Iraq? It's the Oil, Stupid!

[billvon 3,090]

>Who gave the order to gas the kurds?

No idea. Someone in Hussein's chain of command presumably.

>And when did the U.S say it was O.K?

Rumsfeld met with Hussein to show our support, and we gave him military intelligence on Iran during the time he was gassing the Kurds. Of course, we were not supporting his gassing of the Kurds, we just wanted him to fight Iran for us since we were more mad at Iran than Iraq at the time.

>Being that the U.S did most the work and spent the most money that sounds fair to me.

So we failed to find the man responsible for 9/11, we installed a US oil president, human rights have not significantly improved, and that's your definition of a fair deal? Tell me, if we can't get Hussein (he moves to another country and starts a terrorist organization with his supposed WMD's) we kill 10,000 Iraqis, and we put a US oil company in charge of Iraq, you'll consider that a good outcome?

I mean, if you want a war to get oil, fine - just admit that that's the reason, that all this other WMD stuff is just a smokescreen. If not, be willing to pay the price for doing what's right - and that price does not include the right to pillage Iraq.

>I think this 500,000. number is extreme . . .

I said 50,000. The last war saw between 100,000 and 200,000 Iraqi deaths so that seems like a low estimate.

> And even then no one can say we did not warn the people, If I lived there
>I would of packed up and walked my goat eating kids outta there a long time ago.

You really think they watch CNN? They eat goats to survive but they have a satellite TV receiver? Think, man!

>Inspectors find some warheads that Saddam is not suppose to have . . .


Well, Bush himself said if we found nothing, then that was evidence of guilt, that they were hiding everything. So now we've found something (a tiny amount of empty shells) and that's evidence of guilt, too?

What could happen that would convince you (theoretically of course) that Iraq has no WMD's?

>You REALLY think thats a good excuse for having them Bill?

Yes. We bombed the hell out of them; wouldn't suprise me if there is debris (and missing weapons, and missing paperwork) all over the place out there. If someone bombed your house, could you account for all your belongings, down to the dish?

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Rumsfeld met with Hussein to show our support, and we gave him military intelligence on Iran during the time he was gassing the Kurds.

You keep saying this in a way to allow the greatest misinterpretation. The fact is that the US was giving Iraq operational intelligence on the Iranian Army (not the Kurds) when Iraq independently decided to gas its own population. We did not support them in the attack in any way and we did not have foreknowledge of the attack.

Quote

So we failed to find the man responsible for 9/11

It is not over yet. Bush said in the beginning it would take awhile.

Quote

human rights have not significantly improved

Women are allowed in school now, men no longer have to wear beards, women don't have to be completely covered, women are allowed medical care, kids can fly kites. None of this is significant?

Quote

Well, Bush himself said if we found nothing, then that was evidence of guilt, that they were hiding everything.

That is because we have evidence that he has the weapons. Remember Saddam's son-in-law who defected, then he later went back to Iraq and was shot three days later. One big piece of intelligence he gave was that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was functional again. I'll bet there is more that we don't know about yet.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[rhino 0]

Quote

I say we pull out completely and let the Europeans handle this.

If we did that Saddham would control 80% of the worlds oil right now..

[rhino 0]

Quote

It is not over yet. Bush said in the beginning it would take awhile.

He said we had to stay focused too.. Sounds like most people have lost that focus and anger that they should really have..

12 months ago?? KILL KILL THE FUCKERS!!!

Today... Make love and peace not war.. Saddham is harmless...

BULLSHIT I say....

Rhino

[billvon 3,090]

>He said we had to stay focused too.. Sounds like most people have lost that
>focus and anger that they should really have..

Now that I agree with! Over a year ago, Bin Laden killed 3000 Americans. Where is he? What are we doing to get him? Why are we pulling troops out of the search? Why are we going after a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Did we already forget the faces of the people killed during 9/11?

I haven't forgotten. I came within 20 minutes of being on flight 11, so it struck home personally as well. Americans are easily distracted, and we are currently being shown a great war movie (Gulf Wars II) to distract us from the fact that we failed to find the man responsible for 9/11. I'm not so easily distracted.

