Re: Hey Mr. Hyde!

From: Frank Kotler (fbkotler_at_comcast.net)
Date: 03/29/04 

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 20:22:59 GMT

Beth wrote:

[too much to respond to in full - as usual, I mostly agree with you, but
I think you've got some "significant" bits wrong :)]

> My detractors - as they have done since the very first time I've
> spoken on this subject - discount _any_ facts which gets in the way of
> the pre-determined conclusion that everything is fine,

I honestly don't see this. There's Annie, of course, but, Beth: Annie's
a *toon*!!!

> Paranoid?

Well, sometimes "oversensitive to criticism" perhaps.

> But what else explains a species-wide denial of a problem...

When I was in grade school (late 1950's), I was taught that the *reason*
it was important to get an education was that we were running out of
petroleum, and it was up to our generation to do something about it. We
probably haven't done as well as we should. But where you see "nothing
being done", I see photovoltaic panels being researched, manufactured
and sold - sometimes by oil companies! I see "hybrid" cars being sold by
major manufacturers. (not much of a "step in the right direction", but a
clear acknowledgement that things are going to have to change) I see
"wind farms" being debated (yuppies don't want 'em "in *my* backyard),
and sometimes built. Now, we've got a long way to go - where in hell are
those "monorails" they promised us? - but I'd hardly call it
"species-wide denial"! Your assumption that you're the only one who
"gets" this could almost come across as "arrogant". (not to me, of course :)

> ...but, instead, kids are taught things like:
> "power companies send electrons through a circuit at the speed of
> light, which is like a dumper truck unloading electrons into your
> appliances...why, we must be grateful to the kind power companies for
> being so nice as to loan us all of their lovely, perfect electrons!
> Praise be!"...

Where is this being taught?

> ...kick out the
> guy who's trying to deny selling you oil

Now here's a place I think you're way off track - and, no, I don't mean
that I think the invasion of Iraq was a good idea! AFAIK, Hussein would
have been perfectly willing to sell us oil. We, by way of "sanctions",
were refusing to *let* him sell it!

> - the "oil for food"
> blackmail depended on Saddam giving a crap about his people...

No, the "blackmail" was the sanctions - and you're right that they
didn't work because Saddam "didn't care". Or rather, cared more about
"national sovereignty and dignity" than about "his people". We'd do much
the same here, if someone insisted on coming into the White House and
looking under the beds.

> ...he was a genocidal murderer

It's interesting that even though we've mostly figured out that we were
being lied to about the weapons of mass destr?ction, we still mostly
believe this. Maybe it's true - I don't know the guy...

> ...yeah, he'd let a million die before giving in
> to become a reliable oil supplier to American interests

That was *not* the problem! He let a million people die (if you believe
it), rather than pay reparations to the Kuwaitis (and return some
"POW's", I think, and some "stolen property"), destroy certain
prohibited weapons (which he apparently *did* destroy - he *did* have
some at that time - mostly missles that could reach Israel, rather than
"poison gas" - but didn't "document" it properly), and let inspectors
(spies) look under his bed to make sure he complied.

That's what the sanctions were slapped on for, not for refusing to sell
us oil. Now, you'll observe (if you're observant) that Saddam *did* in
fact do these things - eventually. About the time that we invaded, we
*should* have been lifting the sanctions - threatening to slap 'em back
on if he didn't continue cooperating... but they didn't consult me :)

> ...when the invasion was over, they made sure that the Iraqi
> oil wells were back up to _double_ the pre-invasion production...

You got information I don't? Last I knew, it was *barely* back up to
pre-war production (which was much lower than it *could* have been, on
account of the sanctions).

> ...or, in Bush terms, getting out twice the amount
> because Saddam was holding it back - even under sanctions designed to
> force him to sell because only oil gets them, you know, food that
> keeps them alive - when he was in power...

The "oil for food" program was an "escape clause" to the sanctions,
allowing Iraq to sell a certain, regulated (by the UN) amount of oil,
provided that the proceeds went to purchase food and humanitarian
supplies. To make sure that it wasn't spent for other purposes, the
money went into, and was disbursed from, a UN controlled "escrow
account". At the end of the "hot phase" of the invasion, the US was
looking for funds to "rebuild" (and *feed*) Iraq (and maybe to
"compensate" kuwait), and tried to get any "leftover" released. The UN
made noises about "administrative costs"...

Now the figures I remember might have been wrong, or I might
mis-remember what I saw, but I recall something like $64 billion in oil
sold, and 7 or 8 billion in food and humanitarian aid delivered. This
looks to me like a *major* rip-off of the Iraqi people, before the war,
and *still*! It *may* not be the US to blame, this time. The UN is
looking into it. Any bets what they find?

Anyway, it seems to me you're confusing the "sanctions" with the "oil
for food program", and you attribute our fearless leader's dislike of
Saddam to his refusal to sell us oil. Maybe I'm the one who's mistaken,
but I don't think that was the case. I believe Saddam was willing to
sell us oil (maybe not at a price we liked?), but was prevented by the
sanctions. If you point out that this makes the invasion of Iraq an even
*crazier* idea... yeah, I agree with that.

> ...we all just
> blindly accept whatever they say to be the case because we'd Love to
> not be interested at all and just go about our work and play without
> any of this nonsense..."We need a war!" / "Really? Okay, whatever...do
> whatever you need to that means I get left alone to live my life and
> I'll let it pass"...

Too true!

>>Love, Peace, and Happiness,
>
> In that particular order or does the order not matter? ;)

I dunno - run it through your debugger and see what works for you :)

Best,
Frank

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CNN Headline: 3700 killed last month in Iraq
    ... If Bush had tried to get more partners for handling Saddam, ... :> None of them were interested in anything but continuing sanctions, ... :> making a Tehran sponsored coup in Iraq more and more likely by the day. ... :> develop Iraq's richest oil fields. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: CNN Headline: 3700 killed last month in Iraq
    ... If Bush had tried to get more partners for handling Saddam, ... :> None of them were interested in anything but continuing sanctions, ... :> making a Tehran sponsored coup in Iraq more and more likely by the day. ... :> develop Iraq's richest oil fields. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: The murdererd soldiers were tortured
    ... Saddam did't personally need tons of medical supplies. ... Sanctions were originally brought in by the UN SC to pressure Iraq to ... by making ordinary Iraqis totally ... the corruption which directed oil to its allies ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: CNN Headline: 3700 killed last month in Iraq
    ... If Bush had tried to get more partners for handling Saddam, ... :> None of them were interested in anything but continuing sanctions, ... :> making a Tehran sponsored coup in Iraq more and more likely by the day. ... :> develop Iraq's richest oil fields. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • The Jerk: Why Saddam Had to Go
    ... ...Bobby Kennedy and Palast on why Saddam had to go. ... "This war in Iraq has been the best thing in the world for Big Oil and OPEC. ... all hosted by the James A. Baker III ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)