Hypocrisy Big

Pankaj
#130

I guess the point you are making is that there is a very serious & genuine effort (with the full backing of the US govt) to find alternate sources of energy.

Why?

Because the US (& its allies) dont want to be so dependant on Arab oil. They are hedging their bets. There is always a possibility that the Arab world may ``explode`` with anti-US anger, when Iraq is attacked. NOBODY of any importance in the US is saying ``maybe we should revise American policy towards Isreal``. Thats tantamount to giving into blackmail. There is a very strong argument why that would just embolden terrorism in the future.

Another point; no ``expert`` of any kind has accurately predicted the future. Twenty yrs ago, did we ever think that something called the internet would play such an important role in our lives? When there is a serious, concerted effort to find an alternate source of energy...there is always that chance ( a good chance) that scientists can stumble on to the Holy Grail of cheap energy. Burning hydrocarbons for energy (even if the US had unlimited reserves of ``Saudi-grade`` oil) is meeting with increasing criticism from environmentalists & scientists alike.

Sooner or later the West is going to be free of their dependance on Arab oil...& oil in general. If there is no change in the Arab view of the world...its THEY who are going to be dumped into the garbage can of history...even if they number in the billions.

Moral of the story: if you KNOW a country is powerful & can kick your butt when it is pissed...dont be a fool & antagonise it...lest of all dont LECTURE it about morality, hypocrisy etc etc...will only get it more pissed off....

Muslims--fight a jihad amongst yourselves FIRST...then maybe you can fight a jihad with the ..er..non-believers.

[ #129 by soysauce on November 21, 2002 9:46am PT

***

So that puts paid to your position that the US has been an Empire since WW2. It has one since its birth. No other nation has celebrated military men as its heroes throughout its history as has the U.S. Ironic indeed for the bastion of democracy. ]

The other day I was reading about the invention of portable chronometer which can be used on ships. According to some this is the most important invention of last millenium. Even Isac Newton is supposed to have advised British on how important such invention would be for sea farers. Refinements of chronometer and refinements in its manufacturing led to concept of ``interchangeable parts``. And it quickly was put in service of manufacturing guns.

There is a lot of double standard about democracy. Apparently only nations which are suitable for democracy are geneologically related to Europe.

-einsteinwallah

I love my V8 5.3Liter 6000 lbs 4WD SUV.

I want my gas to cost less than $1/gal.

sac, saxena

On the issue of fuel cells, my thoughts are closer to that of saxena. Although I doubt fuel cells will be able to replace oil as the major source of energy in next fifty years, they will become important and viable commodities. Right now, billions of dollars are being pumped into fuel cell research by the giants like Shell. The idea is to miniaturize fuel cells so that a single fuel cell of the size of a refrigerator could meet the typical energy needs of the whole household. The issue with the fuel cell is not the technology to make one but the technology to miniaturize one and make it safe enough for common use ( due to the use of hydrogen in fuel cells). Once this technology challenge is met which I believe could happen over the next decade or so, we can see a wide variety of applications of fuel cell in automobiles, households etc. But the bulk of energy needs would have to come from oil, at least in the next 50 years since it is cheapest. Also if we look at the recent trends in relative contribution of the energy sources, we would see that an increasing share, although still small, is being provided by the gas. No wonder a lot of hectic reasearch is going on to tap the huge reservoirs of gas hydrates locked in the bottom of the sea.

PS I am a chemical engineer.

Ferozk,
You make some interesting points. The question i have is how and why are international relationships different from interpersonal ones? You wouldn`t argue for example that a rich person should rule over the masses. Why should it be any different in global politics? I understand that the rich person also happens have the largest arsenal, but what`s stopping the masses from rebelling? Why did the fractured territories of india succumb so easily to the east india company? Why is NATO still fuddy-duddy with the US which has said no to virtually every international treaty?
Just saying that things are the way they are doesn`t shed any light on why they are.
Here`s something i filched from today`s paper``

``In the late 1930s, the editors of Henry Luce`s business flagship, Fortune, sidled into the issue of imperial conquest without breaching decorum by using the explosive ``E`` word:``It is generally supposed,`` Fortune`s editors wrote, ``that the American military ideal is peace. But unfortunately for this high-school classic, the U.S. Army, since 1778, has filched more square miles of the earth by sheer military conquest than any army in the world, except only that of Great Britain. And as between Great Britain and United States has been a close race, Britain having conquered something over 3,500,000 square miles since that date, and the U.S. (if one includes wresting the Lousiana Purchase from the Indians) something over 2,100,000.``

So that puts paid to your position that the US has been an Empire since WW2. It has one since its birth. No other nation has celebrated military men as its heroes throughout its history as has the U.S. Ironic indeed for the bastion of democracy.

re: sac

{Do a little studying on how these companies had/have controlling stakes in all new startups and how they gradually faded away from the scene. }

...the govt is pouring huge amounts to develop hydrogen distribution infrastructure...there are no companies involved in that...and there is only one reason to be looking at hydrogen distribution infrastructure...and in any case speculating about the future that far out is just that: speculation...no point arguing about it; it can`t be proven...

