Nadar and the War

[svero]

>Because Fumento worded his rebuttal in a way slightly different
>than the way the "War for Oil" camp worded their objection
>does not mean Fumento was wrong.

No... This is not an objection about wording. This is an objection about a basic basic understanding of the ideas that are relevent to this discussion. To use an Analogy... in a debate over a virus between two camps of biologists, what Fumento has done is argued that virus X can't penetrate the cell wall because the cell wall is made of concrete, and then gone on to show examples from Alcatraz and other jails about cell walls.

>Forget all the other symantics around the issues.

Well regain was not a symantic issue, and I certainly could argue whether or not it's reasonable to say regain vs gain control of from history, but I just didn't want to get drawn down that path since it had little to do with my rebuttle.

>Can you agree that the "War for Oil" camp believes it is about
>control of the resources?

Maybe. You'd first have to explain what you mean when you say that because the statements that Fumento made that you agreed with and statements that you made seem to point out that you're not entirely sure what is meant by this. I suppose I could just try to state it succinctly, but in reality this is a pretty complex issue that doesn't lend itself to a "they hate our freedoms" catch phrase. But understand that we are talking about strategic control over an economic resource over the next 20-50 years, and not about the price at the pump next month.

>Then, can you see that Fumento is only arguing that we already
>have control of those resources now?

Not really... Certainly not in the sense that anyone who understands the issue discusses. I mean EVEN if one could agree that we in a sense have some measure of control over the resource of oil in the middle east, so what? At the end of the day the kind of control that Bush/Blair are interested in is something else entirely, and the whole point of the argument is whether they are willing to go to war, in part, for *that* goal. Not some other fanstasy consumer control goal. So even if Fumento is competely correct in his hypothetical scenario, it simply has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

>Now, if you want to argue that Fumento is wrong and we don't
>have control of those resources (by being the chief consumer),

But again... the point is.. was Nader correct in saying that bush/blair want to go to war, in large part, due to oil resources? It would be ridiculous to assume they do if they already had all the control they wanted, but the point is that they don't.

>we can argue that. But dismissing his argument as a strawman
>is false. You have picked a single point in a multi-point article to
>dismiss the whole argument.

I rebutted that point because it's the one you brought up, and then someone said there was no cognent rebuttle of it. The point was so poorly made that I had to respond. So in a sense I was asked to focus on that.

 

[RandFan]

I found this article quite interesting, bringing up some very good rebuttals to some of the anti-war arguments, mainly the "It's all about the oil!" argument.

http://www.fumento.com/military/nader.html

What really struck me was this idea:


It is so simple, but it is true! Eliminating the embargo would create a larger supply, bringing down the prices (as would the diminished fear of war.) So, if it was really just about oil, we would be better off letting Sadaam do whatever he likes and just buy his oil.

Oddly, I have never heard this rebuttal before...

You missed my thread Is Oil The Reail Reason For War With Iraq? I made that argument a month ago. Nader must be reading this forum.

The thread is up to 10 pages and from what I can tell, no one has yet punched a hole in that argument. That is not to say that there hasn't been some good arguments. There has but none of them address why if it realy is "all about the oil" bush wouldn't take the easier road.

 

[RandFan]

I must apologize to RandFan. I did not see his post about the same subject (not the same article, but the same questioning of "War for Oil".) After a quick scan of that thread, I don't know if any more can be said than what has already been said.

My apologies to Diezel. I did not see this post.

 

[svero]

Re: Re: Nadar and the War

You missed my thread Is Oil The Reail Reason For War With Iraq? I made that argument a month ago. Nader must be reading this forum.

The thread is up to 10 pages and from what I can tell, no one has yet punched a hole in that argument. That is not to say that there hasn't been some good arguments. There has but none of them address why if it realy is "all about the oil" bush wouldn't take the easier road.

It's very simple. Bush can't take the easier road because the easier road discussed in this argument fails to address Bush's desire. Or let me put it to you this way. "all about the oil" can be interpreted in many different ways. Fumento interprets it as meaning that the west wants a cheap and abundant supply of oil to consume. That is incorrect. When discussing Bush/Blair's motivations in terms of oil, you have to talk about who has strategic control over an important economic resource over the next 20-50 years. Will it be the french, germans, russians, chinese or will it be the english, the US, and it's allies? Lifting oil embargoes does not give the US strategic control, and so while it may be an easy to path to "something" it's not an easy path to the desired thing.

