 | Report on First General Assembly of ASPO Switzerland, May 24th 2008, University of Basel | The Oil Drum | How Will Local Governments Respond to Large Increases in Energy Bills? |  |
DrumBeat: May 27, 2008
Posted by Gail the Actuary on May 27, 2008 - 8:11am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Monbiot: We have gone mad, Your Majesty, and only you can cure our affliction
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Your Majesty,
In common with the leaders of most western nations, our prime minister is urging you to increase your production of oil. I am writing to ask you to ignore him. Like the other leaders he is delusional, and is no longer competent to make his own decisions.
You and I know that there are several reasons for the high price of oil.
Andrew Leonard: Stop your motor running
On Friday, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reported that Americans drove 11 billion fewer miles in March 2008 than in March 2007. According to the FHWA, that's the sharpest drop since the agency began keeping records in 1942.
But there is some good news: The Department of Transportation also reported that "greenhouse gas emissions fell by an estimated 9 million metric tons for the first quarter of 2008," presumably in part because of all the miles not traveled.
A clash in Paris between around 200 protesting fishermen and police Wednesday came as Brent crude oil futures for July delivery, the benchmark contract for Europe, jumped more than $1 to hit an all-time high of $129.70, driven by robust demand and reluctance among oil producers to increase output.
European governments are under pressure to cut excise taxes on fuel to provide relief. Rising oil and gas prices already pose an inflation conundrum for central banks and impose higher costs for businesses and commuters that could put economic growth at risk. Now fuel prices risk triggering strikes and roadblocks that could wreak havoc in Europe's largely fragmented transport industry.
Costs to Build Power Plants Pressure Rates
Construction costs for power plants have more than doubled since 2000, according to new index data to be released Tuesday, and inflationary pressures will continue to put the squeeze on electricity prices.
The findings are bad news for consumers and utilities alike, and help explain why power-plant development has become something of a quagmire in the U.S. -- with no type of plant emerging as a reasonably priced option that can meet rising demand for electricity.
A rare peek inside our Fort Knox of black gold
To give a better sense of what goes on at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Energy Department recently opened its Bryan Mound storage site for a rare media tour.
Vancouver: Spectra launches study on burying carbon dioxide
One of the province's largest greenhouse-gas emitters said Monday it is working on a plan to capture and store a million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, two kilometres below the ground near Fort Nelson.
Aided by a $3.4-million provincial government grant, Spectra Energy Transmission said it is undertaking a $12.1-million feasibility study to find out if deep saltwater reservoirs in the Fort Nelson area can be used for long-term carbon storage.
Kiev Energy Summit - a desperate cry of ineffective allies of the West
The total price of the game is capitulation of the “democratic” European Narcisses towards the resources-reach (sic) Asia, as it was clearly stated that without Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, the Baltic — Black Sea — Caspian Project has no chances. In this situation, “the globally historical transit alliance” that plans to supply energy resources to Europe not by the natural way — with participation of Turkey and Russia, but under the fantastic parabola from Central Asia to Ukraine and the Baltic Sea is another Utopia. It may sound funny, but such a strategy can be drawn on a school globe, but not in the economy.
New fuel price protests test ministers' green resolve
Ministers face new protests over the spiralling cost of fuel with Labour MPs threatening to revolt over road tax increases and hauliers taking to the streets over rising diesel prices.Thirty-five Labour MPs have signed a Commons motion demanding the Government reconsider plans to increase tax for the most polluting cars. The concern is that plans for increases in road tax on older gas guzzlers will risk a repeat of the 10p tax fiasco.
But now he has his petroleum herd, 230 low-volume "stripper" wells of which some 45 are in production, yielding "70 or 80 barrels a month, maybe 100 in a good one". Northwest Pennsylvania isn't Kuwait. But 100 barrels a month provides a decent income. Not that Mr Huber is living it up. He's put a new roof on his house in the woods, a few miles north-east of Oil City, and bought a new (or rather new-er) pick-up truck. Soon he may get round to doing up the kitchen. But that's it.
Asking Opec to solve the oil crisis misses the burning point
And watch carefully the unbridled folly of those such as the Lib Dems who want to gang up on Saudi Arabia. Those same naifs who delighted at the fall of the Shah seem to want the same ghastly political outcome in Saudi Arabia - and the $300 oil that would come with it.The last decade has lulled us into a false sense of security. Instead of tilting at the Opec windmill, we should be weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, increasing efficiency, addressing fuel poverty and encouraging the science that will find an alternative to oil.