[rhino 0]

It's that whole Axis of Evil thing you know... Once they were all put in the same basket of bad fruit POLITICALLY it made it o.k.

But I think Saddhams past actions have made it more than o.k.

I do whowever feel that in some sense or another we might beoverstepping our bounds. And it the UN was a tight knit team and we were at the head of that team that other countries wouldn't hate and misunderstand us so much..

Going it alone we take the risk of taking ALL the backlash from those we will untimately anger and hurt.

[billvon 3,090]

>The fact is that the US was giving Iraq operational intelligence on the
>Iranian Army . . .

Agreed; I did not mean to imply we helped them gas the Kurds, just that we did not condemn them for it back then, since they were a useful tool to us.

>We did not support them in the attack in any way and we did not have
> foreknowledge of the attack.

We knew they'd been using chemical weapons for years, and indeed opened diplomatic relations with them knowing they had used them during the Iraq-Iran war:

"Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department “evidence.” On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.”

The UN report stated:

“Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists,” the U.N. report said. “The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun.”

>Women are allowed in school now, men no longer have to wear beards, women
>don't have to be completely covered, women are allowed medical care, kids
>can fly kites. None of this is significant?

Right, and now you need three witnesses instead of one before you can stone a woman to death for adultery. From the BBC:

"Yes, a quarter of girls are back in school, some women have returned to work, and the sounds of music and television permeate the dusty suburbs of Kabul.

But there are no women singers on radio, and musicians talk of beatings when they play. Schools in two provinces have been rocketed and burnt - and night letters delivered to warn teachers of giving instruction to girls. The women in burkha on the streets of the capital, Kabul, remain the luckiest. At least, they have the personal freedom to leave their homes.

For many, the changes wrought by the removal of the Taleban have not reached their private realms, inside the kitchen, and the living room. Those women who wear only head-scarves on the streets, speak quietly of a fear of acid attacks, and of verbal harassment on the streets."

Sounds like a big advance! Those women must worship the US for allowing them to bear their faces; it gives the acid a better target.

You've become another victim of the US propaganda machine I fear. Kabul isn't much different, and out in the outlying villages, where the old warlords still hold onto their power, little if anything has changed.

>That is because we have evidence that he has the weapons.

Then present it and get the rest of the world on our side.

[akaGQ 0]

This is what I dont get all of this could have been avoided back in 91 when this all began. The SEALs Army/Marine Special Forces had plenty of time to take out that commy bastard Sadam. But whats the deal they cant get a green light to take him out. Why I dont know. But I can say this yes we do live in the greatest country around but why is it that everytime we fight a damn nation or whatever that opposes us we always go back brush them off and resupply them with Nuclear weapons and small arms did the USSR do this before it fell no and this is why modern day Russia is so large because they would conquer someone and claim there country as their own. And as for all the countries that we have Nuked before yes it was a way of saying dont mess with us and such take Hanoi and so on I mean we kick their asses and then pick them back up and brush them off and resupply them with whatever they want....I know its an act of friendship but hello if I did something to someone and they did something worse Id take there apology and shove it up there asses the first time they turned there backs and I had a chance to get even. But I mean come on something should be done. Theyve had plenty of time to do something and we keep sending over more and more troops including many of my close friends and yet nothing seems to be resolved.

- GQ

... it was the love of the air and sky and flying, the lure of adventure, the appreciation of beauty ...
-Charles Lindberg

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

>And when did the U.S say it was O.K?

Rumsfeld met with Hussein to show our support, and we gave him military intelligence on Iran during the time he was gassing the Kurds. Of course, we were not supporting his gassing of the Kurds, we just wanted him to fight Iran for us since we were more mad at Iran than Iraq at the time.

Iraq gassed the Kurds after the cease fire was negotiated with Iran. The cease fire was August 20, 1988. This was after Iraq used WMDs (in the form of chemical weapons) against Iran, during that time, all support for Iraq was nearly evaporated (including the US).

