Cassis Belli (warning:graphic)

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
The Dark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7378
Joined: 2002-10-31 10:28pm
Location: Promoting ornithological awareness

Post by The Dark »

Durran Korr wrote:
The Dark wrote:This I can answer. Ratchet affect. During the war, the oil companies will raise prices on refined oil, since large amounts are being consumed by the military, and the price for crude will go up as demand goes up (it's already happening now, and it's a simple examination of the supply/demand curve). Once the Iraqi oil is available and prices to the oil companies decrease, they'll maintain most if not all of the price increase, pocketing the difference as pure profit. They've done it before; they'll do it again.
In the short run, perhaps; in the long run, however, the prices will drop.
I doubt it would be by a significant amount. The ratchet effect (spelled it wrong last time) is one of the few near-definites in macroeconomics. Companies will keep charging a higher price for as long as possible, and there's no incentive to get into price wars in the American oil industry, since the government mandates a MINIMUM selling price. To get into a price war would merely end up cutting profit margins. Thus, it's not wise to start one, because it will merely end with everyone making less money.

Looking at the cost of oil in California, it's steadily increased ever since the 1970s. In 1973, it shot up because OPEC ceased selling us oil, with the average gallon of gas going from $1.2897 (2003 dollars) to $1.6201. When they began selling again in 1974, the prices went from $1.6201 that year to $1.6471. Even though the oil supply increased, price remained roughly the same, an example of the ratchet effect. I will admit it did decline when OPEC cut their prices in 1983, and has remained at near the same point since then (with fluctuations back and forth). It decreased during the recession of the early-mid 80s, when people were hard-pressed to afford gas, then rose as incomes did in the late 90s. In fact, gasoline right now is at its most expensive since the Iranian hostage crisis, and is more expensive (adjusted for inflation) than when OPEC cut supplies. Oil companies have shown a tendency to charge whatever will maximize their profit, so while prices may return to current levels after a war (roughly $2.00 per gallon in approximately two dozen cities nation-wide, slightly less most other places), they will most likely not decrease below that even if the price for crude oil drops below what it is now.
Stanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
BattleTech for SilCore
User avatar
Joe
Space Cowboy
Posts: 17314
Joined: 2002-08-22 09:58pm
Location: Wishing I was in Athens, GA

Post by Joe »

I will concede that the downward inflexibility of prices will make it unlikely that the oil companies will lower their prices; however, that still begs the question; why go to war? The best way for oil companies to continue to be able to increase their prices would be for the air of uncertainty and tension that characterizes the world today with the impending war to continue to exist. As long as no one knows what is going to happen, prices will continue to climb and stay up. However, after the war, as you stated, prices will have to drop back to their pre-war levels, and the release of Iraqi oil to the marketplace (which will take a while) will make it extremely difficult for the oil companies to continue to jack up their price.
Image

BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman

I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
weemadando
SMAKIBBFB
Posts: 19195
Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
Contact:

Post by weemadando »

Stormbringer wrote: Oh of course it must be about oil? Yeah, sure. How's the weather up your own ass?
Good, but a little cold today.
You know what this war comes down to? Saddam. He's a marginally sane dictator with WMD, a grudge against us, and no scruples at all. I don't think he's in bed with Bin Laden but he is a dangerous loon in a region where there's a surplus of dangerous loons.
A dangerous loon installed and supported by who until the moment he crossed a border back in 1990?
Not to mentions he's violated the UN resolution and the cease fire agreements for better than a decade and only namby pamby foriegn policy prevented us from doing any thing.
Just like Republicans overlook the fact that they're previous regimes looked the other way while their "ally" was gassing his own people. I love a double-standard.

Oh, and do you realise that a lot of the actions that COULD have been taken against Iraq were blocked by the Republicans who didn't want the Democrats getting a good looking war on their record?
Listen you hippy prick, those troopers (including some people I consider friends) are willing to give their lives to take out a dangerous madman. I believe in this for moral reasons and I would if it were a dirt poor country as well.
And what happens when the troops from other nations are sent in?

