease terroism and anti-American sentiment, it's going to increase it. We were aware of this at the end of the Gulf War. We could have deposed Saddam then but we didn't. Those reasons are still valid.

[Cirrsseeto Quez]

I'm sure the people in the Middle East are filled with joy at the prospect of the U.S. building Iraq's new government.

Ask the Shiite majority and Kurdish minority in Iraq. You might be suprised what answer you get, when the Republican guard aren't pointing AK-47's at them.

The reason we ceased in 91 wasn't due to that. It was that the parameters of victory, according to the coallition, had been met. We would've carried it further, and were prepared to do so. The Saudis and Kuwaitis were satisfied, however, and the leash was tightened. Lots of Kurds died because of this...something I am ashamed of. That's what happens when you play war by committee :mad

Even still...will such actions increase terrorism? Yes. No. Maybe. I don't know, and neither do you. Its the wrong question to ask. The right question to ask is whether we should continue to go about this with an ostrich's perspective, and keep sticking our head in the sand whenever there is a conflict such as this. Saddam's regime is wrong and evil. The time of apologists is over, and we've got to fix this problem.

[Jedieb]

I respectfully disagree. This isn't our problem to fix. If the administration can get the U.N. on board, then so be it. But there's a very good chance that France, China, or Russia will be able to block military action. The administration seems hellbent on pursuing an invasion,regardless of what certain members of the U.N. believe. If we can't convince our own allies of the necessity of the invasion then how can we possibly think that large portions of the Arab world would welcome our invasion of Iraq? If the invasion takes that course it will be a mistake IMO.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Point out to me one country that hasn't had to go through a civil war as part of its natural growth process. It's part of the process of making a nation.

Darth you just made my point here, we aren't doing a civil war, a civil war would be if the people of Iraq killed Saddam and elected a democratic government. What probably will happen is there will be a civil war after the US leaves Iraq and another dictatorship will be put in place. I just can't see democracy working this way, it takes time you can't just force democracy on people it doesn't work that way. Also I agree with CMJ in some of these countries, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, there would be a fundamentalist in power if there was an election. Algeria should be prime example there, their first election they elected a fundamentalist state, which was overthrown by the military (with our approval I might add) And Algeria is more moderate than Egypt and Saudi Arabia, why do you think Mubaric, has so much power? He knows what will happen if there was an election and that is why he has taken. It is no myth it is a fact, I have read several articles on it Newsweek, US News and World report, that at least 40-50% of these countries are fundamentalist and its mostly the ones who can read, I bet and they will be the ones voting. I am actually fine with military dictaorship in these countries, its better than the alternative.

[Cirrsseeto Quez]

That's a damn selfish paradigm, you've got.

The 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust weren't our problem either. I mean, Henry Ford hates Jews, so why should we do otherwise?

The 20 million gulag inmates in Stalinist USSR weren't either. Let the Commies kill each other, and God'll sort em out, right?

The nearly 2 million killed by the Khmer Rouge, hell lets not even worry ourselves. We protested for years so that we could let Indochina live in peace. It'll all sort itself out. Give peace a chance.

How bout that Taliban? Probably didn't even know their name until 2001, did you? I've kept tabs on them since they steamrolled Kabul in 1996 in old soviet tanks, lopping off heads and playing human buzkashi in a run-down soccer stadium. Glad we didn't get involved there, until they attacked us, woohoo.

If I'm proactive, and I think that proactive war is better than sitting on my butt and watching atrocities on a slow burn, sue me. Its a damned if you do and damned if you don't world, and to be honest, I'd rather that American soldiers put their butts on the line to keep the casualties small and acute, rather than hear about some foreign conflict on page 8 in my newspaper, where a few hundred thousand people I don't know about are slaughtered by some other people I don't know about. Not our business? What planet do you live on?

[Jedi Master Carr]

I believed that once, but after Bosnia I see things different. Nothing changed over there they still hate each other and eventually will start killing each other again. You can't make people start hating each other. Also under you suggestion why aren't we in the Congo, or the Sudan, in both countries they are more attrocities being commented than in Iraq, or how about China they have killed 100x more people than Saddam has. That is the problem, IMO because you can't think the entire world's problems and if you try to fix just a few you are being very hyprocritical.

