SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: quehubo who wrote (136447)6/13/2004 11:33:59 AM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Thanks. I do my best, qh.

Saddam was not a clear and present danger. He was a danger-in-the-making. But what a danger he could have become! An incredible, world-changing immense danger. This was recognized by all who thought half-way objectively about things. The best case, of course, was made by Pollack, who has apparently not changed his view that Saddam needed to go. And while I understand every single aspect of Pollack's views, as expressed in his book and as expressed after the war, during the postwar I have for the first time sensed a bit of waffling in him, a bit of uncharacteristic going along with the flow, which was more pronounced during Awful April, which too, will pass. And which, by the way, was definitely not as bad militarily as everyone thinks, proof of which is the magnificent way we handled the ill-timed insurgency.

I still think the postwar was very poorly handled. However, I have no problem whatsoever distinguishing between the justifications for the war, its incredible success, and its later bungling. I can, however, at the same time withhold judgment until we have more perspective into the matter, which will only come as time passes.

Unless I've missed something, which is quite possible, I don't think Pollack has commented on Saddam's possible purchase of WMD, specifically nukes, in any of his post-war commentary.

I'd really like to hear and read some decent commentary along these lines. I'm surely not getting it here. The elephant sleeps unnoticed in the bedroom.

The thought of Saddam skiing down Hubbert's Peak, controlling the flow of a increasingly scarce yet absolutely essential resource, is sufficient justification to get rid of him. No one but no one has tackled that concept. Three parallel tracks were likely to take place, namely, that as years passed, while containment became increasingly a joke, and Saddam armed himself with nukes, at the same time the era of cheap oil would slowly be ending without any serious steps being taken to sever our dependency on petroleum. The third rack was a substantial increase in the demand for oil as China and India entered the market as serious consumers. China, no true friend of ours, was destined to become our competitor in the ME. It could be expected to aggressively push its interests, which do not coincide with ours in this regard.

In sum, there's no telling how many serious future difficulties could result when these three parallel tracks somehow ceased being parallel and meshed at some critical juncture sometime during this decade. By eliminating one of them, we have decreased the risk significantly.

If these thoughts do not affect anyone's risk assessment of the future, I don't know what can.

A successful postwar also means that we open up the market for ideas in the ME instead of propping up thugs and dictators. An exciting, ground breaking, positive change in how we do business that may do more to change the ME than anything we have ever done. The jury is still out, of course, but I'm hopeful.

We simply could not have ignored or lived in fear of some very nasty and potentially inevitable realities. I am heartened that we took steps to control our own destiny, a lesson both Reagan and FDR taught us.



To: quehubo who wrote (136447)6/13/2004 12:01:15 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
George Will on oil, a few nuggets among a lot of errors, in my view. Worth reading nonetheless. At least, he is one of the few major media figures who are beginning to try to start a public discussion concerning the future of oil:

sunherald.com

Oil produced the modern world - its ways of work, warfare and recreation - and soon, we are told, the end of cheap oil will produce abrupt, wrenching changes in the way we live. Changes, certainly, but not convulsions, because the modern world responds to price signals.

That is why U.S. energy efficiency - energy consumed to produce a dollar of GDP - has roughly doubled since the oil shocks of the 1970s. America's less than 5 percent of the world population consumes more than 20 percent of all oil. Surging demand by India and especially China will cause prices to rise. And terrorists, or chaos in Venezuela - America's fourth-largest supplier, behind Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico - or Nigeria, the fifth-largest, could cause prices to soar.

However, in 1920 the inflation-adjusted price of gasoline was twice today's. To match 1981 prices, a gallon of gasoline today would have to be $3.50. Inexpensive gasoline is one reason why since 1988 the average gas mileage of U.S. passenger vehicles has declined, and why in the 2003 model year, for the first time since the mid-1970s, the average weight of a new car or light truck was more than two tons (4,021 pounds).

In 1977 President Carter said we "could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade." But today known reserves are larger than ever. Reserves and production outside the Middle East are larger than they were 31 years ago, when a State Department report was titled "The Oil Crisis: This Time the Wolf is Here."

In 1971, a year before Texas output passed its peak, U.S. production was more than two-thirds of the nation's needs. Today the nation imports 54 percent of the oil it uses. M.A. Adelman of MIT notes that in 1971 non-OPEC countries had about 200 billion barrels of proven reserves. In the next 33 years they produced 460 billion "and now have 209 billion 'remaining.' " Note Adelman's quotation marks. To predict actual reserves would require predicting future exploration and development technologies.

However, the rate of discovery has been declining for several decades. Of course, oil supplies are, as some people say with a sense of profound discovery, "finite." But that distinguishes oil not at all from land, water or pistachio nuts.

Russell Roberts, an economist, says: Imagine that you love pistachio nuts and are given a room filled 5 feet deep with them. But you must eat them in the room and must leave the shells. When will you have eaten them all? Never. Because as it becomes increasingly difficult to find nuts amidst the shells, the cost of the nuts, in time and effort, will become too high. You will seek a substitute - pistachios from a store, or another snack.

Oil over $40 a barrel accelerates exploration for new fields, and development of known but technologically inaccessible fields, including some fields four miles below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, where there may be at least 25 billion barrels. High prices may also prompt development of hitherto economically unfeasible sources, such as U.S. oil shale and Canadian tar sands. Tim Appenzeller, writing in National Geographic, says tar-sand deposits in Alberta "hold the equivalent of more than 1.6 trillion barrels of oil - an amount that may exceed the world's remaining reserves of ordinary crude." Alberta, a future Saudi Arabia? Perhaps. Full-throttle production of oil from tar sand is not economical. So far.

John Kerry, whose idea of the future extends only to Nov. 2, says we should use less oil, but gasoline should be cheaper, so President Bush should stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But that is taking just 0.2 percent of the oil in the world market. Were Bush to stop topping off the reserve, as President Clinton did to help Al Gore's 2000 campaign, Kerry would accuse Bush of manipulating prices for political advantage.

The futures market is wagering that oil in the summer of 2005 will be about $35. The more distant future will be shaped by how much various nations have inflated estimates of their reserves. But, then, Alaska may have three times more reserves than originally estimated.

MIT's Adelman notes that even before 1800 - before the coal-fired industrial revolution - Europeans worried about exhausting coal supplies. "European production actually did peak in 1913 and is nearly negligible today." Billions of tons remain beneath European soil but are uneconomical to remove. So far.