BPC all set to bargain over premiums of imported fuel
Bangladesh imports most of its refined fuel oil from KPC (Kuwait Petroleum Corporation), which is around 21.56 tons, which comprises 16 lakh tons diesel, 1.36 lakh tons octane, 1.7 lakh tons kerosene and 2.5 lakh tons jet fuel. The total demand for diesel in the country is around 23 lakh tons, kerosene 5 lakh tons, octane 1.5 lakh tons and jet fuel 2.5 lakh tons. BPC meets its rest of the refined oil demand by importing 2 lakh tons of diesel from India and refining around 12-14 lakh tons of crude oil at the Eastern Refinery Limited, a subsidiary of the BPC. It imports crude from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. A senior official of BPC said, "We import most of our fuel from the KPC. Our team is going to renegotiate the premium rate with our counterpart."
Alternative fuels a focus at air show
For example, Airbus and American industrial conglomerate Honeywell International Inc. said recently they were developing a vegetation and algae-based biofuel that by 2030 could satisfy nearly a third of the worldwide commercial aircraft fuel demand without affecting food supplies. Airbus also said it had developed a new kitchen for its aircraft using more composite materials that could save a ton of weight in the A380 superjumbo.
NEA reduces power-cuts to nine hrs a week
KATHMANDU: In what comes as happy news for customers who are bearing the severe lack of all petroleum products throughout the country, Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) has reduced the load-shedding hours to only nine hours a week effective from Tuesday.The NEA has cut down heavily the power-outage hours which stood at over 21 hours per week, the NEA said. According to the new load-shedding routine, the power will be out for only three days a week.
Sulphur price soars on fertiliser demand
An ugly waste product of oil refining has been transformed into a golden windfall for energy companies as demand for fertilisers drives the price of sulphur to unprecedented levels.For decades oil refiners have struggled to shift stockpiles of the yellow chemical, which is used to make sulphuric acid, essential in the manufacture of fertilisers. Food shortages and higher grain prices are boosting demand for fertilisers, and in only a year the price of sulphur has risen more than tenfold from $50 a tonne to $500 a tonne, according to ICIS, the chemicals-pricing service.
Lofty Prices for Fertilizer Put Farmers in a Squeeze(pay wall)
Fertilizer prices are rising faster than those of almost any other raw material used by farmers. In April, farmers paid 65% more for fertilizer than they did a year earlier, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That compares with price increases of 43% for fuel, 30% for seeds and 3.8% for chemicals such as weedkillers and insecticides over the same period, according to Agriculture Department indexes.
Texas A&M Food Policy Research: The Effects of Ethanol on Texas Food and Feed
The key findings contained in this report are:
• The underlying force driving changes in the agricultural industry, along with the economy as a whole, is overall higher energy costs, evidenced by $100 per barrel oil.
• With rising energy costs, corn and other commodity prices would have to increase. Rising fertilizer costs led to a 3 million acre reduction in planted corn acres in the 2006-07 crop year. Higher production costs will continue to pressure acres.
• This research supports the hypothesis that corn prices have had little to do with rising food costs. Higher corn prices do have a small effect on some food items.
• Speculative fund activities in futures markets have led to more money in the markets and more volatility. Increased price volatility has encouraged wider trading limits. The end result has been the loss of the ability to use futures markets for price risk management due to the inability to finance margin requirements.
• The potential exists for even higher corn prices based on historical yield variability. Fewer corn acres planted in 2008 leave production susceptible to weather risks. Small yield reductions will result in even higher prices.
• The liveststock industry has borne the costs of higher corn prices. The structure of the industry has made it unable to pass costs on, either up or down the supply chain.
We have gone mad, Your Majesty, and only you can cure our affliction
An open letter to the leader of Opec's biggest oil producer, the one man who can force Britain to cut its carbon emissions
Asking Opec to solve the oil crisis misses the burning point
Undertow, don't post so much of the article (I edited it down). If people want to click it, they will... :) But otherwise, thanks for the catch.
Yes, on reflection I was actually just editing it down when I discovered you already had and notice it's now uptop anyway.
Monbiot is quite correct in his piece. He clearly understands that energy and related policies must be drasticly altered to accomodate the increasingly transparant reality that oil supply will no longer grow, while its price certainly will. True, as you scroll through the article's comments, there are many still in denial, but based on reactions to his previous works, more people have taken the Red Pill. I'm sure our UK readers will agree that Brown's government is "bonkers" and "delusional." And although many Progresives would agree that those words also describe the Bush administration, too many believe there's a conspiracy by "Big" now "Little Oil" lying behind the run up in fuel prices. This too is delusional and bonkers, but convincing people of their irrationality is proving a very hard task. I'm currently engaged in just such a debate with a person at CommonDreams who calls Hubbert a shill and tool for big oil, whereas we know the reality is quite the opposite.
Karlof1 - I have seen your diligent efforts over at CD and really appreciate you hanging in there. I wish I had the chops to dive in on some of these delusional comment threads but I know my limitations.
Also kudos to Arraya for dukeing it out over at Mish’s .
