Re: An Unnecessary War

[Andrew Mearman <ajmearman@xxxxxxxxx>]

As Ric has asked us to modify this discussion, before
answering Sven's question on oil prices, I shall
ignore most of Sven's rhetorical questions and only
say that I am a realist on international affairs (and
economics) and I do not believe that there is a moral
dimension to the US policy on Iraq: there are too many
recent instances of the US acting immorally to further
its geopolitical goals to make that a credible
position.  Nor do I believe Saddam to be a threat
great enough to justify throwing over international
law to launch a pre-emptive strike, which potentially
licenses any country to attack anyone it likes on the
basis of some vague perceived threat.

It is a much more useful argument to argue that the US
(and the UK) should attack Iraq to secure oil
supplies. (But if that's the argument, let's hear it,
instead of hiding behind this moralistic smokescreen.)
 Clearly if Saddam and other dictators were in control
of the oil supplies, they would have the power to
choke that supply at any time.  I'm not certain they
would create an immediate shortage, since I don't
think (although my memory may be incorrect) that Iraq
constrained supply unusually in the 1980s, but the
increased uncertainty could  have large negative
effects on the world economy in the short run.  In the
longer term, of course, a reduced access to oil might
quicken technological change in alternative fuels and
mitigate fuel consumption and resource depletion,
which would be a positive unintended outcome.

Andrew

--- slarson <slarson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >===== Original Message From Andrew Mearman
> <ajmearman@xxxxxxxxx> =====
> >The Bush administration would be proud of you,
> Sven!
>
> I honestly don't care. I'm so much against the
> political packaging that many
> subscribers to this list confess themselves to. To
> be a good radical liberal
> you have to order your fried eggs left side up. To
> be a good radical liberal
> you have to tie your left shoe first. Etc.
>
> >Presumably you are angry with them for their stance
> on
> >North Korea?
>
> To the best of my knowledge North Korea does not pay
> thousands of dollars to
> every family of a Palestine suicide bomber. To the
> best of my knowledge North
> Korea has not been host to notorious terrorists like
> Abu Nidal. To the best of
> my knowledge North Korea has not within the past 50
> years or so launched war
> on or invaded and occupied its neighbors. But yes, I
> agree with you - North
> Korea must be disarmed just like Iraq. Their
> leadership is just as ruthless as
> their Iraqi buddies when it comes to respect for
> even the most basic human
> rights.
>
> >That stance shows their apparent disdain
> >for WMDs to be a sham: they negotiate with those
> that
> >have WMDs and flatten those that don't.  The
> message
> >this sends out to small countries is that if they
> want
> >to ensure that the US will not just destroy them
> >whenever it feels like it, they should get WMDs
> ASAP!!
> > So much for preventing nuclear proliferation!
>
> Can you elaborate on this? What do you mean by "just
> destroy them"?
>
> >Your arguments also seem to rest on the assumption
> >that Saddam is insane.  This is far from proven,
> >although Saddam has clearly been responsible for
> some
> >horrible acts.
>
> Any man who runs a country the way he does has to be
> insane. Either that or
> he's a full-blown Nazi. Drawing on his antisemitism
> the latter is perhaps not
> such a far-fetched explanation after all. If that's
> the case, however, because
> of his possession of, or capacity to build, WMDs he
> is just as dangerous to
> the region - and the world - as Hitler, had he been
> the first to build nukes.
>
> >Still, this was also true in the 1980s
> >when the US helped to arm him against Iran.
>
> This is an interesting argument. Just because the US
> and other Western
> countries helped Saddam two decades ago he should be
> allowed to arm himself
> with whatever weapons he finds interesting. Maybe he
> should be allowed to drop
> a nuke or two on Israel too? After all, the US
> dropped two on Japan 57 years
> ago, so it wouldn't be more than fair, right? Maybe
> every country in the world
> should be given two nuclear bombs to drop on someone
> they don't fancy, just
> for the sake of universal justice.
>
> >Whatever this war against Iraq is about, it's not
> >about creating peace.  Maybe it's the next
> >presidential election?  Maybe it's the oil; which
> >brings us back nicely to the economy.  After all,
> PKs
> >are supposed to be political economists (or so I
> >thought).  This makes a potential war on Iraq an
> >eminently suitable topic for this list.
>
> Let me begin that discussion by asking what you
> think would happen to oil
> prices and the world economy if relatively nice guys
> like Saddam, Khomeini,
> bin Laden and Mullah Omar - all of whom as you know
> are strong supporters of
> democracy and freedom - controlled the vast majority
> of the world's oil
> reserves. Business as usual, right?
>
> /srl
> --
> Dr. Sven R Larson
> Department of Economics
> Skidmore College
> 815, North Broadway
> Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
> (518) 580 5278
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com