The attack against the Kurds happened some time after the cease fire was signed, some witness accounts say August 25, 1988, here is an investigative report on that attack.

The United States was no longer engaged with Iraq during the time of the chemical weapons attack on the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,090]

>The United States was no longer engaged with Iraq during the time of the
>chemical weapons attack on the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

In 1988, starting in January, Hussein ordered his troops to kill every Kurdish male they could; this is when most of the gassing took place. One of the more famous ones took place in Halabja in March, 1998, where Saddam's troops used US supplied helicopters to drop the gas. Here's what else happened in 1988:

February. The U.S. Commerce Department allowed for the export of equipment to Iraq for its SCUD missile program.

May. Assistant Secretary of State Peter Burleighin encouraged U.S. companies to do business in Iraq.

September. Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote "The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is important to our long-term political and economic objectives. "

December. US OKs shipment of chemicals to Iraq that can be used for pesticides or chemical weapons.

March 1989. State Department memo expresses the administration's "interest in broadening U.S.-Iraqi ties."

1989. Bush administration approves dozens of export licenses that allowed United States and foreign firms to ship U.S. dual-use military equipment to Iraq.

They sure have a funny way of disengaging. What do you suppose the US would do if they found out that North Korea was shipping Scud missile parts to Iraq right now?

[Gawain 0]

As you are conveying information completely contrary to the Physicians for Human Rights report I found, please tell me where you found this information. Every search I conduct is listing latter half 98 events for the Kurdish attacks in the form of artillery.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Faber 0]

Hi im glad that you responed

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Us also support teroism,but its a kind of legal terro...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is wholly incorrect, and I would like you to provide an example

The fact that You "help"these people,but then not..
Ill say its Terro when you help people whit food but you dont help the hospital.The dead at KIDS i say KIDS have been doubbeled since we "helped"them whit food for oil.

But yes you are correct terro migth be the wrong word ill agree in that,but it looks like US does this for its own best,not for the people of Irak(just to stay at this war)

Quote

That is a UN program, which, as it happens, is administered by Europe

When did USA go out of UN?Sorry didnt know they did...
So USA dont get any oil,or give food..hmm

What i wanted to tell in that note i wrote(and yes i can see it can be missunderstood,sorry for that),is that that world can just look at US and see that when they have desided somthing then its going to be thayway..Perhaps thats why a minister in my own cuntry back you up,we are too scared of you.. next time it migth just be me you dont like..

Im happy that some big cuntryes(German and France)say no.The fact that its under 1/3 of the British people that want this,but Blair want it...

I dont like Sadam,but we dont have to figth like him..

These were my final words in this(public)if you want talk more about this then mail or PM me,but only aslong as we can talk freindly..
Peace

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[blueshrew 0]

Ok, again, if Saddam is the problem, why not send a bunch of assassins? Cheaper, less damage, probably faster and more efficient to pull off.

There are a couple of people here who have very valid and intelligent opinions (e.g. billvon, wendy), but others that seem to be living in a dream world.
It's more fun to believe in conspiracy theories, I suppose (Saddam and the suicide bombers, e.g.)

Saddam is a very unpopular man even in the Middle East (ohmeegod, you never knew that?). I bet any neighbouring country would be wholeheartedly helping take out the guy discreetly. But a war?? To take out one guy? Can you actually believe that? For the safety and prosperity of the world? That seriously is a joke.

[Tonto 1]

Firkin A bud. What gives moral high ground these days is having all the cool guns...

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Ok, again, if Saddam is the problem, why not send a bunch of assassins? Cheaper, less damage, probably faster and more efficient to pull off.

That's very interesting question. My suspicion as to why we haven't quietly advocated this is two-fold: a) Saddam has doubles everywhere and doesn't sleep in the same bed twice and, b) It doesn't remove the familial problem of Saddam's brother (who makes Saddam look like an angel) and it does risk an uncontrollable political void. By taking an overt action, you can achieve more verifiable results and not risk Iran rolling in with its own puppet government. Tom Clancy wrote a similar scenario in Debt. of Honor and Executive Orders. The plot was far wider, but hypothesized on what would happen in an assassination like that.

