Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[Seth]

And let's face the fact that the cure turned out to be a lot worse than the disease - which "the Coalition of the Willing" was warned about several times before entering into that particular misadventure.

Was it? How do you know that? If we had left Saddam alone with his bluster and bravado...and his bunkers full of Sarin-filled munitions...who's to say that he would not have taken that as permission to actually create more chemical and biological weapons, not to mention nukes? What would have been the geopolitical result of simply letting him expropriate Kuwait's oil by force? How many MORE terrorists would Saddam have funded (he funded thousands of them through secret bank accounts in Europe) with the money he got from Kuwait's oil? How many warships would Saddam have built and employed in the Persian Gulf with the coastal facilities of Kuwait?

How many more Kurds would have died from Sarin attacks? How many more young girls would have been raped and murdered by his sons? What would the unanticipated consequences of granting Saddam more power in the region by leaving him alone be?

You have absolutely no way to rationally say that the "cure" was worse than the "disease."

In my view, the benefits of fractured Islamist factions warring with each other, to any extent at all, is far better than allowing them to become united under a demagogue like Saddam. While the various Islamic terrorist factions are indeed dangerous, they are far less dangers than, for example, the Wehrmacht, which as a highly organized and well-funded military force very nearly took dominion of all of Europe.

If you can't destroy your enemies utterly, you can at least disrupt them and keep them fractured and largely ineffective in the world geopolitical sense of the word.

Sure, we may be stamping out the brushfires of Sunni and Shiite pretensions to a Caliphate for decades, but it's better than facing the sort of world conflagration that can take place when a people are aligned and motivated by a demagogue.

It's impossible to predict what the result of leaving Saddam alone to play in his sandbox unsupervised would have been, but according to the intelligence upon which the Coalition acted at the time, he was on the cusp of becoming an insane, despotic and suicidal nuclear, biological and chemical power, and that simply could not be permitted.

[Seth]

That is, Hermits links are SPECIFICALLY referring to the 2003 invasion. That is, they are refuting your specious claim that 2003 was just a continuation of 1991.

Except that they don't.

It's true. They don't.
Not only are they rank arguments from specious authority, but Alan Greenspan and some brigade commander are not in a position to even make those arguments. (They're not even arguments as much as off-the-cuff opinions.)

The irony. So you and Seth are better authorities?

No, it's just that opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one and even if this fallacious appeal to authority were important or supported your beliefs, neither of those two individuals quoted said that going to war for oil was the wrong thing to do. The oil was indeed one of several motivators for the conflicts, but it was Saddam's craving to steal Kuwait's oil that was the genesis of the Coalition actions. I know you love to simply ignore this fact and you consistently try to divorce the 2nd conflict from the first because that's the only way your ridiculous anti-American agenda makes sense, but it's simply a fact that Saddam started it, we stopped him, we gave him 14 chances over 12 years to play nice, which he refused to do, so we went back in and spanked him. It's all his fault and the only relevant connection to oil was his own cupidity and stupidity in trying to take someone else's stuff.

[Seth]

Lol, so now not being content to be a clone of Seth and 42, you've devolved to being Mister Mac. I can't wait to see what purveyor of retardation you model yourself on next.

See, I told you all so...any time rEv is demonstrably losing the argument he turns directly to personal attacks.

[Seth]

FFS, just look at the "before" and "after" of it. Before the invasion the Iraqi oil industry was government owned and controlled, and just about all the fuel extracted was consumed inside that nation. After the invasion two American companies share the $150 billion drilling and exploration contracts. One of them, to nobody's surprise, is Halliburton. It gets half of those contracts. Also, the Iraqi oil industry is now controlled by Exxon, Chevron, etc, and 80% of the fuel gets exported.

And that's a problem how, exactly? Before the invasion the Iraqi oil industry was under the thumb of Saddam et al and the reason that just about all the fuel extracted was consumed inside Iraq is because it was pumping paltry amounts to begin with because it's government-run oil industry operated as efficiently as any government-run operation, which is to say abysmally, inefficiently, expensively and incompetently.

So, after Saddam was deposed and got his neck stretched and the new, democratically elected government invited Exxon, Cheveron et al to come invest billions in exploration, drilling, extraction, transportation and processing of Iraq's oil, Iraq now has an important and much larger economic engine.

Are you under the mistaken impression that Exxon, Chevron et al performed their own "invasion" and "corporate coup" and are simply stealing Iraq's oil from the people of Iraq and not giving the country any of the profits?

