That Iraq War Thread

[Syberberg]

Why do you think the first duty of the Royal Marines was to secure the oil terminals in southern Iraq?

Why do you think the first Iraqi government building secured by US troops in Baghdad was the Oil Ministry?

Oil represents 95% of Iraq's economy. The Hussein regime had previously attempted to destroy Kuwait's oil industry when defeated. I don't think its a stretch to believe that he would try to cripple the Iraq oil industry when defeated.

Why do you think the Bush Administration is attempting to force the Iraqi (puppet) government to sign an oil law that will privatize the Iraqi oil industry, rather than letting them keep it nationalised?

"force"? Well, I don't know about that; be happy to read any evidence on that. But overall, the USA is a great believer in privatization and more equal distribution of wealth (compare with other non-publically held oil-rich Arab companys).

The papers you link to are interesting, but I don't really see how they indicate that the Iraq war was oil motivated.... I like money, I talk about money, I have some money and would like more; but it does not mean I was the one who broke into the ATM down the street last night.

Re: weapons. I'm not talking about the weapons they had, but the weapons they could easily have had. That's where the issue lies.

Propaganda? I don't believe so... there's just as much of that on both sides, with the ever-fashionable view that the USA is an evil, greedy empire. I feel that you, sir, have read too many left-wing leaning papers. Perhaps I have read too many of the other kind.

You really are geopolitically naive aren't you? (That's not meant as an insult, BTW)

I can give you a whole host of stats about the global energy situation currently as it stands, oil output and growth in demand both current and projected, I can cite a whole host of historical FACTS and still you won't get your head out of the sand and take a long hard look at the world around you and realise what's actually going on geopolitically.

Priavtisation of resources does the exact opposite of spreading wealth around, it funnels it into the hands of a few. Do your research, or are you too scared of discovering the truth and having all your pretty illusions shattered?

As for America being an "evil greedy empire", show me one single empire in the entirety of human history, that wasn't. America is no different from any previous empire that has ever existed in that respect, particularly the British one.

Believe what you want about "America's grace", but the rest of the world has a huge dislike of American foreign policy for a reason and it's not jealousy.

Reading too much "left leaning papers", I don't read papers. I tend to get my information from right across the board and I have no real political affliation. But, from an American POV (with starts at the center right from a European POV), I'd certainly say I'm "on the left." But that still doesn't alter any of the actual FACTS.

Yes, Saddam was a despotic SOB and would've done everything he could to get access to unconventional weapons. He was, however, contained.

WMD were the excuse used to invade Iraq to gain control of their oil fields and secure the oil supply to the US and her allies, and give lucrative contracts to mainly US oil companies, Halliburton in particular.

Tony Blair stood up in Parliament and stated as fact that Saddam could launch a bio-chem attack within 45 minutes of the order to do so being given.

Colin Powell, and the rest of the Bush Administration, on more than one occasion, declared that Saddam had WMD and was actively seeking to gain them.

Unfortunately for both, the UN weapons inspection teams were consistently coming up empty handed and, roughly 24 hours before the green light was given, Saddam had ordered full co-operation with the inspection teams.

The document that the Bush Administration used to "prove" Saddam was touting for yellowcake uranium turned out to be a forgery.

The entire case for war with Saddam over his nonexistant WMD program has since been shown and proved to be based on faulty use of intelligence, forged documents and downright lies.

Now, Saddam's ability to destroy his own oil industry. Don't make me laugh. Have you any idea how big Iraq is and where the main oil fields are? I'll give you that one: Iraqi Kurdistan (northeast Iraq, around Mosel and Kirkuk) and in Southern Iraq around Basra and along the Kuwaiti border. Given that the US/UK had complete air superiority, the like;ihood of that happening was, in fact remote.

Here's a handy map from the BBC to prove my point. I'd also strongly suggest you have a look at the other maps presented by the BBC there. You might actually learn something useful.

Here's something from the BBC's Greg Palast that he did for Newsnight

The BBC can hardly be described as "left leaning."

I will admit that the use of the word "force", in relation to the Iraqi Oil Law, was a bit strong, "pressure" would be a better one. The original plan for Iraqi oil production was drawn up by the Pentagon and has since been amended by pressure from the oil industry. My mistake.