Spain is firmly in Australia's shit list at the moment for supporting a war but not commiting ANY troops to it. I believe that it was Simon Crean yesterday who made the point that the Howard government has deployed forces and commited them to a war without even consulting the parliament.

How many of the troops on the ground think that it is the right thing to do?

I believe that Saddam should be gotten rid of, but for fucks sake, let the UN do its job.
User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Post by Stormbringer »

A dangerous loon installed and supported by who until the moment he crossed a border back in 1990?
Yeah. He was aided and abetted by America. It's a matter of record. It was a stupid thing to do.
Just like Republicans overlook the fact that they're previous regimes looked the other way while their "ally" was gassing his own people. I love a double-standard.
Yes they did. But why exactly should that stop us from doing the right thing now?
Oh, and do you realise that a lot of the actions that COULD have been taken against Iraq were blocked by the Republicans who didn't want the Democrats getting a good looking war on their record?
Yes I am aware of that. Like I said, why shouldn't we do the right thing now?
And what happens when the troops from other nations are sent in?
I'd imagine they'll be fighting along with our troops and I hope they're safe and all go home to their families at the end of this.
Spain is firmly in Australia's shit list at the moment for supporting a war but not commiting ANY troops to it. I believe that it was Simon Crean yesterday who made the point that the Howard government has deployed forces and commited them to a war without even consulting the parliament.
That's cowardice but about what I'd expect out of a lot of countries.
How many of the troops on the ground think that it is the right thing to do?
I don't know. They did sign up though and that means they're obligated to follow orders though.
I believe that Saddam should be gotten rid of, but for fucks sake, let the UN do its job.
The UN can't and won't. Thanks to the obstructionism of certain froggish nations.
Image
User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12461
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Edi »

Stormbringer wrote:But why exactly should that stop us from doing the right thing now?

The UN can't and won't. Thanks to the obstructionism of certain froggish nations.
You should, but maybe you should give out those reasons instead of trying to use bullshit excuses about threat to US security? Because that and the high-handed way the US has dealt with everyone else, practically demanding a permanent exemption from any sort of generally practiced and usually (though not nearly always) observed international frameworks and rules whenever, wherever and how it sees fit, those are the reasons you get such fierce resistance. I'm all for killing Saddam because of the things he has done. But I will still criticize the US administration for the way it has handled this issue and lied to everyone. Simply saying that enough is enough with Saddam's brutality would have made for a far more convincing case than trying to pass off blatantly plagiarized forgeries as "intelligence" and the other bullshit rhetorical games about "threats to American security" when he doesn't pose them.

Edi
User avatar
Boba Fett
Jedi Master
Posts: 1239
Joined: 2002-11-22 11:54am
Location: Lost in my fantasies...

Post by Boba Fett »

@Crackpot: Edit the topic title, it's CASUS BELLI.

If we're talking about the same...
Image
Visit Darksaber's X-Wing Station

Member of BotM and HAB
User avatar
Col. Crackpot
That Obnoxious Guy
Posts: 10228
Joined: 2002-10-28 05:04pm
Location: Rhode Island
Contact:

Post by Col. Crackpot »

weemadando wrote:I believe that Saddam should be gotten rid of, but for fucks sake, let the UN do its job.
when has the UN ever done it's job?

Yugoslavia? nope, nothing, Clinton and Blair finally had enough bullshit and went around the UN. If we waited for the UN Milosovic would still be slaughtering Kosovars.

Central Africa? How many millions have died in civil wars in the past 20 years? Has the UN had any effect in stemming the tide of blood? nope. This is something i wish the US would take a more active role in.

Cambodia? don't even get me started.