 

[a_unique_person]

Now, AUP argues that it is twist of logic to state that we control the oil market, because we are the biggest customer. This is no twist of logic at all. Come to Detroit and talk to a Tier I, Tier II and sometimes even Tier III auto supplier. They are controlled by the Big 3. Because they are so singular customer focused, they are sometimes at the mercy of that customer. So, yes, a dominant consumer can become a controlling factor.

And yes, they are producing oil now, but at 1/3 their pre-war capacity. With the lifting of the emargo would come spare parts and help to return them to their pre-war capacity of around 3.5 million gallons/day. Then the market would be flooded with a surplus, driving prices down.

Yes, it is kind of self-referential, but true. Eliminate the threat of war and you eliminate the fear. All indicators point to the fact that if we wanted cheaper gas prices, the best thing to do would be to leave Saddam alone and start doing business with him.

You also missed the point that the US has been ramping up it's imports of Iraqi oil.

As to control of the market, I am sure if the US could buy elsewhere, it would. The US is not about to show what a demanding customer it is by stopping the process of buying oil, or only buy it from, say, Angola instead. It cannot decide to drop it's demand for oil, and go solar instead.

There have been rumours for years of alternate oil suppliers. However, these are not in anything like the league of the current ones, because it is so much more expensive to do so, and the price could drop again even if prices do go high for a while.

 

[corplinx]

I guess when we are all driving hydrogen cars and President Jenna Bush is launching an invasion to liberate Saudi Arabia, everyone will be saying its so we can guarantee cheap oil for our dependence on plastic and vaseline.

 

[a_unique_person]

I guess when we are all driving hydrogen cars and President Jenna Bush is launching an invasion to liberate Saudi Arabia, everyone will be saying its so we can guarantee cheap oil for our dependence on plastic and vaseline.

The technology, and infrastructure to support it, is still years away. And, as has been pointed out already, all you lead foots out there aren't going to be too happy with the response of a hydrogen car.

 

[fsol]

The technology, and infrastructure to support it, is still years away. And, as has been pointed out already, all you lead foots out there aren't going to be too happy with the response of a hydrogen car.

Well that's not exactly right. The technology is here now and it works. It can be packaged into a family sized car. The infrastructure is another matter. It is something that will take time. There first has to be a consensus on the source of the hydrogen. The reason that hydrogen powered trucks and buses are used at the moment is that they can make use of a central refuelling point so the infrastructure doesn't matter.
The response of a hydrogen powered car can be as good as that of a petrol car if not better. This is because an electric motor has a flat torque curve. So you get maximum torque at all motor speeds. An I.C. engine however has a variable torque curve, so it takes time to before it can generate maximum torque and the response is slower.

As for using hybrids, the most likely package for a hydrogen vehicle will be as some type of fuel cell hybrid vehicle.

Sorry for wondering off on a bit of a tangent there but I thought it should be said.

 

[Diezel]

Again, I have been busy elsewhere, so I will try to answer svero and AUP in one post:

Svero, you say that Bush/Blair are after strategic control over oil resources for the next 20-50 years. AUP states that we can't/won't prove out power consumer status because of our dependence on oil. He also states that it will be 20 years before the infrastructure for hydrogen can be implemented (I think that is a little on the pessimistic side, but I will grant that as being close enough.) Bush has already thrown money behind hydrogen fuel cell technology.

So, why would you want to fight an expensive war over securing oil resources for the next 50 years, when you might not need that oil in 20 years? (or, only need a tiny, tiny fraction of said oil) Why not do business as usual, with all sanctions intact? Like AUP said, we have already ramped up our oil exports from Iraq as it is. For the last 13 years, we have been able to control Iraqi oil exports through sanctions, why not keep it that way? Things are relatively stable this way (the main reason we kept Saddam in power in the first place.) Why fight a war and disrupt the apple cart now, when we are only riding things out for the short term?

 

[svero]

>So, why would you want to fight an expensive war over
>securing oil resources for the next 50 years, when you might
>not need that oil in 20 years? (or, only need a tiny, tiny fraction
>of said oil) Why not do business as usual, with all sanctions
>intact?

Well that's AUP's argument and I'm not really sure I agree, but it doesn't matter anyway. Here's what I do know...

1) Those people in the US govt and other govts who support war do so in part for control of oil resources. They've said that on many occasions plainly and clearly, and while it may not be a part of the every day rhetoric and propaganda used to gain support for war, if you look closely enough at US govt papers and books written by us officials etc... you can see that it's true. I don't think this is at all ambiguous.

2) Since they've said this unambiguously we can assume they don't believe that we won't need oil in 20 yrs.