Quote

There are a couple of people here who have very valid and intelligent opinions (e.g. billvon, wendy), but others that seem to be living in a dream world. It's more fun to believe in conspiracy theories, I suppose (Saddam and the suicide bombers, e.g.)

Well, I've not seen bank statements, but Saddam paying $25K to families of homicide bombers does effectively play his political card for "caring" about the Palestinians, even though he couldn't care less. He's all about No. 1.

Quote

Saddam is a very unpopular man even in the Middle East (ohmeegod, you never knew that?). I bet any neighbouring country would be wholeheartedly helping take out the guy discreetly.

I agree, you wouldn't see many tears, but see my first response, I think the political vacuum in an uncontrolled environment is the problem there.

Quote

But a war?? To take out one guy? Can you actually believe that?

It's happened many times, WWI, WWII, Vietnam (unsuccessfully), Gulf War (to stop one man's mission), all were designed around defeating one man's mission of conquest.

Quote

For the safety and prosperity of the world? That seriously is a joke.

I know it's not popular to bring up the oil issue, but it does run everything, in every plant, in most of the world. I don't know how old you are, but he gas crisis of the 1970s nearly brought this country to the brink: double digit inflation, double digit mortgage and interest rates, rationing of gas, double digit unemployment and no tax relief. All these things prevailed through the 1970s and through 1982.

That was due to an organized effort. Now try to imagine if it was an unorganized, chaotic breakdown in society, government and peace across the entire middle east. The world economy would collapse and all of us would be wishing for better days.

Certainly this should be a precursor to develop new technologies, and I agree with that. Unfortunately, those new technologies, even at top-speed development are 7-15 years off from practical application.

Very interesting points all around.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,090]

>I know it's not popular to bring up the oil issue, but it does run everything,
> in every plant, in most of the world.

And thus we are back to the beginning of the thread. I agree; oil is a key, and is one reason (though not the only reason) that we're so adamant about regime change.

>Certainly this should be a precursor to develop new technologies, and I agree
> with that.

>Unfortunately, those new technologies, even at top-speed development are 7-15
> years off from practical application.

If that's the case, then had we started after the first gulf war, it would no longer be an issue.

Fortunately, it's no longer the case. While we haven't been doing that top speed development, other countries have. We now have three cars that get over 45mpg, we have grid-interactive solar that works well, and we have wind power that's price-competitive with natural gas power plants. We have cars that run on natural gas and fuel companies that sell biodiesel for only 20% more than regular diesel. These come from companies like Honda, Toyota, Kyocera and SMA, and while US companies haven't caught up in most areas, there are now designs to copy. All we have to do it want to do it and we could be independent of foreign oil in 10 years. The technology is here. It would be much cheaper than another two wars, and would do way more to stimulate the economy, especially if the US companies can come up to speed.

It will, of course, take sacrifice. It means buying biodiesel instead of regular diesel, and spending more. It means putting a $5000 solar power system on your roof. It means passing up that 8 cylinder SUV for a 4 cylinder hybrid one, or a natural gas 4-door instead of a gasoline powered one. I know, people want big trucks, but there is going to be a sacrifice whether it comes due in american (and foreign) lives, or in having to drive a smaller truck. I hope most people will choose the smaller truck.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Unfortunately, those new technologies, even at top-speed development are 7-15
> years off from practical application.

Fortunately, it's no longer the case. While we haven't been doing that top speed development, other countries have. We now have three cars that get over 45mpg, we have grid-interactive solar that works well, and we have wind power that's price-competitive with natural gas power plants. We have cars that run on natural gas and fuel companies that sell biodiesel for only 20% more than regular diesel. These come from companies like Honda, Toyota, Kyocera and SMA, and while US companies haven't caught up in most areas, there are now designs to copy. All we have to do it want to do it and we could be independent of foreign oil in 10 years. The technology is here. It would be much cheaper than another two wars, and would do way more to stimulate the economy, especially if the US companies can come up to speed.

