Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[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...

And I'd much rather deal with these amateur, fractured, poorly-trained, marginalized and largely rejected splinter groups one at a time than face an army built by Saddam armed with nuke, biological and chemical weapons.

[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.

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...

Yes, this is true, but chaos and violence in third-world desert shitholes isn't something that I'm particularly concerned about. If they are busy killing each other they are less likely to be trying to kill us.

[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?

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.

Well, if that's all you are arguing then my response is, "So what?" and "It's still in the control of Iraq, so who cares?" or perhaps "As long as it's not in the control of Saddam, who gives a damn?"

But that doesn't sound like all you are arguing. More importantly it's perfectly obvious that a large part of the reason the two conflicts occurred was because of oil, but not Iraq's oil, Kuwait's oil, which Saddam wanted to make into Iraq's oil. Your invocation of Halliburton is clearly a thinly veiled criticism of American policy for Iraq and an objection to the supposed links between Halliburton and the Bush administration, which ignores the fact that Halliburton is and was the 800 pound gorilla when it comes to oilfield services and happened to be pretty much the only organization with the resources to step in and deal with the problems Saddam left behind.

If you were simply stating some obvious facts, then you needed to make it clear that the dominance of US oil exploration companies was not the pejorative target of your statement.

[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.

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.

He wasn't, that's the point. He was only a threat to his neighbours, three of which (Iran, Syria and Turkey) can look after themselves. And Kuwait (and Turkey) had the US protecting it.

The US, along with UK and Australia, turned Iraq into a terrorist hotspot, and an international terrorism exporter.

This isn't even a contentious point. Many neocons have even admitted this.

[rainbow]

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.

[Seth]

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.

He wasn't, that's the point. He was only a threat to his neighbours, three of which (Iran, Syria and Turkey) can look after themselves. And Kuwait (and Turkey) had the US protecting it.

The US, along with UK and Australia, turned Iraq into a terrorist hotspot, and an international terrorism exporter.

Er, you still don't get it. At the time Saddam was doing everything in his power to convince the rest of the world that he WAS a direct threat not just to his neighbors but to everyone on the planet. He had sophisticated operations in place during the interregnum to provide what turned out to be false intelligence information to the Coalition that he was engaged in biological, chemical and nuclear weapons development and production, which included building vehicles specifically intended to look like mobile bio-war labs from space-based satellite observation, among many other fictional and actual WMD violations.

He was quite successful in this blowhard attempt to look like a world nuclear power. So successful that his charade convinced every member of the Coalition that calling him to account for his continuous violations of UN resolutions was necessary to preserve world peace and prevent the escape of WMDs from Iraq to the terrorist cells Saddam was actively financing through thousands of covert bank accounts all over the world.

This isn't even a contentious point. Many neocons have even admitted this.

Even if true and even if the opinions of "many neocons" is in the least bit probative, hindsight is always 20/20, but you don't go to war with perfect intelligence, you go to war with the intelligence you have, and all of that intelligence pointed to Saddam working hard to produce nuclear, biological and chemical munitions for use and distribution to terrorist organizations in direct defiance of the cease fire agreement he signed.

[pErvinalia]

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.

He wasn't, that's the point. He was only a threat to his neighbours, three of which (Iran, Syria and Turkey) can look after themselves. And Kuwait (and Turkey) had the US protecting it.

The US, along with UK and Australia, turned Iraq into a terrorist hotspot, and an international terrorism exporter.

Er, you still don't get it. At the time Saddam was doing everything in his power to convince the rest of the world that he WAS a direct threat not just to his neighbors but to everyone on the planet. He had sophisticated operations in place during the interregnum to provide what turned out to be false intelligence information to the Coalition that he was engaged in biological, chemical and nuclear weapons development and production, which included building vehicles specifically intended to look like mobile bio-war labs from space-based satellite observation, among many other fictional and actual WMD violations.

He was quite successful in this blowhard attempt to look like a world nuclear power. So successful that his charade convinced every member of the Coalition that calling him to account for his continuous violations of UN resolutions was necessary to preserve world peace and prevent the escape of WMDs from Iraq to the terrorist cells Saddam was actively financing through thousands of covert bank accounts all over the world.