It still doesn't alter that fact, however, about US/UK desire to secure favourable oil supply in the light of their own energy requirements in the face of the fact that their other supply sources have (or are about to) go into decline and preventing the likes of China, Russia and India securing a supply. The other problem is the Export Land Model, where previous oil exporters reduce the amount of oil they export due to increasing domestic demand. This is already happening in Saudi Arabia.

Truth is often unpleasant, unpalatable and rather nasty, but that's the nature of the beast. Nor does truth owe any political alligence.

Oh and just for some more elucidation for you, here's an article from the Asia Times, published Feb 28, 2007: US's Iraq oil grab is a done deal

From above article: ""By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies." - US Vice President Dick Cheney, then Halliburton chief executive officer, London, autumn 1999."

Rather damning that quote, isn't it?

I'll rest my case there I think. Unless you want me to continue sailing supertankers sideways through the holes in your arguements?

[nodubmanshouts]

Again, I think you post some interesting articles, but nothing which screams 'evidence for the USA going to war over oil'. Its circumstantial.

Well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I feel I do a rather good job of filtering out the anti-American/anti-Bush BS, and you feel you do a good job of filtering out the American/Bush BS.

If you believe that privatization is 'bad' (my word), its probably going to a long time before we agree on anything politically

Just curious, where do you sit on the Political Compass? http://politicalcompass.org/test

[EvilBastard]

Just curious, where do you sit on the Political Compass? http://politicalcompass.org/test

Apparently I'm not as far to the left as Ghandi, but I'm more of a libertarian than he was.

[stufarq]

Ah, the old false dichotomy.

Nothing ever happens for a reason, guys. Everything always happens for lots of reasons. Especially war.

Think about it. Even someone as simple as Bush has lots of reasons for wanting to invade Iraq. His view of history has already been mentioned. His religious crusading (his main point of commonality with Tony Blair) hasn't, nor his likely desire to finish what Daddy started.

And that's just him. One man doesn't make a war. All of his advisors and the various politicians who actually voted for it had their own motives, some shared some not. Pretty much every reason given in this thread will have come into it somewhere.

Just look at how Blair backpedalled after the case for WMD was finally discredited. He then started giving lots of other justifications for the war. Do you think he just thought them up on the spur of the moment? More likely they were all there from the outset. Maybe they weren't all his personal motives, but they'd have been discussed in Cabinet, in meetings with Bush and, yes, at the UN (who didn't have the guts to expel the US and UK for defying UN resolution and international law).

It's never as simple as we want it to be.

And you'll hardly find a place anywhere in the world where it is as hard to escape poorness as in the USA.

Ever been to Africa? Or South America? Or Asia?

Oh, and the last time I did the political compass (a few years ago now), I was right next to the Dalai Lama, but now I seem to have moved a bit to the right and become even more libertarian.

[nodubmanshouts]

I live in the North East corner of the zone of Evil Bastardy. Nice neighbored, but the taxes are way too high

[markfiend]

I'm right at the extremes of both 'left-wing' and 'libertarian' as I recall...

The WMD thing was an outright lie, that was obvious even at the start of 'Gulf War II: Harder, Longer, Uncut'. I believe it's a tie between the oil and Sultan's Dantooine theory myself. Someone had to be punished for 9-11 after all.

[Syberberg]

Again, I think you post some interesting articles, but nothing which screams 'evidence for the USA going to war over oil'. Its circumstantial.

Well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I feel I do a rather good job of filtering out the anti-American/anti-Bush BS, and you feel you do a good job of filtering out the American/Bush BS.

If you believe that privatization is 'bad' (my word), its probably going to a long time before we agree on anything politically

Just curious, where do you sit on the Political Compass? http://politicalcompass.org/test

I'm rather pleased to see we can keep this good natured.

I do a very good job of filtering out all the BS. It was what I was trained to do at CTCRM Lympstone and RMA Sandhust. To source information from as many places as possible and look for where they coincide, rather than where they differ, placing them into the wider context and then build a conclusion from there. That's why I emphasised the word "truth." When it comes to this kind of discussion I do my level best to remain as neutral as possible and to refrain from expressing an opinion. You should've noticed that nowhere have I expressed my personal opinion, but given as many facts as possible, with references and have offered to supply even more.

