There is an abundance of opinions (see Clint Eastwood) about war on Iraq which can never be proven wrong. There is even a "cost-benefit analysis" about a tradeoff between real and virtual deaths, which would make Popper very itchy.
There is also that joke about the guy who was throwing balls of paper out of the window of the train, explaining that he was doing it to keep elephants away. To the remark that there were no elephants there, he replied "See how effective it is?"
So, I was glad to see at least one falsifiable theory. Even if it is proven false, the fact that someone takes the risk to propose something falsifiable is an improvement.
The real goal is the seizure of Saudi oil
Iraq is no threat. Bush wants war to keep US control of the region
Mo Mowlam
Thursday September 5, 2002
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,786332,00.html
<snip>
The many words that are uttered about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, which are never substantiated with any hard evidence, seem to mean very little. Even if Saddam had such weapons, why would he wish to use them? He knows that if he moves to seize the oilfields in neighbouring countries the full might of the western world will be ranged against him. He knows that if he attacks Israel the same fate awaits him. Comparisons with Hitler are silly - Hitler thought he could win; Saddam knows he cannot. Even if he has nuclear weapons he cannot win a war against America. The United States can easily contain him. They do not need to try and force him to irrationality.
But that is what Bush seems to want to do. Why is he so determined to take the risk? The key country in the Middle East, as far as the Americans are concerned, is Saudi Arabia: the country with the largest oil reserves in the world, the country that has been prepared to calm the oil markets, producing more when prices are too high and less when there is a glut. The Saudi royal family has been rewarded with best friend status by the west for its cooperation. There has been little concern that the government is undemocratic and breaches human rights, nor that it is in the grip of an extreme form of Islam. With American support it has been believed that the regime can be protected and will do what is necessary to secure a supply of oil to the west at reasonably stable prices.
<snip>
The Americans know they cannot stop such a revolution. They must therefore hope that they can control the Saudi oil fields, if not the government. And what better way to do that than to have a large military force in the field at the time of such disruption. In the name of saving the west, these vital assets could be seized and controlled. No longer would the US have to depend on a corrupt and unpopular royal family to keep it supplied with cheap oil. If there is chaos in the region, the US armed forces could be seen as a global saviour. Under cover of the war on terrorism, the war to secure oil supplies could be waged.
This whole affair has nothing to do with a threat from Iraq - there isn't one. It has nothing to do with the war against terrorism or with morality. Saddam Hussein is obviously an evil man, but when we were selling arms to him to keep the Iranians in check he was the same evil man he is today. He was a pawn then and is a pawn now. In the same way he served western interests then, he is now the distraction for the sleight of hand to protect the west's supply of oil. And where does this leave the British government? Are they in on the plan or just part of the smokescreen? The government speaks of morality and the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, but can they really believe it?
Mo Mowlam was a member of Tony Blair's cabinet from 1997-2001
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=26394>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:21 MDT