It will, of course, take sacrifice. It means buying biodiesel instead of regular diesel, and spending more. It means putting a $5000 solar power system on your roof. It means passing up that 8 cylinder SUV for a 4 cylinder hybrid one, or a natural gas 4-door instead of a gasoline powered one. I know, people want big trucks, but there is going to be a sacrifice whether it comes due in american (and foreign) lives, or in having to drive a smaller truck. I hope most people will choose the smaller truck.

To an extent, you're right, but think of the demographic that the new technology needs to permeate. A $5000 solar power system on a house would do little to take a house off the power grid and reduce demand from the gas/oil burning plants. Not to mention that the demographic which conserves the least is the less affluent or poorer segment of society in general.

The same applies to cars too. It is widely accepted (the data exists and I am too lazy to find it right now) that 90+% of the poor fuel efficiency and pollution is caused by the smallest segment of cars/trucks on the road. These autos are typically older too. Why? Because the segment that drives these cars cannot afford a new hybrid (right now, they do cost more than their counterparts by as much as $6K per. edmunds.com confirms this) despite the potential savings and write-offs.

By practical application, the technology needs to be cost transparent. Cell phone and computer technology is a perfect example. The auto and energy industries need to undergo a massive new revolution to attain the energy independence that some envision.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Faber 0]

You just tease meOkay i promised to not post more here but will make this last one..

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But a war?? To take out one guy? Can you actually believe that?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's happened many times, WWI, WWII, Vietnam (unsuccessfully), Gulf War (to stop one man's mission), all were designed around defeating one man's mission of conquest.

Hmm ww2 werent about 1 man... that one man you are thinking of,didnt do it all.. This were Nasism,he were just the leader of it..
Wietnam were also a group of people that wanted to deside evrything..
Most wars starts becours of religion(no dont bring it up again) and greed...Nothing else...

Sadam is a dictator that hurt his own people,not the rest of the world,SO FAR,but we dont like his way and know he is a bomb to explode..

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[Gawain 0]

Quote

You just tease meOkay i promised to not post more here but will make this last one..

Stefan, there is nothing wrong with continued participation if we keep it civil.

Quote

Hmm ww2 werent about 1 man... that one man you are thinking of,didnt do it all.. This were Nasism,he were just the leader of it..
Wietnam were also a group of people that wanted to deside evrything..
Most wars starts becours of religion(no dont bring it up again) and greed...Nothing else...

WWI started with the assassination of Prince Ferdinand (spelling?), one man. While history is still in judging WWII to an extent, my perception is that the National Socialist movement in 1930s Germany was led by one man. It was his vision which created the holocaust, and swallowed all of Europe. Hitler's wrath was driven by hate and greed. He didn't do it all (we agree), but he was the catalyst overall, resulting in tens-of-millions dead.

Vietnam was also the driver of one man's vision (ironically a former Capitalist turned Communist Ho Chi Minh). The revolution in Vietnam was driven by his vision. Overall, this was a poor example on my part.

Quote

Sadam is a dictator that hurt his own people,not the rest of the world,SO FAR,but we dont like his way and know he is a bomb to explode..

Saddam has hurt the world though: Invaded Iran (used WMD), invaded Kuwait, and strategic missle attacks against Israel. Iraq also launches SAMs against aircraft enforcing the UN no-fly zones every day.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jerry81 10]

Quote

WWI started with the assassination of Prince Ferdinand (spelling?), one man. While history is still in judging WWII to an extent, my perception is that the National Socialist movement in 1930s Germany was led by one man. It was his vision which created the holocaust, and swallowed all of Europe. Hitler's wrath was driven by hate and greed. He didn't do it all (we agree), but he was the catalyst overall, resulting in tens-of-millions dead.