[Cirrsseeto Quez]

Or just trying to take care of what you can, without spreading yourself too thin. I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of these types of problems around the globe. Which ones are we in a better position to effect currently. Which ones represent a more glaring threat, not just to ourselves, but to those indigenous to the areas. Where are the bad track records.

These are the reasons why we're now looking to Iraq. After this, who knows? Personally, I'd like to tighten the Israeli leash a good bit. I am very disapproving of their tactics in Palestine.

[Jedieb]

Carr echoes my sentiments. Iraq isn't the only place on the planet where the government in power is brutalizing its citizens. I agree with your rational of a glaring threat, but I simply don't Iraq as that. The Taliban were so I supported action there, but I don't in Iraq. Many countries in the UN feel the same way. I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me that Iraq poses enough of a threat that it has to be invaded. Especially without the approval of the U.N. Who's next then, N. Korea? A peace keeping mission backed by the U.N. in an agreed upon trouble spot is one thing, but an invasion in which we've abandoned the international community and launched an invasion with only a few key allies is a mistake.

[Cirrsseeto Quez]

How about making the UN relevant, and taking action when one of its mandates is deliberately broken? I don't understand how any other member nations could not support action, based on Dr. Blix and Dr ElBaradei (sp)'s statements. They are noncompliant, and in material breach. Its not something that America told Iraq to do. Its something the whole damn UN told Iraq to do. They're not doing it. Everybody's got such a spare the rod, spoil the child mentality that they're willing to play a foreign policy of "Last Chance ^n", where n is an integer between 1 and infinity. The only nation that hasn't cited Iraq as in violation is Syria, which is a declaration to be taken with a grain of salt, or maybe a few million. So if they all acknowledge it, and if Resolution 1441 was enacted as a last chance....what the hell is everybody waiting for? It is seriously an issue that the United Nations are teetering on the verge of irrelevancy. Whatever resolve they may have had in november...they have lost it. How's that for a last chance?

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't think Iraq is the worst threat, I think its North Korea. North Korea has nukes and now they can launch one that can hit the western part of the U.S I have to say that is a huge threat. We are also dealing with a starving country when you have that there are a lot of possibilites. I don't think we should go to war with them, but we should be doing more than we are now because right now we are doing nothing, and it just makes the situation worse. I am also very concerended about India and Pakistan those two groups have hated each other for over 1000 years and they could one day go to war, and if that happens I say it is very possible nukes will be involved. And it doesn't seem we are doing anything there either. I think we should pursue those two areas of the world first because at the moment they are the ones that threaten their neighbors the most.

[Sanis Prent]

The North Korean issue is relatively new to the queue. They've been relatively quiet for 50-some odd years, and its only recently that the cat's come out of the bag about their moratorium violation. The Iraq issue, to contrast, is 12 years old. Kim Jong Il is a bastard, but he doesn't exactly have the "crazy bastard that uses weapons of mass destruction" like Saddam does. We're acting on it nevertheless, but once again through that famous "UN Due Process" that every left-wing bandwagon jumper is touting. Funny. People expect quick action in one place, and want more time in another place. No hipocrisy here. None at all.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't think we should go to war, I think we need to send diplomats now, I think the issue is worse because they have nukes and there are some possibilities. Most likely once they get enough 10 or so, they will start selling them to who ever wants them. Second if their situation gets worse they could do some more vile like start a war with South Korea, now right now that is unlikely but if they are pressured by their people or what every it could happen. Right now I rank them as the third most likely country to launch a nuke, I still rank India and Pakistan above them because of their unique situation.