As for whether privatisation is a "good" or "bad" thing, well, the overall statistics speak themselves, even including the caveat of "lies, damn lies and statistics". Privatisation, as it has been implemented has been "bad" for the majority of people and "good" for a small minority. Take a look at what's happened with water privatisation for example. It depends entirely upon the POV of the observer.

Given the above, I fail to see how my personal socio-political stand point, when answering questions in a US-centric (from a cultural/socio-political perspective) questionnaire, is relevant to my reporting of global energy and economic security concerns, realpolitik, or geopolitics. Particularly as I do not approach this kind of discussion from a socio-political stand point. As I said before, "truth" has nothing to do with socio-politics, mine or anyone else's.

May I also refer you to my sig line? It was a very deliberate choice.

Oh, I knew Id forget something.

Back on topic: Gordon Brown (at the time the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said in an interview with The Scotsman (published 4th May, 2005, p.4) that the UK involvement in the US led invasion of Iraq was "in the British national economic interest."

Article here. You'll have to scroll down a bit, but the full quote is as follows:

"But on the essential decision to go to war, Mr Brown said there could be no compromise or regret.

"We believed we were making the right decisions in the British national economic interests," he said.

"At the end of the day we wanted the security of Britain and the British national interest to be advanced.""

I could continue if you want, but I'm pretty sure you're not listening. Non, I repeat none, of the evidence that I have already provided, nor any of the evidence that I can continue to provide is "circumstantial", it's all highly relevant. Why? Because (once I start quote energy figures) it's exactly the same evidence that was used by those in power to make the decisions and then find an excuse they hoped the public would accept. Anything to avoid telling the truth that, if officially endorsed, could cause a potential economic collapse. It's what governments do, ie protect their (respective) country's economy and enable it to grow. (As for the "right" and "wrong" ways in which this can be achieved, well, that's an entirely different discussion).

[eotunun]

And you'll hardly find a place anywhere in the world where it is as hard to escape poorness as in the USA.

Ever been to Africa? Or South America? Or Asia?

Okay, this point is yours.

. <-Here you are.

Didn't think that one through when writing.
Oh, and BTW: I ended up a bit left from EB on that diagram.

[nodubmanshouts]

No, I'm listening, I just don't agree Clearly we have different views on what constitutes evidence, so we're probably not going to get much further until we resolve that point.

Its interesting that evolution has evolved the human mind to work on incomplete information, while two people with very much the same information can reach different conclusions.

Makes the world interesting, doesn't it?

[Syberberg]

No, I'm listening, I just don't agree Clearly we have different views on what constitutes evidence, so we're probably not going to get much further until we resolve that point.

Its interesting that evolution has evolved the human mind to work on incomplete information, while two people with very much the same information can reach different conclusions.

Makes the world interesting, doesn't it?

Clearly what you regard as "acceptable evidence" is that which backs your opinion and nothing else. Unfortunately, however, you have yet to provide any evidence for your case. The evidence that I have provided for my case is corroborating evidence that supports the circumstantial evidence and some direct evidence (all of which are acceptable in any court of law). So far, you haven't provided any counter arguement, nor evidence of any kind, that my case is incorrect. Nor have you provided any evidence to substantiate your position.

I also seriously doubt that we are working from the same amount of information, or even the same information base.

So, in the light of the above:

You must state your case and clearly define it. Then provide evidence to support it.

I have to argue against that case and provide counter evidence to disprove (for lack of a better word) it.

Then I have to state my case and clearly define it. Then provide evidence to support it.

You have to argue against that case and provide counter evidence that disproves it.

Is that fair enough? (Because other wise we're going to get nowhere fast and anyone reading this will learn nothing).

Oh, nearly forgot, the only reason I'm prepared to enter into this is that you've earned my respect for not resorting to ad hominem attacks. Can we please keep it that way?

[EvilBastard]

Now I'm torn, you see, between weighing in further on this debate and letting discretion be the better part of valour.

Oh, screw discretion.