The assassination in Sarajevo merely enabled the Austro-Hungarian empire to start a war that had been on their minds long before. A bit like (if you'll excuse the analogy) the 9/11 attacks enabled the US administration to go after Saddam again.
Hitler really was a madman (and a bit of a genius, as well), but he would have gone unremembered if it wasn't for the post-wwI circumstances which enabled him to rise to power and manipulate the Germans into fighting for his vision.
But the question is; given the circumstances, who is more likely to start a war/cause thousands of deaths- Saddam or George?

---

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The assassination in Sarajevo merely enabled the Austro-Hungarian empire to start a war that had been on their minds long before.

Definitely...the assasination may have been the lit match that set it off, but the fuse was already in place with lots of fires all around it. Great book that touches on this subject is The Radetzky March by Joseph Roth. Very much in the style of Tolstoy, but in my opinion, even better at character development. WWI occured because of the death of empires already in motion.

Quote

It has aptly been noted that the Austrian novelist Joseph Roth was a man at war with his times. Many of the Post World War I generation convinced themselves that the ancient regimes and institutions had lead Europe, particularly the naive youth of Europe, into a self-destructive war which no one really wanted and, as a result of this determination, declared themselves unalterably opposed to the antediluvian system. Roth, in his multivolume, multigenerational saga of the extended von Trotta family, more accurately diagnosed the rot in his own generation, the lack of beliefs and values that had contributed to the unthinking descent into war:

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

The assassination in Sarajevo merely enabled the Austro-Hungarian empire to start a war that had been on their minds long before.

Definitely...the assasination may have been the lit match that set it off, but the fuse was already in place with lots of fires all around it. Great book that touches on this subject is The Radetzky March by Joseph Roth. Very much in the style of Tolstoy, but in my opinion, even better at character development. WWI occured because of the death of empires already in motion.

That's also like saying the fuse was in place with the great depression when Hitler came to power. I was trying to simply cite the catalysts, which usually boil down to a single leader making a decision.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,090]

>A $5000 solar power system on a house would do little to take a
>house off the power grid and reduce demand from the gas/oil
> burning plants.

It was sufficient to offset over 50% of my power usage. Combine that with even cheaper ways to save power (compact flourescents etc) and you could close 20% of the power plants in the US; _certainly_ all the oil, gas and diesel burning plants.

> Not to mention that the demographic which
> conserves the least is the less affluent or poorer segment of society
> in general.

. . .

> Because the segment that drives these cars cannot afford a new
> hybrid . . .

>By practical application, the technology needs to be cost transparent.

Well, that's what I was saying above. If people don't want to depend on foreign countries for oil, and don't want to risk seeing american soldiers die, they have to sacrifice - and one sacrifice is spending more for cars. This can be done individually, which would be ideal. That's not always possible; not everyone can afford to do it. It can be done collectively, through our government, via subsidies/tax breaks for more efficient cars, trucks, planes, homes etc.

Will it cost a lot? Definitely. Will it cost less than a few wars? Definitely. But even if it cost the _same_ as two wars, we still make out pretty well, because fewer american soldiers die - and that's worth a lot. It's even worth paying more taxes.

>Cell phone and computer technology is a perfect example.

Actually that's the opposite example. Is a cellphone cheaper than a wall phone? Is cell service cheaper than landline service? No, but people are willing to pay more (even low income people) because it's so cool and convenient to have a portable phone. Same thing with computers. Paper letters, postage, mail order catalogs, board games, magazine porn etc are cheaper than using a computer to surf the web and send email (what 99.9% of americans use their computers for) but computers are cool and convenient so people will pay more for them.

If efficiency was considered equally cool, we would not be importing oil today.

[billvon 3,090]

>But the question is; given the circumstances, who is more likely to
> start a war/cause thousands of deaths- Saddam or George?

No question there - Bush. We have a far more bloody history than even Iraq over the past 50 years. We just consider the blood we shed as more justified.

[kallend 2,117]

The leaders of (among other places) Liberia and Sierra Leone are every bit as nasty as Saddam. Of course, there's no oil in either place.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.