Whistle Blowers

[slothrop]

Do you seriosuly think that Iraq would go the western capitolist way that Russia went? Give me a break. The next step for Iraq was for Uday and Qusay to run a joint reign of terror that made Saddam's reign look like a re-run of the teletubbies.

 

No. Not right away. It took the USSR 40 years. And I'd rather have Iraqis do the dirty work than our troops.

[slothrop]

I think he has changed his view in order to more align himself with his base. Why does it take 4 years to clarify your position?!? He voted for the war and then he said that there was absolutely no reason why we should have ever gone to war with Iraq. Figure that one out ace.

 

Well, gee, a lot can happen in four years. When you refer to Kerry's base, I think you're talking about Americans. The president is supposed to listen to our views, because he's a public servant.

 

Kerry said he saw no reason to go to war "under the current circumstances":

 

He asked Kerry whether "there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq, any?" Kerry said: "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see."

 

Kerry is willing to change his mind if circumstances dictate. I think we can agree on that. He did not say he would never go to war. If Saddam actually threatened the US, then I believe Kerry would have acted.

[scott_harpell]

He asked Kerry whether "there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq, any?" Kerry said: "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see."

[Jim]

I think this is the first time I've seen a president not run on his record of accomplishments but rather concentrate on what the other guy would do. Usually the incumbent will tout his record for the past four years. The vacant record is why there is such a concentration on the mud. Kerry is doing what all challengers do - poke holes in the current policy and say what he would do different. Which is easy in this case.

[JayB]

I don't really get your argument. First, you say no one wants to invade Iran, then you belittle diplomacy as a method of effecting change in Iran. So which is it? It sounds like you're just belittling Europe because it's fashionable--hardly a noble or effective approach to international relations, but one that our current administration seems to favor.

 

Or are you trying to imply that merely the threat of force is necessary? Wouldn't having our forces committed elsewhere substantially reduce the potency of our threat projection capability? No one's going to believe us if we go to rattle our saber and it's already drawn against someone else.

 

I'm talking about negotiations set against the backdrop of massive air and missile strikes against any and all suspected negotiations if they refuse to compromise. None of the forces necessary to mount such strikes are occupied

 

In order for negotiations to be effective, they have to occur in an environment where there is an incentive to participate in a meaningful fashion. The EU is categorically against bringing any such measures into the discussion, so the Mullahs, like the Serbs before them and the Sudanese government in the present, will continue to shrug them off, as they have absolutely nothing to lose by doing so.

 

But back to Iraq - none of the forces required to bring force into the equation - fighters, bombers, subs, missile frigates, etc - are extended to such an extent that they couldn't be brought to bear against Iran.

[JayB]

Did the Soviet Union fall because of a military invasion? Do ya think maybe there were some economic, diplomatic, and social factors that led to its collapse? Years of non-violent pressure from the US and it's allies, maybe?

 

An economic incentive system that lacked any mechanism for coordinating supply and demand in a manner required for any economy to work, built atop an incentive system that was fundamentally at odds with human nature.

 

Attempting to compete with market economies in the realm of production and innovation baccelerated the collapse - but that would have happened under any circumstances.

[Jim]

This discussion of force, and the threat of force, sounds much like the current Rumsfield Doctrine of forcefully pushing our adgenda where we want to see change, and don't perceive it as happening quick enough to suit our needs.

 

The first muscle test of this doctrine was in Iraq. The concept was conceived entirely by chicken hawks - civilians with no military background - against the expressed concern of the top military brass. In the short term it has been an unqualified failure. In the long term we may be able to pull out of the nosedive via implementation of adjustments that should have been part of a more comprehensive approach.

 

JayB is right on one point, that some realistic big stick can move negoiations in the proper direction. However, without some discretion and diplomatic savvy, we're going to end up spreading ourselves thin, paying for all this by ourselves, and getting much of the world pissed off at our belligerent behavior.

[JayB]

In my opinion, the unfortunate truth is that the only thing that will galvanize world opinion enough to take action to prevent the use and continued posession of WMD by a regime like those running the show in Iran and North Korea is witnessing the use of one of the said weapons against a civilian population, either by the regimes themselves or terrorists armed by them. This is one case where historians will look back and witness a farce preceeding a tragedy.