I'm going to have to side with Syberberg here. The evidence for either a causus belli in Iraq or that the world is a "safer place" (I'd be interested to hear your logic for this, NoDub) has proved to be somewhat elusive. Given the weight of evidence that would appear to refute either the legitimate nature of the invasion of Iraq or the hypothesis that the world is indeed safer (political skulduggery in Foggy Bottom, the can-open worms-everywhere nature of post-invasion religious extremism, etc.), unless you have something that outweighs this then it would appear, as Syberberg suggests, that you are counting only the evidence that supports your opinion while turning a blind eye to everything else.

I really hope that this is not the case - I am enjoying this discussion, but it's difficult to continue with it when one of the participants refuses to justify his position with anything thing more substantial than that which has already been presented.

[sultan2075]

I'm right at the extremes of both 'left-wing' and 'libertarian' as I recall...

The WMD thing was an outright lie, that was obvious even at the start of 'Gulf War II: Harder, Longer, Uncut'. I believe it's a tie between the oil and Sultan's Dantooine theory myself. Someone had to be punished for 9-11 after all.

Why thank you! Realistically, I think it's a combination of all of the factors I mentioned. GWB really does seem to have a sincere and deep-seated belief that you can civilize barba--sorry, I mean democratize non-liberal societies. I am skeptical of the possibility. For the record, I tend to think that the humanitarian impulse, while admirable, can be very dangerous when making foreign policy.

Oh, and that quiz is frustrating. Some of those questions simplify very complex things, but I guess that's the nature of the beast. I'm off towards the lower right of the graph. How shocking.

[stufarq]

While we're "filtering out the BS":

You should've noticed that nowhere have I expressed my personal opinion,

Apart from the one that the war was about oil. Don't get me wrong: you're fully entitled to that or any other opinion, but just because you said it doesn't make it anything other.

but given as many facts as possible, with references and have offered to supply even more.

You've cited lots of articles, mostly from newspapers. All perfectly good evidence but, while we could debate the very tenuous relationship between newspapers and facts, all of it is stuff that someone wrote down, which means it's at least partly influenced by their opinions. How much of what you provided is hard, irrefutable fact may never be known to any of us.

Clearly what you regard as "acceptable evidence" is that which backs your opinion and nothing else.

All the evidence you've provided has been specifically to support your opinion. Again, that's the usual way to construct an argument so fair enough, but there's no evidence to suggest that you're being any more open minded than nodubmanshouts.

Oh, nearly forgot, the only reason I'm prepared to enter into this is that you've earned my respect for not resorting to ad hominem attacks. Can we please keep it that way?

Perhaps the easiest method of keeping it that way would be for you to stop making those attacks. Normally the above wouldn't have bothered me so much and I wouldn't have made this post, but you've been rather patronising and rude to nodub. For those unfamiliar with the term, "ad hominem" refers to an attempt to win an argument by attacking the person rather than their viewpoint. Since that's what you've admitted you're doing, it rather undermines all your criticisms of nodub's debating skills. A lack of manners doesn't earn you the moral high ground.

[6FeetOver]

GWB really does seem to have a sincere and deep-seated belief that you can civilize barba--sorry, I mean democratize non-liberal societies.

I've never understood this arrogant (human?) drive to interfere in everyone else's business. I *do* understand curiosity...but why does it seem to inevitably necessitate subjugation (or, as in the case of Chrissy Columbus, for example, the utter annihilation of an entire ethnic group)?

As you might have guessed, I have a "live and let live" (and a rather isolationist) world view...

[sultan2075]

GWB really does seem to have a sincere and deep-seated belief that you can civilize barba--sorry, I mean democratize non-liberal societies.

I've never understood this arrogant (human?) drive to interfere in everyone else's business. I *do* understand curiosity...but why does it seem to inevitably necessitate subjugation (or, as in the case of Chrissy Columbus, for example, the utter annihilation of an entire ethnic group)?

As you might have guessed, I have a "live and let live" (and a rather isolationist) world view...

In this case it goes back to the University of Chicago in the early 1900's, the founder of the American Political Science Association, and the development of a certain view of history based on certain philosophers.

[Syberberg]

While we're "filtering out the BS":

You should've noticed that nowhere have I expressed my personal opinion,

Apart from the one that the war was about oil. Don't get me wrong: you're fully entitled to that or any other opinion, but just because you said it doesn't make it anything other.