Big Oil is Big Oil because it knows how to do oil in a big way, very efficiently and cost-effectively, and it doesn't much care where the oil is so long as its investment in the massive infrastructure needed to get the oil is not in danger of being stolen by some despotic dictator. That's why Big Oil is in Iraq and not Venezuela. The government of Iraq is willing to cooperate with and ensure Big Oil that its investment in Iraq, which is massive, will be profitable for everyone involved, including the people of Iraq.

The reason Big Oil is not in Venezuela is because the fuckwit Marxists who took control "nationalized" Big Oil's existing infrastructure, which means the government simply stole that huge investment, and then tried to run the oil industry on Marxist principles, which hasn't worked out at all for Venezuela, now has it?

Nations with oil reserves need the expertise and financial strength of Big Oil in order to get it out of the ground and to the marketplace, which is why nations with oil reserves commonly contract with Big Oil to come in and provide the expertise and investment needed to do so.

You got a problem with that?

See my comment on the Oval Office above. Foreign policy decisions are not made in a vacuum. Foreign policy decisions are made according to American interests. The American oil corporations are not the only interest to be taken into consideration, but they are big'uns.

And is there any good reason why American foreign policy decisions should not be made according to American interests? That is the sole and exclusive purpose of American foreign policy to begin with after all. While it might appear to you that American foreign policy decisions are made according to the interests of some other nation or nations, I assure you that American foreign policy decisions are always supposed to be made according to America's interests. For our foreign policy officials, from the President on down, including Congress, to make foreign policy decisions that are NOT in America's interests is a little thing we like to call "treason."

One of my chief complaints against Obama and his minions' foreign policy decisions is that he is treasonously NOT looking after America's interests but is in fact giving away much of America's power and sovereignty by making foreign policy decisions that favor other nations' interests to the severe detriment of ours.

He should be tried for treason for these acts, right along with Hillary and Kerry, among many others.

The way it's supposed to work is that if your nation's geopolitical interests happen to align with ours and you're willing to cooperate for our mutual benefit, we are happy to do so for our mutual economic and political benefit. But if your geopolitical interests are opposed to ours, our interests take precedence in any policy decisions being made and you're just fucked if you don't like it.

That, as it turns out, is how the geopolitical policy decisions are made by ever single nation on the face of the earth. Always have been, always will be.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...In my view, the benefits of fractured Islamist factions warring with each other, to any extent at all, is far better than allowing them to become united under a demagogue like Saddam...

"Islamist factions" were certainly not united under Saddam. In fact, they were vigorously suppressed, particularly the Shiites, but also the fundamentalist Sunnis. There was to be no other power base other than his Baath party...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

...In my view, the benefits of fractured Islamist factions warring with each other, to any extent at all, is far better than allowing them to become united under a demagogue like Saddam...

"Islamist factions" were certainly not united under Saddam. In fact, they were vigorously suppressed, particularly the Shiites, but also the fundamentalist Sunnis. There was to be no other power base other than his Baath party...

Exactly my point.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...In my view, the benefits of fractured Islamist factions warring with each other, to any extent at all, is far better than allowing them to become united under a demagogue like Saddam...

"Islamist factions" were certainly not united under Saddam. In fact, they were vigorously suppressed, particularly the Shiites, but also the fundamentalist Sunnis. There was to be no other power base other than his Baath party...

Exactly my point.

No, it wasn't your point; you are saying that a good effect of the war was that it lead to the factions warring. What that really meant that groups like ISIS were allowed to emerge from the rather Darwinian struggle between rival groups. Whatever other evils he committed, he effectively suppressed such groups, much as Tito suppressed ethnic hatreds in the Yugoslavia of his era...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

...In my view, the benefits of fractured Islamist factions warring with each other, to any extent at all, is far better than allowing them to become united under a demagogue like Saddam...

"Islamist factions" were certainly not united under Saddam. In fact, they were vigorously suppressed, particularly the Shiites, but also the fundamentalist Sunnis. There was to be no other power base other than his Baath party...

Exactly my point.

No, it wasn't your point; you are saying that a good effect of the war was that it lead to the factions warring. What that really meant that groups like ISIS were allowed to emerge from the rather Darwinian struggle between rival groups. Whatever other evils he committed, he effectively suppressed such groups, much as Tito suppressed ethnic hatreds in the Yugoslavia of his era...