Re: Sadna

Sadna, this is the whole problem! No one knows, understands the final costs of this war. You are right, and where I agree with you is that the idea of a regime change in Iraq is a slippery slope.

Who is next after Iraq? Will changing the regime in Iraq assure the final victory? It is difficult to say, because the term ``victory`` has to be defined either in a political or a military context. Does it mean that the United States will redraw the map? The best answer to that is that yes, the intentions are there, but whether there is an actual capability is yet to be seen.

The United States` strategic and political aims are limited, defined and underscored by its economic policies, which are rooted in its desires to control the engry resources of the world.

Is the United States, as you asked acutely, threatening the use of force to attain a political aim, like India to quote you, without really intending to fight?

First of all, the two situations are different. Secondly, the United States, unlike India, can use force to achieve its political aims in Iraq and succeed, because Iraq does not have the means or the ability to retailate. India did not have the option of war, because contary to the popular opinion in Pakistan, Indian leaders are intelligent enough to realize that a war with Pakistan was not practical, because Pakistan had the means and capability for an effective retailation aginst India. Defeating Pakistan at a Phyrric cost was never worth the final price to India.

Leaving Saddam Hussein in power? What are the costs? In a very simple sense, the political costs of leaving Saddam in power are greater than the military costs to the United States in fighting a war to remove him and in a cost-benefit analysis, he is a political threat and not a military threat. A military response is based on the threat perceptions of a nation and those perceptions are colored by the politics, which decides the level of a given threat.

Still, I agree with you in the sense that the United States does not have a clearly defined ``exist strategy`` and is rushing in, where the angels fear to thread.

Ciao

re pankaj #120:

Thanks for your vote of confidence. Are you a chemist by training just like Sameer?

re RSaxena #121:

``i must say however i am not convinced that over a 10-year-horizon, fuel cells cannot start to dent some of the demand for oil...there is way too much money being spent on them, both private and government, for something positive to not come out... ``

A bunch of 25 year olds were saying the exact same thing...............in 1973...at the height of the OPEC crisis.......

Here is why fuel cells, solar panels and windmills will always remain at the periphery. Any promising technology that has the remotest chance of success is bought out by the GMs and BPs of this world. These companies haven`t spent trillions in their distribution networks to be upstaged by some acne ridden genius working in a garage in Austin. Do a little studying on how these companies had/have controlling stakes in all new startups and how they gradually faded away from the scene.

later
-sac

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/18/international/18MILI.html?pagewanted=1

U.S. Taking Steps to Lay Foundation for Action in Iraq

``...American diplomats have intensified talks with two important allies, Turkey and Israel, to persuade them to remain on the sidelines during an invasion. Quietly, often through informal channels, Washington has also broached discussions with Iran about preventing Iraq`s Shiite majority from trying to seize control of Baghdad or form a separate state if Mr. Hussein falls...``

``..Turkey wants assurances from Washington that independence-minded Kurdish factions in northern Iraq will not attempt to form a separate state, a move that it fears could incite Kurdish separatists in its own country. Turkey has more than 3,000 troops in northern Iraq and could take steps to counter any efforts by Kurds there to seize territory. To ease Ankara`s concerns, the Pentagon is preparing war plans to dispatch troops to protect the oil fields around Kirkuk in northern Iraq.

At Ankara`s behest, Washington is also pushing European countries to accept Turkey into the European Union. Turkey, a major trading partner with Iraq, is also seeking compensation for economic losses that might result from war. Negotiations are under way for a multibillion-dollar aid package that would include forgiving Turkish debts, and military aid and grants, diplomats said.

``Should a crisis come because of Iraq`s defiance, we will work to ensure that the safety net under Turkey`s economy stays in place``, W. Robert Pearson, the American ambassador to Turkey, said in a statement.

The Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, has vowed to retaliate if Mr. Hussein launches missiles at Israel, a move that could swiftly undermine the support of moderate Arab states for an American invasion, perhaps igniting a broader war.