If that was the case, why did I emphasize the word "personal"? You are making an assumption based on the position I have taken in this debate. An opinion is completely different to a position.

but given as many facts as possible, with references and have offered to supply even more.

You've cited lots of articles, mostly from newspapers. All perfectly good evidence but, while we could debate the very tenuous relationship between newspapers and facts, all of it is stuff that someone wrote down, which means it's at least partly influenced by their opinions. How much of what you provided is hard, irrefutable fact may never be known to any of us.

Hence the reason I have cited some direct evidence in the from of quotes (within articles) from the people who made the decisions. Quoting Dick Cheney and Gordon Brown directly in 2 examples. I also offered to provide sats and figures on oil production (corroborating evidence), oil demand (current and projected) as well as various others that would be considered as circumstantial evidence, all of which would be perfectly acceptable in any court of law. All fairly easy to do if you know what you're looking for, where to look for it and how to connect the evidence to present a case.

Clearly what you regard as "acceptable evidence" is that which backs your opinion and nothing else.

All the evidence you've provided has been specifically to support your opinion. Again, that's the usual way to construct an argument so fair enough, but there's no evidence to suggest that you're being any more open minded than nodubmanshouts.

So by asking for nodubmanshouts to provide evidence, other than opinion, rather than simply dismissing any contradictory evidence presented out-of-hand is being closed minded how exactly?

Asking for agreement upon how the debate is to be conducted and continued is being closed mined how exactly? Without an agreed framework of how to conduct and proceed, the whole debate might as well end here and now, otherwise nothing will be achieved, one way or the other.

Oh, nearly forgot, the only reason I'm prepared to enter into this is that you've earned my respect for not resorting to ad hominem attacks. Can we please keep it that way?

Perhaps the easiest method of keeping it that way would be for you to stop making those attacks. Normally the above wouldn't have bothered me so much and I wouldn't have made this post, but you've been rather patronising and rude to nodub. For those unfamiliar with the term, "ad hominem" refers to an attempt to win an argument by attacking the person rather than their viewpoint. Since that's what you've admitted you're doing, it rather undermines all your criticisms of nodub's debating skills. A lack of manners doesn't earn you the moral high ground.

I fail to see anywhere where I have been that which you accuse me of being. And as for your accusation of me being patronising and then pointing out something I am already fully aware of, ie the meaning of ad hominem, that's patronising. I have not been condescending at all.

Providing some information of my background, training and where I obtained it is hardly patronising, nor is it calling into question anyone's debating technique, nor is it an ad hominem attack. It's a statement of fact. If you have mistaken that and made an assumption from it, that's hardly my fault now is it? I'm pretty sure that if nodobmanshouts had felt like I was patronising him/her, s/he'd have made that crystal clear.

Since when has it been "patronising" (your word), to clearly and succinctly explain something, particularly given the restraints of the place in which the discussion is occurring?

You seem to be reading into my replies what you want to read into them and finding something that isn't there.

[MadameButterfly]

Right! MB steps into this thread just to summarize what has been said...

There's a war going on killing innocent people because of oil that is cheaper in that country and because the president of the USA decided more wars should be fought to hide the corrupt government he is leading!

The religious point of it all is that he is the evil man behind it all and if this war could be over, the rest of the world could get on with it!

For heavens sakes people we have more realistic things to discuss in this world on this forum than the fuckedup situation that was caused and should be stopped long ago...

But no...mankind and governments keep sending forces into the country, fuckingmillions are being spent on this matter and THAT's what makes me sick to the gutts! Grow up men throwing bombs and causing wars is not the answer to showing us all who has the biggest dick of you all....

Give me women in power all over the world and especially in politics and then we can get on with saving mother earth...

Thank you all for reading my post if you did and trust it's all the truth...if not my GOD kill me tomorrow...

[nodubmanshouts]

Ok, lets back up a bit. The reason I bought up the subject was not to prove that the war and nothing to do with oil, but to show that there was more to the war than oil. So if somebody were to prevent some undeniable evidence that the USA wanted in on Iraq oil, it wouldn't shift my position, because I agree it was part of the equation.

The decision to go to war was not made on evidence alone, but a judgment about what the consequences would be for both action and in-action based on the probabilities of incomplete information. When governments make decisions of this kind (actually most kinds), they don't way up the evidence and then make a decision, because they're always dealing with incomplete information.