[Darth Viscera]

Iraq is in the position of attacking us right now! They have God knows how many suicide bombers' families on their payroll, which means likely cells in the U.S. (just today 6 Iraqis were caught sneaking into the U.S. from Tiajuana), add chem/bio weapons to the mix, which we know they have, and letting Saddam be is a disaster waiting to happen. Make no mistake, Iraq is an entire oil-producing nation that's driven as a terrorist state. Saddam himself is THE terrorist, with the resources and capacity for death and destruction against a relatively unprepared populace (you, me, everyone in the western world) that goes far, far beyond anything that Usama Bin Laden could do. 4 guys with Iraqi flag patches sewn to their shirts and AK-47s could walk into a cinema, stand at each corner and spray nerve agents out of aerosol cans. Iraq is most definitely (!!!) a threat.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah but he doesn't have nukes like North Korea, also I don't beleive this sucide bombing stuff, maybe from Al-Quida, sure that is possible but I don't see it from Iraq, I am sure he would have tried it before. And I have to agree he has Chemical and Biological weapons, but so does Lybia, Syria, North Korea and China, and I don't see us attacking those nations.

[Sanis Prent]

Maybe because their leaders don't have TRACK RECORDS OF USING THESE THINGS, not to mention track records of blatantly disregarding every edict put on them in over a decade. How many times does it need to be said?

[Jedi Master Carr]

Lybia and China have both used them. With Lybia its been a while but still I would never ignore Gadaffi. China has used them on their own people, there are reports on this but they have been ignored for various reasons. China has commited more human rights violations than Iraq, Syria, Lybia, and North Korea combined brobably twice over.

[Sanis Prent]

Please find documentation of Libyan and Chinese use of chemical agents against massed civilian populations, please. Thanks.

[Sanis Prent]

Furthermore, what has Ghadaffi done since we put a Tomahawk in his family mansion, back in the 80's? Jack squat. That's deterrence right there.

[Jedi Master Carr]

About Ghadffi, I said that was in the past, and about China well I can't cite a site offhand, I read it back in college in U.S News and World Report, Amenisty(sp) International reported that they were using chemical weapons on villages mostly in the eastern regions. I think free tibet has said they have used them against the Tibetnesse people. So do you think China hasn't then? China has done so many bad things it makes Saddam look a boy scout they have killed millions of people that is a fact. Jedieb in a thread months ago posted some numbers that told that tale. I would put nothing past them they have done a lot of bad things similar to what Stalinist Russia did in the 30-50's. Their leaders are ruthless and they are willing to kill their own people. The only reasons we haven't done anything to this point is one, if we went to war it would mean Armagadeon at this point. Two both this administration and the last adminstration don't want to stand up to them because they are afraid of losing trade relations to them. So this attack isn't just against the Republicans, the democrats are just as much at fault.

[Sanis Prent]

I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with the fact that we're using other means to curb their Maoist tendencies. Economic prosperity is a mighty big carrot to dangle, and China has been nibbling. Yeah, they're not boyscouts right now, but they are actually working on cooperating in that respect. That is the difference. Cooperation. Russia has gazillions and gazillions of weapons of mass destruction. We're not attacking them (or France), because they're either competent in their responsibility, or are working towards that end. That's why Iraq and Korea are in the news. Not because they have these weapons, but because they're unhinged in the head, and there is little chance in getting them to amend this behavior.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well thats true, but I wouldn't trust China they still worry me in some ways, and their human rights violations are horrible, I wish we would at least make a stand against them.

[Sanis Prent]

Its slow progress, but progress is being made. China wants market share pretty badly. They're willing to make concessions in this regard. I don't trust China very much, but I also don't trust France or Russia either. France is a "legitimate" regime that participated in illegal nuclear testing, and Russia is paying for its homeless's vodka needs by sending surplus military goods into Manchuria, which is quickly becoming the biggest army flea market of the world. 8 billion dollars in arms sales a year, according to a 1998 estimate. But, at least they have nice, smiling diplomats.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah Russia isn't really trustworthy either, France well I don't worry about them, I don't like their nuclear program though.

[Darth Viscera]

Why don't you worry about France? You worry about China, which buys much of its weapons from France.

[Sanis Prent]

The French are just contrary, on a global scale. I can't understand how they do it. Its like they put a Reaperfett clone in every position of state affairs or something.

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL, I won't say anything about that.

[Sanis Prent]

Yeah, notice how the thread gets REALLY quiet after I say that :)

Must be true :lol

[Jedi Master Carr]

:lol nobody wants to touch it, even Reaper

[Sanis Prent]

Oh he admits its true. I have talked to him about it.