Right, but the danger was that he and his Baath party would unite with others and create a monolithic force. That's the danger of demagogues and dictators, they have unpredictable powers of persuasion and can create cults of personality that can be extremely dangerous. Any enemy is a weaker enemy if it is factioned.

[mistermack]

Whatever other evils he committed, he effectively suppressed such groups, much as Tito suppressed ethnic hatreds in the Yugoslavia of his era...

Not great adverts for suppression, those two examples.

The only thing that seems to work long-term is scrupulous fairness and equality. Otherwise, grudges just grow and fester.

[Seth]

Whatever other evils he committed, he effectively suppressed such groups, much as Tito suppressed ethnic hatreds in the Yugoslavia of his era...

Not great adverts for suppression, those two examples.

The only thing that seems to work long-term is scrupulous fairness and equality. Otherwise, grudges just grow and fester.

Yup. Ancestral guilt is the bane of human existence. If people would simply let go of wrongs that were not committed against them, personally and decline to blame those who had no part in the atrocities of the past humanity would be far more humane.

I reject the entire concept of ancestral guilt categorically. I am only responsible for what I do or do not do, not what anyone else does, particularly if it was done in the past.

[pErvinalia]

Seth wrote:

...In my view, the benefits of fractured Islamist factions warring with each other, to any extent at all, is far better than allowing them to become united under a demagogue like Saddam...

"Islamist factions" were certainly not united under Saddam. In fact, they were vigorously suppressed, particularly the Shiites, but also the fundamentalist Sunnis. There was to be no other power base other than his Baath party...

Exactly my point.

Well your point is dumb then. Saddam had all the extremists under control. Without him, they were able to fill the vacuum. And what did we get? ISIS. Well done.

[JimC]

Whatever other evils he committed, he effectively suppressed such groups, much as Tito suppressed ethnic hatreds in the Yugoslavia of his era...

Not great adverts for suppression, those two examples.

The only thing that seems to work long-term is scrupulous fairness and equality. Otherwise, grudges just grow and fester.

Sure, I wasn't giving them as shining examples of enlightened government...

But it is wise to recognise that the end of such dictatorships can lead to years of chaos and violence. Just look at Libya after Gaddafi...

[Hermit]

FFS, just look at the "before" and "after" of it. Before the invasion the Iraqi oil industry was government owned and controlled, and just about all the fuel extracted was consumed inside that nation. After the invasion two American companies share the $150 billion drilling and exploration contracts. One of them, to nobody's surprise, is Halliburton. It gets half of those contracts. Also, the Iraqi oil industry is now controlled by Exxon, Chevron, etc, and 80% of the fuel gets exported.

And that's a problem how, exactly?

Please locate the point at which I said it was a problem. I was rather careful not to say whether it's a problem or not. All I have done is to argue that the control of Iraq's oil reserves was a huge factor in deciding to invade the nation.

[pErvinalia]

That is, Hermits links are SPECIFICALLY referring to the 2003 invasion. That is, they are refuting your specious claim that 2003 was just a continuation of 1991.

Except that they don't.

It's true. They don't.
Not only are they rank arguments from specious authority, but Alan Greenspan and some brigade commander are not in a position to even make those arguments. (They're not even arguments as much as off-the-cuff opinions.)

The irony. So you and Seth are better authorities?

No, it's just that opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one and even if this fallacious appeal to authority were important or supported your beliefs, neither of those two individuals quoted said that going to war for oil was the wrong thing to do.

No one said that they claimed it was "the wrong thing to do". So you can stuff that strawman where the sun don't shine.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

...In my view, the benefits of fractured Islamist factions warring with each other, to any extent at all, is far better than allowing them to become united under a demagogue like Saddam...

"Islamist factions" were certainly not united under Saddam. In fact, they were vigorously suppressed, particularly the Shiites, but also the fundamentalist Sunnis. There was to be no other power base other than his Baath party...

Exactly my point.

Well your point is dumb then. Saddam had all the extremists under control. Without him, they were able to fill the vacuum. And what did we get? ISIS. Well done.

Um, the notion that Saddam's having anyone "under control" in a manner that was beneficial to anyone other than Saddam, most particularly the rest of the world, is beyond idiotic.

Don't you get it you dunce, Saddam WAS an extremist...one of the worst kind of extremists...he was a powerful personality who had the potential to bust out a nuclear, chemical and biological world war had his megalomaniacal aspirations come to fruition.