Let's say the probability of Iraq having WMD was X. And then let's say that they came up with a probability Y which was the chance of him starting a war if he had them. Overall, the probability of X and Y together may be extremely low (less than 20% say), but the cost associated with that outcome is so high (war, death toll, etc) that they would have to act on the small amount of evidence to prevent Y from happening. In retrospect people would look at the evidence and say "there was not evidence", and they would be right, kind of, but the risk associated with not going to war was too high, and they had to act on that small amount of evidence.

As you probably guessed by now, I'm talking about Game Theory. If you're not familiar with Game Theory, check it out on Wikipedia; they have a pretty lengthy write up. For starters I'd checkout this page Prisoner's Dilemma

Users of Game Theory often make decisions which can appear illogical at first glance, but make sense when you understand the the risk of action/in-action.

For example, here's a true story. My company makes a consumer product. About a year ago, we figured out we could make more money by NOT selling them for 6 months, than by selling them now. So the supply went down, the price was kept so high that people won't buy it. Our competitors laughed at us, called us crazy, but we knew this 'crazy' action was the best thing for us to do.

So, anyway, back to Iraq. Let me summarize on a few points:

- I will never be able to supply you with a body of evidence that shows "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Iraq had WMD.
- I believe the USA (and others) had some evidence that Iraq has WMD.
- I believe there is a large body of evidence that Iraq under that regime was an aggressive nation (Kuwait Invasion, for example), and if they had WMD would use them, and that such a war would have been much larger and costlier (in money and death toll) than a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.
- Pluging this into the Game Theory Calculator, its is better to invade Iraq, than not to.

After the fact, when no WMD are found, its easy to say "see, see! they made the wrong decision!" or even worse, "see, it was never about WMD, it was all about oil!", because they made the right decision on the evidence they had, but the wrong decision based on the reality of the situation, which they did not - and could not - know. But now it looks like they 'lied' or made the wrong decision, but that's not really the case.

I don't doubt for one second that oil was factored into these decisions, but it was not the major factor. As I've already pointed out, the cost of going to war far over-shadows the profit made in oil, and Iraq only counts for 5% of USA oil imports. Is that really a logical reason to go to (costly) war over?

[stufarq]

Completely bought the propaganda haven't you?

Well, that's if you take your head out of the sand for long enough to look at the wider, geopolitical and global energy picture.

There's more than enough evidence out there to destroy your precious belief

You really are geopolitically naive aren't you?

Do your research, or are you too scared of discovering the truth and having all your pretty illusions shattered?

Clearly what you regard as "acceptable evidence" is that which backs your opinion and nothing else.

Not patronising at all, really.

I wasn't explaining the meaning of "ad hominem" for your benefit but to clarify my point. As it's not a commonly used term, it occurred to me that if anyone else wasn't familiar with it, what I said wouldn't make much sense.

[Syberberg]

Completely bought the propaganda haven't you?

Well, that's if you take your head out of the sand for long enough to look at the wider, geopolitical and global energy picture.

There's more than enough evidence out there to destroy your precious belief

You really are geopolitically naive aren't you?

Do your research, or are you too scared of discovering the truth and having all your pretty illusions shattered?

Clearly what you regard as "acceptable evidence" is that which backs your opinion and nothing else.

Not patronising at all, really.

I wasn't explaining the meaning of "ad hominem" for your benefit but to clarify my point. As it's not a commonly used term, it occurred to me that if anyone else wasn't familiar with it, what I said wouldn't make much sense.

If you're going to quote me, kindly do so correctly and accurately.

Some of those comments were phrased the way they were, deliberately, to emphasise that nodobmanshouts was taking too narrow a perspective and not taking into consideration the wider picture. I was also responding to nodubamnshoouts comments about anti-American/anti-Bush BS.

You missed out from me:

You really are geopolitically naive aren't you? (That's not meant as an insult, BTW)

So, you quoted me incorrectly.

If I was wanting to patronising and insulting, I wouldn't have added the comment that I put in brackets. Interesting how you ignore that bit and twist it to prove your misinterpretation.