3) Control of oil resources is not entirely about our need for oil. Suppose the US didn't use oil in 20yrs? Does that mean that other countries also won't use oil? It's like any valuable resource. If you control all the water everyone who's thirsty eventually has to make their way to you. That gives you negotiating power on other fronts which are completely unrelated to your use of the water.

Like Margeret Thatcher said in the quote above, it was important to stop Saddam from controlling 65% of the oil resources because he would be able to blackmail other countries. In other words someone with control over the oil has power to affect decisions made in other countries regardless whether or not they need that oil themselves.

>Like AUP said, we have already ramped up our oil exports from
>Iraq as it is. For the last 13 years, we have been able to control
>Iraqi oil exports through sanctions, why not keep it that way?

Because the kind of control you're talking about is a weak form of control. We may control some aspects of oil exports or how it's used but it's nothing like being able to cut off the chinese or squeez them politically for something else we want.

>Things are relatively stable this way (the main reason we kept
>Saddam in power in the first place.) Why fight a war and disrupt
>the apple cart now, when we are only riding things out for the
>short term?

Well that's your assertion. I don't think US foreign policy is about the short term. These are more general ideas about the proper positioning of the Country for the greatest benefit down the road. It's about where the US will be relative to china. Suppose the US takes no interest in the middle east and then 20 yrs from now most of the oil has to come from there and the french, germans, and chinese control all the supply. They could squeeze the US to remove tariffs on chinese imports and exert all sorts of pressure. US foreign policy is designed in part to position the US for the future and energy is a major factor. Even if we say that scientists will reduce the need for oil to 0 in 20 yrs, the only thing that really matters is what the US believes. If the US believed that oil wasn't important decisions would be made differently. So even if I or AUP or you think that in 20 yrs it won't matter, none of us are the one's making the decisions. Personally I believe oil will still be a very important energy resource in the world in 20 yrs. Perhaps much more so than today.

 

[Diezel]

Again, sorry I haven't gotten back to you and I haven't had the time to devote to this topic that I would like.

I'm not sure we are very far off in opinion here, but we differ in degree. You confirm this in your first point:

1) Those people in the US govt and other govts who support war do so in part for control of oil resources.

(emphasis mine)

You see, I have never said that oil wasn't a factor in the war. It is. Where we differ is how much a factor.

I'll put my position as clear as I can - if WMD and the threat to the region were not in the equation, we would not be going to war. The oil is a side factor and a bonus of the action.

My objection is to those that believe we are going to war for the sole purpose of the oil and only using WMD and the threat to the region as an excuse to do so.

Which side of that do you fall on?

 

[Trollbane]

The war for oil argument is valid.. After all the US buying oil directly would creat great wealth and at the moment Saddam doesnt really need the money for anything (Although I suspect that he would gladly exchange a few million barrels to one ICBM) and the risk is that some of the revenue might end up to "wrong" people aka. opposing fractions like the shias or kurds undermining his authority..

After all the first thing you learn in the evil dictator academy is to keep the populace poor, while it might create some revolting the starving, ill equipped people are far easier to tame.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Nadar and the War

It's very simple. Bush can't take the easier road because the easier road discussed in this argument fails to address Bush's desire. Or let me put it to you this way. "all about the oil" can be interpreted in many different ways. Fumento interprets it as meaning that the west wants a cheap and abundant supply of oil to consume. That is incorrect. When discussing Bush/Blair's motivations in terms of oil, you have to talk about who has strategic control over an important economic resource over the next 20-50 years. Will it be the french, germans, russians, chinese or will it be the english, the US, and it's allies? Lifting oil embargoes does not give the US strategic control, and so while it may be an easy to path to "something" it's not an easy path to the desired thing.

You presume that Bush is smart enough to think in the long term and that Bush is willing to sacrifice his political career for long term benefits. If he follows your plan Bush will not be around to reap the benefits.

Most importantly, lifting the embargo is a far safer thing than going to war. You are presuming that Bush is gambling short term gains for long term benefits that he can't possibly enjoy and he may not secure anyway.

Edited to tone down.

 

[svero]

I'll put my position as clear as I can - if WMD and the threat to the region were not in the equation, we would not be going to war. The oil is a side factor and a bonus of the action.

My objection is to those that believe we are going to war for the sole purpose of the oil and only using WMD and the threat to the region as an excuse to do so.

Which side of that do you fall on?

