Asymmetrical Information

Yup, oil isn't an issue at all. Which explains our intense crackdown on the Saudi regime and our similar response to North Korea's nuclear overtures.

Oh, wait...

To say that the war is not "about" oil does not mean that access to oil cannot be used as a weapon against us or that it isn't a major issue in the cost/benefit analysis of how to bring down an enemy. While I would favor a harder line on Saudi Arabia, to lack hypocrisy in our prioritization of targets (ie go straight for Riyadh and the sources of terrorist funding) would be a very expensive luxury here, both in terms of lives lost, economic losses to the West and international isolation (Europe imports relatively more from Saudi than we do).

Similarly, whether an enemy can deploy WMD's against us or our allies - particularly citizens - is also a major consideration, hence the reluctance to engage North Korea.

It's the idea that the goal of the war with iraq is to control their oil fields that is totally silly.

The methods of conflict take oil and other serious factors into consideration, but the goals of the conflict are far removed. "All about" and "an issue" have distinct meanings, hence the intended irony of "oil isn't an issue at all" is off the point.

Iraq doesn't have crap to do with terrorism, if Pollack's to be believed. Saddam can send the world spiraling into another great depression if he gets fancy with the Saudi oil fields, though; so it *is* about oil, just not in the greed-driven way everyone thinks.

If the U.S. were to start a war solely for oil it would make more sense to invade Canada. It's conveniently located and not a hard target.

Oil has very little value until someone buys it. Oil is much easier to buy than to steal. OPEC needs the U.S. both to buy their oil and to sell them everything but oil.

Well duh, it's not about oil, you need to read the protest signs better. It is, if I'm not mistaken, about "oiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil". I'm not sure whether that's the same thing or something different than "oil" (perhaps it's some sort of byproduct). Apparently it's very valuable. I think, if I'm not mistaken, that the Red Cross has been running some sort of blood for oiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil import / export trade. Some people don't like that because they're bypassing tarrifs or some such, I don't really know, protest signs are usually really short on facts and details.

"Why Iraq and not Saudi Arabia and North Korea"?

I do get tired of this, Why not Shining Path? The Sudan? Zimbabwe? Liberia? Lebanon?

How many people have pointed out that Saudi Arabia is backing off their previous "we will not help" stance and their "we do not recognize that US children have been kidnapped" stance? Look at a map, Saudi Arabia has.

North Korea? Well, South Korea may have doubts about us, but if NK tries anything unfunny, SK can whomp 'em - except for those nukes. As to the nukes, China is starting to make noise about them, too. And even the "I am God" leader of the NK has backed off the threats already, and says NK will shut down if the US signs a non-agression pact - except still backwards, they insist we act first with a toothless "pact" before they do anything - and Bush is not going down that path again.

Oil is not blood surogate, North Korea is not Iraq. Our government must resolve each problem as it comes up and, gee whiz [I was going to say Miriblu dictu until I realized I had no idea what it means]different problems have different solutions. One minor difference, North Korea has several hundred guns and rockets within range of Seoul and the disregard for civilian casualties that would occur from an all out shelling.
One way in which North Korea and Iraq are quite similar is that our Democrats are their first line of defense.

So what if it IS about oil? So what? Since when is it required for a country to begger itself on general principles? I'm going to sit in the cold and dark so Saddam can live in one of his many palaces? That is so NOT going to happen.

I refuse to be hungry, cold, sick, so that some thug can live better than I do. I like my lifestyle and plan to enjoy it for many, many year.

NK is surrounded by (relatively) strong, (relatively) stable neighbors, none of whom (with the remotely possible exception of SK) are likely to be seriously intimidated by their behavior. Iraq is surrounded by weak, unstable regimes that are vulnerable to blackmail, conquest, etc. More to the point, eliminating Saddam and replacing his regime provides the US with an important lever for change (as well as some useful bases) in the region, which...like it or not...is one that is important to our own security. Eliminating Kim Jong-Il, while a wonderful act of political hygiene, gains us very little in the short term.

Waiting for Saddam to acquire a nuke (or the desire to use his existing WMD on his neighbors) is irresponsible at best, more likely simply foolish. Containment requires the presence of strong regional powers with a preexisting basis for containing the danger in question. In the case of NK, the preconditions are there, hence containment can be (reasonably) safely relied upon, at least for the time being. None of these preconditions are in place re: Iraq, hence the foolishness of relying upon it.

Hence, the basis for our differing policies re: Iraq vs NK.

And it's not about testing some cool new weapons that will fetch alot more after they have been battle tested, it's also not about taking the publics attention away from corporate scandal or politicians roll in it oh and just so you know I'm an equal opportunity finger pointer, the previous guy wasnt any better

Comments are Closed.