You also seem to have failed to notice this caveat:

[quote="Syberberg]I appologise for any bluntness in the above, but I don't really have the space to be anything other than direct.[/quote]

Where I acknowledge that my tone is direct and may be a cause of offense, making it clear that that is not my intent. Hardly the act of the patronising tawt you're attempting to make me out to be.

If you're going to quote me, kindly do so properly, fully and, more importantly, accurately. Thank you.

[Almiche V]

Give me women in power all over the world and especially in politics and then we can get on with saving mother earth...

You mean like Margaret Thatcher tried to?

[Syberberg]

Ok, lets back up a bit. The reason I bought up the subject was not to prove that the war and nothing to do with oil, but to show that there was more to the war than oil. So if somebody were to prevent some undeniable evidence that the USA wanted in on Iraq oil, it wouldn't shift my position, because I agree it was part of the equation.

The decision to go to war was not made on evidence alone, but a judgment about what the consequences would be for both action and in-action based on the probabilities of incomplete information. When governments make decisions of this kind (actually most kinds), they don't way up the evidence and then make a decision, because they're always dealing with incomplete information.

Let's say the probability of Iraq having WMD was X. And then let's say that they came up with a probability Y which was the chance of him starting a war if he had them. Overall, the probability of X and Y together may be extremely low (less than 20% say), but the cost associated with that outcome is so high (war, death toll, etc) that they would have to act on the small amount of evidence to prevent Y from happening. In retrospect people would look at the evidence and say "there was not evidence", and they would be right, kind of, but the risk associated with not going to war was too high, and they had to act on that small amount of evidence.

As you probably guessed by now, I'm talking about Game Theory. If you're not familiar with Game Theory, check it out on Wikipedia; they have a pretty lengthy write up. For starters I'd checkout this page Prisoner's Dilemma

Users of Game Theory often make decisions which can appear illogical at first glance, but make sense when you understand the the risk of action/in-action.

For example, here's a true story. My company makes a consumer product. About a year ago, we figured out we could make more money by NOT selling them for 6 months, than by selling them now. So the supply went down, the price was kept so high that people won't buy it. Our competitors laughed at us, called us crazy, but we knew this 'crazy' action was the best thing for us to do.

So, anyway, back to Iraq. Let me summarize on a few points:

- I will never be able to supply you with a body of evidence that shows "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Iraq had WMD.
- I believe the USA (and others) had some evidence that Iraq has WMD.
- I believe there is a large body of evidence that Iraq under that regime was an aggressive nation (Kuwait Invasion, for example), and if they had WMD would use them, and that such a war would have been much larger and costlier (in money and death toll) than a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.
- Pluging this into the Game Theory Calculator, its is better to invade Iraq, than not to.

After the fact, when no WMD are found, its easy to say "see, see! they made the wrong decision!" or even worse, "see, it was never about WMD, it was all about oil!", because they made the right decision on the evidence they had, but the wrong decision based on the reality of the situation, which they did not - and could not - know. But now it looks like they 'lied' or made the wrong decision, but that's not really the case.

I don't doubt for one second that oil was factored into these decisions, but it was not the major factor. As I've already pointed out, the cost of going to war far over-shadows the profit made in oil, and Iraq only counts for 5% of USA oil imports. Is that really a logical reason to go to (costly) war over?

Good post.

Now extrapolate that into a wider context (leaving aside an attack on Israel and Syria for the moment). What would be the effect of Saddam launching a WMD (assuming he also had the military capability to do so) attack on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?

[6FeetOver]

In case anyone's interested:



I'm shocked that I'm so far in the Libertarian camp; I consider myself a socialist (:!:).

Incidentally, I was raised in a conservative, WASP, church-going, Nixon/Ford/Reagan/Bush-supporting immediate family *and* extended family. As a young adult, I thought of myself as a staunch Republican, just like my parents and grandparents.
What a difference a decade (or two) makes...

[nodubmanshouts]

What would be the effect of Saddam launching a WMD (assuming he also had the military capability to do so) attack on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?

A lot of dead bodies.

[Syberberg]

What would be the effect of Saddam launching a WMD (assuming he also had the military capability to do so) attack on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?

A lot of dead bodies.

Obviously.

You used game theory in an economic context, expand that economic thinking.