Well I wouldn't say that oil is the only reason, but I would say that disarming Iraq is not really the major concern they're playing it up to be. The two are kind of one in the same anyway. It's reasonable to say that Saddam, left to his vices, poses a certain threat to middle east stability. Saddam's Iraq is not friendly to the US. Strategically the US would be better off if he was gone. Two birds - one stone. Links between iraq and terrorists and things of that nature are mostly scare tactics. They know the threat posed by these sorts of things is worse in other areas of the world. While I don't think it's a driving motivation, I think the US govt is also pretty aware of the benefit this war has with regards to distracting the public from what has been a pretty poor record regarding domestic issues.

 

[svero]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Nadar and the War

You presume that Bush is smart enough to think in the long term and that Bush is willing to sacrifice his political career for long term benefits. If he follows your plan Bush will not be around to reap the benefits.

Most importantly, lifting the embargo is a far safer thing than going to war. You are presuming that Bush is gambling short term gains for long term benefits that he can't possibly enjoy and he may not secure anyway.

Edited to tone down.

I don't presume anything. I read papers like the document below amongst many other publications and try to formulate reasonable opinions that aren't entirely based on a few ra ra ra "they hate are freedoms" catch phrases I picked up on CNN.

- Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century -
http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/Pubs/workingpapers/cfrbipp_energy/energytf.htm

I think I made it very clear in my last post but I'll repeat it one last time in the hopes that you can understand. Lifting an embargo, while safe, does not achieve strategic US energy goals and is therefor not an answer.

It's like I tell you Bush is driving to New York, but the road is full of potholes and all uphill, and then you tell me, well why doesn't he take the brand new super-highway to Los Angeles? The answer is... while the road is nicer, that won't get him where he's going.

 

[Torlack]

I found this article quite interesting, bringing up some very good rebuttals to some of the anti-war arguments, mainly the "It's all about the oil!" argument.

http://www.fumento.com/military/nader.html

What really struck me was this idea:


It is so simple, but it is true! Eliminating the embargo would create a larger supply, bringing down the prices (as would the diminished fear of war.) So, if it was really just about oil, we would be better off letting Sadaam do whatever he likes and just buy his oil.

Oddly, I have never heard this rebuttal before...

I know nobody will believe me, but I have been saying this for a LONG time. Maybe just not on this board.

Even if Iraq doesn't sell directly to the U.S. the U.S. still gets cheaper oil prices since the gut would be global and not just local to Iraq.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nadar and the War

I don't presume anything. I read papers like the document below amongst many other publications and try to formulate reasonable opinions that aren't entirely based on a few ra ra ra "they hate are freedoms" catch phrases I picked up on CNN.

Well then, the argument does and it presumes alot.

- Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century -
http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/Pubs/workingpapers/cfrbipp_energy/energytf.htm

I think I made it very clear in my last post but I'll repeat it one last time in the hopes that you can understand. Lifting an embargo, while safe, does not achieve strategic US energy goals and is therefor not an answer.

Well thank you for your patience. It is so kind of you to repeat it and note my lack of understanding.

It's like I tell you Bush is driving to New York, but the road is full of potholes and all uphill, and then you tell me, well why doesn't he take the brand new super-highway to Los Angeles? The answer is... while the road is nicer, that won't get him where he's going.

I don't think your analogy adequately portrays my opinion.

In truth it's actually like I'm telling you, he doesn't have enough time to go to New York much less California. But perhaps he would like the car to get to New York eventually, If he did "just" want to go to New York then he could take the expressway. But there is a very important destination that is much closer that can't be reached by the expressway. He will have to take the road with the potholes to get there. Since his destination is on the way to New York why not see to it that the car arrives at both places even if he can only go to one of those destinations personally?

I think your argument has merit. I have admitted a month ago in my first thread that oil "is" a significant reason for this war. In light of that I can accept that Bush is taking into account the long term needs of the nation and has considered arguments like those laid out in the link you posted (I do assume he is smart enough).

Let's look at the original argument a little closer. "Bush is going to war because he has friends in the oil industry and he wants to make them rich".

I don't know if you subscribe to this view or not but it was the purpose of my original argument and it is the cynical motivating force behind many if not most of the protestors.

This argument simply does not make sense. If the motives for Bush were that simple then it would make much more sense to lower the embargo. Bush would be a world hero, the economy would improve and he would be re-elected.

I reject absolutely such an argument.

