Kat & Ken have the economics down pat on this one.  To invade Iraq in order
to control their petroleum resources is spending a dollar to save a dime.
The "war for oil" argument was raised by the far-left in '90-91.  Did it
turn out to be true then?  Hardly.  With a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit, a
"quick war" for any resource is hardly in our interest.  The only way that
it could help the nation's finances is if we went to a wartime economy,
putting our industrial might into high gear.  That's not likely to happen
with the low-intensity conflicts we're probably going to be involved with in
the near future

The war IS about terrorism, and is as much of a psychological operation as
it is a tactical operation.  It's dangerously naive to assume that Saddaam
and his ilk will just destroy their WMDs and treat their people humanely
simply because of diplomatic pressure.  These folks are not likely to be
impressed by individuals sitting around a campfire holding hands and singing
"We Shall Overcome".  The spilt blood of others brings them power--a heady
aphrodisiac in any culture, but especially so in societies not inculcated
with a couple centuries of Jeffersonian Democracy.

Regards Afghanistan, don't you find it refreshing that a full third of the
Afghan women have stopped wearing the burkha?  That there are actually
traffic jams in Kabul?  That there is new construction--commercial and
residential--all over Kabul?  With a liberated Iraq, it wouldn't take very
long to see the phoenix of Baghdad.  Plus, WITH the nation's rich oil
reserves, the people would actually have the resources to pay for
infrastructure (instead of plowing all of the "Oil for Food" money into
Saddaam's palaces).  We would not need to use our own dollars for a
Marshall/MacArthur rebuild.

As regards the administration's efforts to protect the oil fields, there's
enough oil in the substrate to burn for a very, very long time before the
reserve would be seriously depleted.  The concern is the difficulty in
stopping the fires.  It took many weeks of very dangerous work by US
contractors to stop the '91 fires.  I know one of the engineers who helped
cap the fires a decade ago.  Even though they are paid handsomely for this
work, he feels (as most do) that no amount of money is truly worth the
personal risk involved.

-Kyle



-----Original Message-----
From: Magenta Raine [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 12:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Iraq


Kat, I'm trying to locate a very good point by point letter my cousin in
Ohio
and her husband have written. It certainly would be profitable to *control*
the oil in Iraq.  Why do you think this administration is so eager to
"protect" the Iraqi oil fields?  To prevent Saddam from burning them so that
we can't control them. This is what I have to conclude logically for myself
after reading and listening to much rhetoric on either side of the war
question.

I do not believe it was our original quest to free the Iraqi people. The
administration is only saying that now to make this a more "noble" war.
This
is beside the point. Originally this war was supposedly about terrorists.

As to the statement that the terrorists are going to strike any way we roll
the dice, I'd bet on that myself, so why bring it to a heed? Why make things
worse? Why further victimize the poor people of Iraq?
We already bombed the shit out of Afghanistan, we didn't get bin Laden.
Saddam has underground bunkers that were built to withstand any bombing, we
will not kill him with a bomb ... we'd have far more chance with a sniper
shooting him when he's coming out of the bunkers.

Love,
Mag


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am now available to do editing, writing, reporting, designing jobs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please take time to notice if there are curb ramps in your City. If there
aren't consistently, please call your City's ADA coordinator to request that
ramps be installed. Thank you.