To allay Israel`s concerns, Mr. Bush has approved a war plan that calls for American forces to seize land in western Iraq to destroy Scud missiles that could reach Israeli cities. Also, American diplomats are urging Israel to limit any responses to Iraqi aggression to purely defensive actions, such as firing Arrow antimissile weapons.

In turn, Israel, during a meeting between its national security adviser and senior Pentagon and State Department officials last Thursday, urged the United States to help resolve a water dispute with Lebanon and Syria, officials said.

The administration has quietly reached out to Iran, often through third parties, to enlist Tehran`s support in discouraging Iraqi Shiites, who represent 60 percent of Iraq`s population, from engaging in terrorism or forming a breakaway republic, officials said. Those channels include the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, which represents American interests in Iran, various relief groups, the United Nations and a Tehran-based Iraqi Shiite opposition group, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

In exchange for cooperation, Iran wants the United States to release billions of dollars in assets frozen in American financial institutions after American Embassy workers were taken hostage in 1979. It is also seeking pledges of assistance for Iraqi refugees who might pour into Iran if war breaks out.

In one sign that Tehran was trying to reach out to Washington, Javad Zarif, Iran`s ambassador to the United Nations, requested permission to visit Washington this week to meet with members of Congress. But the State Department, which must approve his travel plans beyond New York, would not allow him to stay overnight, and he canceled the trip...``

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/17/international/middleeast/17KURD.html
Iraqi Kurds Set Sights on Baghdad

A senior leader of an Iraqi Kurdish group has said his forces intend to push all the way to Baghdad in the event of an American-led war in Iraq.

In an interview here on Friday, Jalal Talabani, the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, said he had no intention of limiting his group`s military activities to its base in northern Iraq. He predicted that any number of the armed groups who are fighting Saddam Hussein would converge on the capital if the Americans invaded.

``We are looking to Baghdad, we are focusing on Baghdad,`` Mr. Talabani said on a visit to Turkey. ``It is the capital. It is the main part of the country. We are not just looking through Kurdish glasses. We are looking through Iraqi glasses.``

The assertion seemed to raise the prospect of a division between the Kurds and American political leaders, who are fearful that an invasion could unleash a stream of bloodletting among the country`s ethnic and religious groups. While American officials have indicated that they would like to employ Kurdish forces in the event of a war, they speak of limiting the Kurds` role to their base in northern Iraq...``

``..In the interview, Mr. Talabani reiterated his often-stated claim that Iraq`s Kurds would not seek independence but rather want autonomy.

Other groups that would converge on Baghdad, he said, include rebels from the majority Shiite population, as well as the minority Turkoman and Sunni Muslims. Mr. Talabani said such interventions would go a long way toward keeping the peace. If these groups can capture the main cities, he said, ``this will be a good step forward to prevent civil war, to prevent chaos, to prevent clashes among various Iraqi groups....``

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: pankaj

...i agree about the alaskan oil...i must say however i am not convinced that over a 10-year-horizon, fuel cells cannot start to dent some of the demand for oil...there is way too much money being spent on them, both private and government, for something positive to not come out...

sac and Shankar
``
Alaskan oil if ever mined would cost upwards of 16 dollars a barrel just to mine, never mind the distribution costs etc. Same thing with Russian oil most of which is in Siberia. Combine these two and you come up with-get this ONLY 12% of what the US oil consumption is going to be in the next 20 years. Oil in Saudi Arabia costs less than 4 bucks per barrel``


You are very precise sac. The quality of Alaskan oil is very bad; only some wells in Latin America could be worse. The Alaskan oil has a typical viscosity of 100 centipoise and above and almost always requires enhanced oil recovery methods like the use of steam or hot water to decrease the viscosity and bring it out. In USA, if an oil reservoir has a permeability of the order of 10 milidarcy to 100 milidarcy, it is considered a gift of God. Just to put the matter in proper perspective the typical permebilities of the Arabian wells are 500 milidarcy and above. There is also no need for enhanced oil recovery methods like surfactant flooding or heat treatment in most of the ME reservoirs and hence their oil is dirt cheap. USA would obviously prefer to exercise greater control over ME to keep the oil prices under control instead of going for the comparatively far expensive Alaskan or Siberian oil. USA wants to reduce its dependence on Saudi oil and wants more oil bearing region in ME under direct control. And this is the real reason of the war.