On the other hand I do think that there are a number of reasons for this war. Oil being just one of many. After 911 George Bush met with his advisors and they considered all threats. Iraq was honestly considered to be on top of the list of threats. It was also pointed out that Iraq had not complied with the resolutions and that it was a serious problem that had never been resolved. To underscore the need to address Iraq, oil was considered with all of the ramification discussed including many if not all of the arguments laid out in your link. Also the fact that Saddam tried to kill George H. W. Bush was taken into account and I accept that there were other reasons

In other words, Oil was not the single driving force for the war. I personally don't even think it was the major one. A real and healthy concern for terrorism and the importance of seeing Saddam comply with his obligations coupled with the nations energy needs was considered when making this decision.

...ra ra ra "they hate are freedoms" ...

I don't know of anyone that believes that the only motivation for terrorists is the fact that they hate our freedom. However, it is demonstrable that they do "hate" or freedom and that it is a very significant motivating force behind terrorism.

 

[Drooper]

I found this article quite interesting, bringing up some very good rebuttals to some of the anti-war arguments, mainly the "It's all about the oil!" argument.

http://www.fumento.com/military/nader.html

What really struck me was this idea:


It is so simple, but it is true! Eliminating the embargo would create a larger supply, bringing down the prices (as would the diminished fear of war.) So, if it was really just about oil, we would be better off letting Sadaam do whatever he likes and just buy his oil.

Oddly, I have never heard this rebuttal before...

I have said exactly that.

 

[svero]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nadar and the War

Well then, the argument does and it presumes alot.
I don't think your analogy adequately portrays my opinion.

IC.. well I thought we were discussing Fumento's idea. I think I demonstrated clearly why his argument was wrong in terms of discussing US decision making and a war with Iraq, and if I try to clarify any more I'd simply be repeating myself.

>I think your argument has merit. I have admitted a month ago in
>my first thread that oil "is" a significant reason for this war. In
>light of that I can accept that Bush is taking into account the
>long term needs of the nation and has considered arguments
>like those laid out in the link you posted (I do assume he is
>smart enough).

Well that's not just some random document. It was commissioned by Cheney to help the US govt decide on an energy policy for the future.

I'm tempted to respond directly to the rest of your points, but I think I'll just stick to Fumento's argument and why it's incorrect.

I will point out though, unless I'm really out to lunch here, and maybe you can enlighten me, that lifting embargoes does not make Bush's friends money. So far as I know they sell oil, and cheaper oil prices don't directly benefit them. What is of benefit is opening up Iraq to US foreign investment in the oil industry. But again, this is about the benefit of controlling oil supply and positioning the US strategically for the future. Not about making some buddies a few bucks, although it's likely they would stand to gain in the long run.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nadar and the War

I will point out though, unless I'm really out to lunch here, and maybe you can enlighten me, that lifting embargoes does not make Bush's friends money. So far as I know they sell oil, and cheaper oil prices don't directly benefit them. What is of benefit is opening up Iraq to US foreign investment in the oil industry. But again, this is about the benefit of controlling oil supply and positioning the US strategically for the future. Not about making some buddies a few bucks, although it's likely they would stand to gain in the long run.

Thanks for the response svero,

Yes we are probably arguing apples and oranges. Probably because the argument is similar to mine and my ego wants to think that someone significantly smarter and more enlightened would make the same argument.

My understanding is that most people think that the war is to make Bush and his friends rich. Bush will control the oil resources of Iraq and he and his buddies will get rich. The evidence is that Bush is from Texas and he has a background in oil as well as friends in the oil business. Cheney is with Halliburton and Rice also has oil contacts (never mind that most politicians have strong links to the oil industry).

My argument is only valid if you accept the following. Bush would have about as much control of Iraqi oil if he made a deal with Saddam. All of those lucrative French and German contracts could be re-written. The rebuilding that France and Germany are chomping at the bit to do would be transferred to Bush's friends and the floodgates of oil would be opened and everyone would get rich.

I of course don't ascribe to that view. But to those that do it is demonstrable that it doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny. The links that Bush has or the fact that he, cabinet members and his friends are in the oil industry are no more enriched by war as not. In fact, no war has less down sides than actually having a war.

And keep in mind that if Bush did make a deal to help Saddam he could make agreements to let Bush regulate oil and gas to control world prices. I can't imagine Saddam turning down such a deal.

The argument that Bush is starting a war to enrich him and his friends is completely specious.

On the other hand, the fact that Bush is interested in our long term energy needs coupled with a real desire to solve the very real problem that Saddam presents and other factors are the reason for the war.

"No war for oil" is simply misguided propaganda. A more accurate slogan would be "no war for long term security, economic stability and a secure energy policy"

But it makes for a bad sound bite.