[chucK]

" Unfortunately, much of the shaky claims about how Iraqis would welcome us with flowers in the street went completely unchallenged. The Iraqi émigré, Chalabi, who helped the administration sell this fantasy, now turns out to be an Iranian intelligence agent. It appears that the Iranians were feeding the Bush administration whatever they needed to get the Americans to take out their mortal enemy, the Iraqis, and help Iran gain a Shiite client state next door. To allow America and its military to become the tools of another country, especially Iran is incredibly embarrassing, not to mention impeachable stupidity. "

[chucK]

Looks like Iran's in the drivers seat now!

 

"Questioned about a possible UN embargo on Tehran's oil exports, the former parliamentary speaker said: "The big loser will be them, not us.

 

"If an oil embargo is slapped on Iran, the price of oil will exceed $100 per barrel, with a potential to paralyze the West's economy." World oil prices are currently around $50 a barrel."

 

link

[scott_harpell]

Wow. we might have to walk to work, get thinner, pay less, build a mass transportation system and all the while iran doesn't get a cent? Sounds ace to me lads. I wouldn't mind having to spend the money on mass transit instead of the 200 million barrels a day. Bring it on camel jockeys.

[Stefan]

Mass transit only works in larger population centers.

 

Mass transit does not work well for the U.S. in agricultural areas becuase the spread of people. Food distribution in the U.S. would be severly damaged...but then again people might modify.

[scott_harpell]

Yeah! People might starve off those extra couplea 100's of pounds they are carting off. I would like to see mass transit from Everwet to Tacoma aw hell lets make it Olympia. Why not? If you aren't gonna fix the roads might as well do something about it. If you want to reduce your dependancy on foreign oil and protect AWNR instead of flapping your gums, pony up the greenbacks bitches!

[jjd]

"If an oil embargo is slapped on Iran, the price of oil will exceed $100 per barrel, with a potential to paralyze the West's economy." World oil prices are currently around $50 a barrel."

 

Riiiiiiggggghhhhhtttt...

A country that supplies ~5% of the world's oil supply is going to somehow cause the price of oil to DOUBLE.

[scott_harpell]

O-P-E-C

[jjd]

O-P-E-C

 

What are you trying to say?

[scott_harpell]

Well, not only is Iran highly influential in OPEC (which is projected to have; what 36+% of the global supply in 2005?) but it is also the 2nd largest producer at 3 or 4 million barrels a day. I would think this could have some economic rammifications for us if they did indeed decide to block us from receiving their oil. Conveivably, they could also use their power to keep other OPEC nations from selling to us. This is more theoretical but I would not be saying "who the fuck cares" about it.

[murraysovereign]

But Iran needs the income from petroleum sales as badly as the West needs the oil, so the likelihood of them turning off the tap is pretty remote.

[jjd]

Well, not only is Iran highly influential in OPEC (which is projected to have; what 36+% of the global supply in 2005?) but it is also the 2nd largest producer at 3 or 4 million barrels a day. I would think this could have some economic rammifications for us if they did indeed decide to block us from receiving their oil. Conveivably, they could also use their power to keep other OPEC nations from selling to us. This is more theoretical but I would not be saying "who the fuck cares" about it.

 

Iran is approximately 13-14% of OPEC output and they are the second largest pruducer in the bunch. However, the other major producers in OPEC will not have an incentive for prices to rise to $100/barrel. In Kuwait, ~47% of GDP comes from the oil sector; in Saudi Arabia, it's 33%; in the UAE, it's 28%. Also, Libya is normalizing trade relations with the U.S., Indonesia is a partner in the "war on terror", and Qatar is friendly to the U.S. That leaves Venezuela, which is planning on building up its armed forces and will need oil revenues from their state-run enterprises; and Nigeria, where about 10% of GDP comes from oil. OPEC does not have the power it once had. 41% of supply is significant, but it doesn't give them the same market power it did 30 years ago.

 

Obviously, if Iran "goes offline," there will be a spike in prices. However, it will not be anywhere on the order of doubling.