Korea and Iraq: Ok , here are two examples of what happens when the UN does take an active role in international problem solving. 50 FUCKING YEARS LATER AND KOREA IS STILL A GODDAMN MESS! 12 YEARS LATER AND SO IS IRAQ. That is what happens when you lead by commitee! you get watered down shit that doesn't work.
"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.” -Tom Clancy
User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12461
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Edi »

Col. Crackpot wrote:Korea and Iraq: Ok , here are two examples of what happens when the UN does take an active role in international problem solving. 50 FUCKING YEARS LATER AND KOREA IS STILL A GODDAMN MESS! 12 YEARS LATER AND SO IS IRAQ. That is what happens when you lead by commitee! you get watered down shit that doesn't work.
Perhaps then the US should have fucking finished the job properly 12 years ago? It was, IIRC, a US decision to leave Saddam in power, so don't blame the UN for that! All the subsequent events since then have been a result of that screwup. I was only 14 at the time, and I couldn't believe they didn't finish the war but let Saddam off the hook instead.

Edi
User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Post by Stormbringer »

You should, but maybe you should give out those reasons instead of trying to use bullshit excuses about threat to US security? Because that and the high-handed way the US has dealt with everyone else, practically demanding a permanent exemption from any sort of generally practiced and usually (though not nearly always) observed international frameworks and rules whenever, wherever and how it sees fit, those are the reasons you get such fierce resistance.
I can see why that arguement hasn't been made. And I think some nations have simply set themselves against any war no matter the reasons.

And yeah, the US does ask for exemptions. Not always for a bad reason though. Some of those international laws are just plain stupid, the land mine ban for instance or a lot the restrictions on military weapons.

Not every exception is right or moral but the world does a lot of dumb things and the US doesn't have to follow suit every time.
I'm all for killing Saddam because of the things he has done. But I will still criticize the US administration for the way it has handled this issue and lied to everyone. Simply saying that enough is enough with Saddam's brutality would have made for a far more convincing case than trying to pass off blatantly plagiarized forgeries as "intelligence" and the other bullshit rhetorical games about "threats to American security" when he doesn't pose them.
We still don't know who forged most of that stuff. Whether it was US or someone else makes me wonder. The fact that he is making WMD does make him a threat, to us and everyone else.

The fact that he tried to assasinate one of our former presidents suggests he'll do whatever he can to hurt the US.
Image
User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12461
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Edi »

Stormbringer wrote:I can see why that arguement hasn't been made. And I think some nations have simply set themselves against any war no matter the reasons.

And yeah, the US does ask for exemptions. Not always for a bad reason though. Some of those international laws are just plain stupid, the land mine ban for instance or a lot the restrictions on military weapons.

Not every exception is right or moral but the world does a lot of dumb things and the US doesn't have to follow suit every time.
True, all of that, and I'm not asking the US to follow like a blind sheep tied to a guiderope. The land mine ban is fucking ludicrous, and we haven't signed it either. I haven't heard a single good reason for it, just appeals to emotion and arguments from ignorance and/or incompetence.

Stormbringer wrote:We still don't know who forged most of that stuff. Whether it was US or someone else makes me wonder. The fact that he is making WMD does make him a threat, to us and everyone else.

The fact that he tried to assasinate one of our former presidents suggests he'll do whatever he can to hurt the US.
It's immaterial as to who forged them, the US and British governments defended the documents even after they were pointed out to be forgeries, and the fact that they got through a supposedly rigorous examination of intelligence agencies just makes it worse (if it was incompetence) or verifies that the forgery was deliberate on the part of one (or both) government(s). Not good PR in either case.

His supposed WMD still don't make him a threat to the US because he can't deliver them, and I don't see NK touted as such a serious threat as Saddam, when in fact he is worse in both arsenal and capability on both destruction and delivery categories. That Saddam tried assassination of Bush Sr. is compared to the rest of these things more of an aside, and can probably be chalked up to a desire to revenge himself on the man who foiled his expansionistic powerbid.

All this said, now that the war is going forward, nail the bastard good.