Rubbish. No one thought any such thing other than the neocons who wanted it to be true so they could invade. That's why they simply made up "evidence" that Colin Powell presented to the UN.

[pErvinalia]

I'd suggest you got so far from an objective view of this incident, given the bias of your media. It's quite possible that you didn't even hear the counter arguments. We heard plenty of them here in Australia (not that it stopped our lap dog of a PM from kissing Bush's arse). Richard Clarke has clearly reported Bush's zealotry for an invasion of Iraq. They wanted it badly, so badly that they simply made up bullshit "evidence" to present to the UN.

[piscator]

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.

Why are you starting with the assumption that "Nationalized" [read: "Saddam-owned" in Iraq] is the best case, and all other outcomes are inferior for Iraq? Looks like circular reasoning to me. And it also earned you a "Parlor pink" award, which you later described as an ad hom. If the foo shits...

Also, I don't think you know much about the biggest business in the world. Any "nationalized" oil company you can name does big business with Halliburton and at least some of the old Seven Sisters like BP, Xon, Chevron...Think PDVSA doesn't? CNPC/CNOOC? Gazprom? Statoil? Aramaco? NIOC? Think Saddam didn't? Names come and go, but the players remain the same.
Here's an example: The Perth-based Australian Oil Company is now the Perth-based Sacramento Gas Company, Sacgasco [SGC]. Where do they make most of their $$? Fucking California....


Paddy Chayefsky laid it out 40 years ago...




But underneath the hair splitting and hypothetical and circular reasoning, I believe you know there are lots of very good reasons to kill the fuck out of your fellow man. That's why you're OK with me.

[piscator]

I'd suggest you got so far from an objective view of this incident, given the bias of your media. It's quite possible that you didn't even hear the counter arguments. We heard plenty of them here in Australia (not that it stopped our lap dog of a PM from kissing Bush's arse). Richard Clarke has clearly reported Bush's zealotry for an invasion of Iraq. They wanted it badly, so badly that they simply made up bullshit "evidence" to present to the UN.

I'd suggest that the reason you and other Ozzie progressives were against it back then was because you were afraid you'd somehow be affected by it.
That, and you just tow the party line because it's easier than using your own head...

[pErvinalia]

Doubtful. We always feel reasonably safe here at the arse end of the world. We knew it was bullshit right from the start. It was Bush Junior wanting to finish the job that his Dad refused to finish.

[piscator]

Isolationism and xenophobia only go so far in this magical modern age of flight...That's why your Diggers kick ass worldwide.

[pErvinalia]

I'd suggest you got so far from an objective view of this incident, given the bias of your media. It's quite possible that you didn't even hear the counter arguments. We heard plenty of them here in Australia (not that it stopped our lap dog of a PM from kissing Bush's arse). Richard Clarke has clearly reported Bush's zealotry for an invasion of Iraq. They wanted it badly, so badly that they simply made up bullshit "evidence" to present to the UN.

I'd suggest that the reason you and other Ozzie progressives were against it back then was because you were afraid you'd somehow be affected by it.
That, and you just tow the party line because it's easier than using your own head...

Nice sneaky edit...

Are you fucking kidding? The "party line" was the bullshit coming out of neocon central and a compliant media. How you can turn an obviously bullshit invasion that has increased world wide terrorism into some inane platitude about "the party line" is beyond me. Did you hit your head on your last trip out to sea??

[rainbow]

Er, you still don't get it. At the time Saddam was doing everything in his power to convince the rest of the world that he WAS a direct threat not just to his neighbors but to everyone on the planet. He had sophisticated operations in place during the interregnum to provide what turned out to be false intelligence information to the Coalition that he was engaged in biological, chemical and nuclear weapons development and production, which included building vehicles specifically intended to look like mobile bio-war labs from space-based satellite observation, among many other fictional and actual WMD violations.

You still believe this drivel.

The US made up this "Intelligence" to justify war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan- ... 24620.html

[piscator]

You believe cherry picking by a Huffpo user?
Wishful thinking dun got the best of you...