[JayB]

. I would think this could have some economic rammifications for us if they did indeed decide to block us from receiving their oil.

 

Once any commodity is sold it becomes available to the buyer who makes the highest bid. Period.

 

Once supertanker leave the dock in Iran the Iranians really have no control whatsoever over who eventually owns it. They sell it to buyer A, who sells it to buyer B, etc, etc, and eventually it ends up in the hands of the highest bidder.

 

The odds of the Iranians shutting off the taps when the price of oil is at a 20 year high are especially remote, and the rest of OPEC remembers very well what happened after the last embargo, when a combination of reduced demand as a result of an oil-shock induced slowdown in economic activity, increased energy efficiency, and a spike in supply brought on by a surge in exploration and development combined to make the price of oil implode. Anyone who thinks that the rest of the Middle East is going to sign on for that again, especially for the sake of a country ruled by mullah's practicing a brand of Islam that they hold in disregard, if not contempt, is remote indeed. Plus there's the fact that Iran's population is not especially fond of their leaders, none of whom are anxious to stoke the fires of popular unrest by making the economic situation in their country any worse than it already is.

[chucK]

You guys are missing the point. It's not that we are worried about losing Iranian oil.

 

I think the quote was to the effect of the Iranians are not at all worried about the UN putting an embargo on their oil. That is, there is really no stopping them from pursuing their nuclear ambitions, because they are not afraid of possible ramifications now that the US is bogged down in the Iraq War. Ironically the war that removed their previous enemy.

[scott_harpell]

It reeks of bluff. Oil is their country's blood. Without it they are nothing. Oil accounts for 85-90% of their exports. I don't think nuts and fruit are going to take up that economic vacuum.

[JayB]

You guys are missing the point. It's not that we are worried about losing Iranian oil.

 

I think the quote was to the effect of the Iranians are not at all worried about the UN putting an embargo on their oil. That is, there is really no stopping them from pursuing their nuclear ambitions, because they are not afraid of possible ramifications now that the US is bogged down in the Iraq War. Ironically the war that removed their previous enemy.

 

Only a small fraction of the offensive assets that we would actually use against Iran in this situation are engaged in Iraq, so this is a puzzling conjecture. By this logic, if we removed all of our troops from Iraq and brought them home, the Iranians would feel threatened by our millitary capabilities in ways that they currently are not. What is incredible is the notion that ground forces would be the first thing that the US would deploy against nuclear installations when we have cruise missiles, precision guided bombs designed specifically to destroy hardened targets, etc that are a better match for this set of objectives.

 

If you were to argue that diplomatic rifts with Europe have made it more difficult to apply pressure on the Iranians, this would be a more reasonable statement, but there has never, ever been any determination on Europe's part to do anything other than occaisionally scold them in public while continuing to do business with them in private, so the odds that Europe would help us strongarm Iran into compliance even if we hadn't invaded Iraq are slim indeed.

 

Like it or not, the only thing that is going to slow the Iranian nuclear program down is precision strikes, a la' Isreal's strikes against the Osirak complex. Would you support such a move as a last resort after conventional diplomacy failed? If not, then your criticism of the Iraq War on the grounds you cited above ring rather hollow.

[chucK]

I think we're way less likely to be doing any more adventuring given what's happening to our people over in Iraq right now. We hold less leverage. You are right that I would probably shrink at the possibility of bombing another country for little reason, but if many other avenues failed, and Iran was still flipping off the world about developing nuclear weapons, I would probably support air/cruise missle strikes. Not with the current situation though. I think we've got our hands full. I don't think we need to make it any harder on our men and women in Iraq than it already is.

 

On the other hand, this noted mideast scholar guy seems to think that Bush will probably do what you say. Just what we need, a third front! I guess at least we may actually be doing something about actual WMD's!

 

"If Bush is reelected, it is clear that he will continue to attack his hit list, which is pre-announced. He will strike at Iran. His infantry and armor are tied down in Iraq. But he could mount a naval blockade of Iran, and he could strike it from the air. He could also intrigue with impatient junior officers in Tehran in hopes of making a coup. It would probably fail. But Bush will be tempted to try."