Edi
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Stormbringer wrote:
We still don't know who forged most of that stuff. Whether it was US or someone else makes me wonder.
The fact that he is making WMD does make him a threat, to us and everyone else.
Mere pursuit of WMD does not tell someone what they plan to do with them.
The fact that he tried to assasinate one of our former presidents suggests he'll do whatever he can to hurt the US.
The US tried to kill him during 1991. If we're going to use such gargantuan leaps in logic from car-bomb plot to will-nuke-us-if-he-can-get-the-chance-even-though-he-has-nothing-to-gain-and-everything-to-lose, can't Saddam argue that the US started it by making it 'personal'? The CIA has consistently stated that Saddam would only use any WMD he had if backed up against the wall. When most states would use them.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

Hameru wrote:
But you don't give a fuck. you know what, go to the peace march with the rest of the lemmings and try to solve the worlds problems with rhetorical slogans and bong hits, that's about all you are good for.
Then why don't you sign up at your local recruitment station and get your pimply ass to Bahgdad ASAP! Move it soldier! MOVE MOVE MOVE!
As I asked you the last time you were here (and promptly ran away) why don't you move to Iraq? You claim it has a superior government to that of the United States, and Saddam Hussein promised in his interview with Dan Rather to welcome you as his guest. I'll even pay for your airplane ticket.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

Hameru wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:
:roll: if you only knew.
Just don't act like you give a fuck about the Iraqi people. We know better.
WTF is this? He started this thread specifically so that he could show a potential humanitarian reason to go after Iraq for the benefit of its own people, and then you claim he doesn't care about the very people he pointed out are being abused?
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
Joe
Space Cowboy
Posts: 17314
Joined: 2002-08-22 09:58pm
Location: Wishing I was in Athens, GA

Post by Joe »

Perhaps then the US should have fucking finished the job properly 12 years ago? It was, IIRC, a US decision to leave Saddam in power, so don't blame the UN for that! All the subsequent events since then have been a result of that screwup. I was only 14 at the time, and I couldn't believe they didn't finish the war but let Saddam off the hook instead.
We had a mandate from the UN to go in there and halt Saddam's aggression against Kuwait, not take over the fucking country. Don't you dare try and pin this on us.
Image

BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman

I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
User avatar
Col. Crackpot
That Obnoxious Guy
Posts: 10228
Joined: 2002-10-28 05:04pm
Location: Rhode Island
Contact:

Post by Col. Crackpot »

Master of Ossus wrote:
Hameru wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:
:roll: if you only knew.
Just don't act like you give a fuck about the Iraqi people. We know better.
WTF is this? He started this thread specifically so that he could show a potential humanitarian reason to go after Iraq for the benefit of its own people, and then you claim he doesn't care about the very people he pointed out are being abused?
he's gone...out seeking the path of least resistance i assume.
"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.” -Tom Clancy
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Post by Coyote »

weemadando wrote: (Re:Saddam)
A dangerous loon installed and supported by who until the moment he crossed a border back in 1990?
Uh, bear in mind... Saddm got himself into power in a Ba'athist-party coup around 1968, and the US largely ignored him until the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979. When Iraq attacked Iran, Saddam's secular regime seemed the better bet when compared to the Ayatollahs. We backed him in a bid to put pressure on Iran. At the time-- with the inability to see into the future-- it was a very realistic choice.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
User avatar
Col. Crackpot
That Obnoxious Guy
Posts: 10228
Joined: 2002-10-28 05:04pm
Location: Rhode Island
Contact:

Post by Col. Crackpot »

Coyote wrote:
weemadando wrote: (Re:Saddam)
A dangerous loon installed and supported by who until the moment he crossed a border back in 1990?
Uh, bear in mind... Saddm got himself into power in a Ba'athist-party coup around 1968, and the US largely ignored him until the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979. When Iraq attacked Iran, Saddam's secular regime seemed the better bet when compared to the Ayatollahs. We backed him in a bid to put pressure on Iran. At the time-- with the inability to see into the future-- it was a very realistic choice.
if only we all had the wonderful future-seeing abilities of the folks at NPR and Berkely... :roll:
"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.” -Tom Clancy
User avatar
Hamel
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3842
Joined: 2003-02-06 10:34am
Contact:

Post by Hamel »

Master of Ossus wrote:
Hameru wrote:
But you don't give a fuck. you know what, go to the peace march with the rest of the lemmings and try to solve the worlds problems with rhetorical slogans and bong hits, that's about all you are good for.
Then why don't you sign up at your local recruitment station and get your pimply ass to Bahgdad ASAP! Move it soldier! MOVE MOVE MOVE!
As I asked you the last time you were here (and promptly ran away) why don't you move to Iraq? You claim it has a superior government to that of the United States, and Saddam Hussein promised in his interview with Dan Rather to welcome you as his guest. I'll even pay for your airplane ticket.
Hi

When have I made the claim that Iraq had a superior gov't?

Link? While you're at it, get over yourself.
"Right now we can tell you a report was filed by the family of a 12 year old boy yesterday afternoon alleging Mr. Michael Jackson of criminal activity. A search warrant has been filed and that search is currently taking place. Mr. Jackson has not been charged with any crime. We cannot specifically address the content of the police report as it is confidential information at the present time, however, we can confirm that Mr. Jackson forced the boy to listen to the Howard Stern show and watch the movie Private Parts over and over again."
User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Post by Stormbringer »

Edi wrote:True, all of that, and I'm not asking the US to follow like a blind sheep tied to a guiderope. The land mine ban is fucking ludicrous, and we haven't signed it either. I haven't heard a single good reason for it, just appeals to emotion and arguments from ignorance and/or incompetence.
That's my point. So many of those are pointless, stupid and flawed. And while some are laudable in principle a lot are flawed in execution.

Not that the US has always been what is right though.
Edi wrote:It's immaterial as to who forged them, the US and British governments defended the documents even after they were pointed out to be forgeries, and the fact that they got through a supposedly rigorous examination of intelligence agencies just makes it worse (if it was incompetence) or verifies that the forgery was deliberate on the part of one (or both) government(s). Not good PR in either case.
That means either the US was suckered (possible given the bloated bueracracy that are our itelligence services) and didn't back down or we forged them.
Edi wrote:His supposed WMD still don't make him a threat to the US because he can't deliver them, and I don't see NK touted as such a serious threat as Saddam, when in fact he is worse in both arsenal and capability on both destruction and delivery categories.
How soon people forget that axis of evil speech. :roll: At this point Korea has a history of better behaviour even given what has happened. And like if or not, we have to be more careful around countries that have more powerful and capable weapons.

I don't think anyone is taking Korea less seriously, just being more careful.
Edi wrote:That Saddam tried assassination of Bush Sr. is compared to the rest of these things more of an aside, and can probably be chalked up to a desire to revenge himself on the man who foiled his expansionistic powerbid.
It is less important. But it goes to show that he really won't let go of things though. Given the chance he would and could hurt the US.
All this said, now that the war is going forward, nail the bastard good.
Hear hear!
Vympel wrote:Mere pursuit of WMD does not tell someone what they plan to do with them.
No, that would the using them part would though. If he feels threatened or that he's got the leverage, he'd use them.
Vympel wrote:The US tried to kill him during 1991. If we're going to use such gargantuan leaps in logic from car-bomb plot to will-nuke-us-if-he-can-get-the-chance-even-though-he-has-nothing-to-gain-and-everything-to-lose, can't Saddam argue that the US started it by making it 'personal'? The CIA has consistently stated that Saddam would only use any WMD he had if backed up against the wall. When most states would use them.
I doubt he'd nuke washington. But there are plenty of things short of that he could and probably has thought of doing.

There is of course the fact that WMD make great blackmail weapons. With those as cover he'd be able make a lot of trouble and get away with it.
Image
Post Reply