too much credit is being given in this space to u.s. for maintaining stability in the international political order after ww ii. we in pakistan are still dealing with the consequences of blind support provided to general zia during the eighties. i would guess that half the paki expats on chowk would be home right now if the biggest religious nutcases and their henchman, the drug lords would not have been running around brandishing weapons given to them by americans to fight the red army in afghanistan. similarly mideast would not be in such a mess if the republican administration was not acting as the american branch of the likud party while the executive branch was in bed with the house of saud, the other most regressive force in the region. things are not much better in the backyard either. remember the monroe doctrine? don’t think americans are thrilled with the election results in brazil, economic crises in argentina, political crises in venezuela and the unending indigenous insurgency in colombia.

american intervention when done for the right reason can work as the case in balkans. no one however besides the sheeps in congress and tony blair believes that iraqi campaign is being undertaken for the good of humanity. the notion that iraq has the capacity to develop unmanned drones capable of delivering nuclear weapons to u.s. is laughable. why the hell were sanctions in place and why the hell is iraq being bombed daily if it still retains the capability of producing cutting edge weapons system. perhaps syria should ask for u.n. sanctions so that it can manufacture nuclear weapons and unmanned drones capable of flying 5,000 miles. besides would the americans be concerned about iraqi nuclear program if saddam was selling oil to the u.s. at $5 below market while the israeli ambassador was cavorting around with belly dancers at at the baghdad hilton? uncle sam was not too concerned with pak nuclear program when the army was supporting jehad in afghanistan.

even if the republican administration did not have sinister motives for attacking iraq, i still feel that their intervention will have disastrous consequences in the long run. i don’t agree with conventional analysis that the results of gulf war were favourable to region. what did the gulf war really achieve besides restoring the fortunes of a bunch of towel heads? news reports indicate that obl had gone to the saudi govt and asked for permission to drive iraqi forces from kuwait. what would have happened if saudi arabia fought iraq? since only one side would have prevailed in the ensuing conflict, wouldn’t it have been easier to confront one monster rather than two, as is the case now? besides, what right did the americans have to interfere in a conflict fought by two muslim countries? americans don’t seem too eager to intervene when african countries invade each other.

given the track record of american intervention in the region and given the sinister motives for attacking iraq, i don’t agree with people who argue that american intervention will lead to favourable results. the background of the leaders of iraqi national congress does not give much cause for optimism. following is the profile of three leading lights. see the article for complete details.

http://www.sundayherald.com/27877
research by dr glen rangwala, lecturer in politics at trinity college, cambridge

===============================================

general nizar al-khazraji

according to many human rights groups, he is the field commander who led the 48-hour chemical weapons attack which poisoned and burned 5000 kurdish civilians in the northern town of halabja in march 1988. he also, alleges one credible eyewitness who testified in video-taped evidence earlier this year, kicked a little kurdish child to death after his forces entered a village during the height of the iraqi repression in 1988.

but, says ambassador david mack, a senior official in the us state department who co-ordinates meetings of iraqi opposition groups in washington dc, general nizar al-khazraji has `a good military reputation` and `the right ingredients` as a future leader in iraq.

the most senior military officer to defect since 1990, al-khazraji was saddam`s chief of staff from 1980 until 1991, leading the army through the eight-year iran-iraq war and the invasion of kuwait in 1990

brigadier-general najib al-salihi

commander of an armoured division of iraq`s elite republican guard in the gulf war, salihi played a significant military role in iraq`s invasion of kuwait. he was also engaged in putting down the uprising against saddam `s rule that followed the defeat at the hands of the us-led forces. the repressive way in which this particular episode was handled caused 1.5 million people to flee their homes, while salihi went on to write a book about his crushing of the popular uprising, entitled al-zilzal, `the earthquake`.
after commanding iraqi forces in putting down another rebellion by an opposition group in 1995, salihi defected to the side of his former enemies and came to co-operate with the us, where he now lives

ahmad al-chalabi

ahmad al-chalabi came to international attention not for his politics, but for fleeing to london from jordan in 1989 amid allegations he had embezzled millions from the bank he used to own. although he denies any wrongdoing, the collapse of the petra bank left thousands of its customers in penury and earned him comparisons with robert maxwell. he didn`t return to jordan to defend himself at his trial in 1992, which took place in his absence, and will begin his 32 years in prison only if he returns to jordan, which he shows no sign of doing at present

===============================================

to me the following articles provide credible motivations for attack. to prove that i am not a conspiracy theorist, the links i am posting are from an israeli and a mainsteam american newspaper.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=214635

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html

sadna#117

[Or they are playing the same tactics as India, namely presenting a credible threat of war without intended to fight it.]

heeeheeeheee...that one is funnny :o)