For what it’s worth I do believe that many readers see the logic of your comments or at least get curious enough to seek out answers for themselves.
Cheers!
I'm currently engaged in just such a debate with a person at CommonDreams who calls Hubbert a shill and tool for big oil,
Again - The history books are filled with shills, liars, tools and deception that result in shafting for people. This person understands this and feels they are getting the shaft. I can't fault them for assuming that the price is a form of being jerked around. Because I'm sure that within the structure of the oil business there *IS* people who are looking at the present situation and trying to maximize their profit in a way that others would feel is via deception.
I'm just shocked at the lack of people defending such as 'it is the way "the market" works'.
(The only way to avoid the shills, liars, tools et la is to avoid playing their game. Eris is unwilling to avoid their game, and is using selected data to argue their position "Having followed this issue closely over the last decade I can tell you what I’ve read doesn’t bear this out." You won't be able to convince Eris that s/he is wrong, but *DO* post your best case and let others decide who is correct.)
Thanks to you both for your coaching. We have our own fair share of folks using the current and future energy situation to advance their interest, and I count myself in that group as I have the responsibility for managing our Family Trust, which includes the immediate extended family. Mike Ruppert once said it's insane to expect activists to work for free. Until the current system changes, there's no way to work outside it and expect to survive, let alone prosper, and this is complicated all the more by our responsibilities. I hope CD picks-up the Monbiot item as it presents another opportunity, although I do intend to continue the debate on the other thread.
Thanks again.
This is completely untrue, as the multitude of hippies, drug culture types, black marketeers, tramps, hobos, tree planters, & various other ne'er-do-wells I've associated with over the decades makes plain. Such free spirits prosper & thrive in ways those wholly owned by "the system" can scarcely appreciate.
I would take yet a third tack. The crisis is real and we face the issue of survival. But survival can't be dealt with other than confronting the problem of a hostile gov't (at least the top-most levels). That's where any form of individual (or small-collective) survivalism breaks down. If nothing else, the gov't will come after you, tax you, dispossess you (or worse). (I'm not a libertarian, there can be legitimate taxation.) The worst case is that angry and hungry sections of the populace are incited to turn against each other -- survivalists take up guns against the "starving hordes".
I hate politics. But there is no other route to survival. We need a gov't that faces up to the realities we confront. Ultimately, if we want to survive, we have to get political and create a political force that points to the reality we all face and begins to help us addressing the issues in collective, cooperative and peaceble ways.
I admire Mike Ruppert and his early linking of PO and 9-11. But I never agreed with his survivalist bent. And he's not alone in that. A lot of TODders are survivalists. The ones that aren't tend to underestimate how hostile the gov't is to its people, and therefore think things can be handled (with however much difficulty) within the existing framework.
My daughter lives on commune/farm and I love visiting her, partly to let my imagination run free in seeing what's possible. But their way of living, despite being potentially within reach of self-sufficiency on several fronts, nevertheless is also endangered.
Good governance would be awesome but I believe that "good governance" is an oxymoron. Governments come & go, and every revolution becomes subverted. It isn't so much that "power corrupts" as it is that power IS corruption. Having the means to force others to do one's bidding is the very essence of corruption. The benevolent dictator is still a dictator. The "tyranny of the majority" is still tyranny. I'm not convinced that ANY government is superior to no government at all. "Here is the new boss, same as the old boss...," etc.
I wish my daughter was more like yours. She lives in the city & has a desk job. My grandparents farmed, my parents' generation were all "mod," or thot of themselves as being. My grandparents were all into me & my wife being sortuv back to the land hippie types. They taught me how to garden & tend small livestock. Now my kids are more like my parents were. In my family, at least, the "back to the land" impulse tends to skip generations. Maybe my granddaughter will be more like me. She's already tamed my mean goose!
My comment you cited had to do with my managing my Family Trust investment portfolio; I guess I didn't make the connection explicit enough. You are of course correct that many operate outside of the established system; I figured people here knew me well enough through my writings to know that I would certainly be aware of such.
I would have a great deal more respect for Monbiot if he addressed the real issue in the UK, and that is that, as a small Island, we are way passed full. Our population is too great and we are set to increase our population by an equivalent of two Londons in the next two decades.
As our population grows, so too will our gross national carbon footprint. And this will exceede any Carbon Targets we set our selves.
All here know that this will, of course, not happen as we fall into fuel and energy poverty, and as we fail to produce any goods of substantial use, we will fail to purchase adequate food stuffs from outside.
Die-off will occur by: energy poverty; famine; and ultimately, social unrest, which may well verge on civil war or race war.
Because the UK Gov has enjoyed 12 years of unprecedented consumer led growth, low interest rates and a large majority, it has been able to milk the UK Tax payer and create non jobs, bizzarre and nonessential programs and feed a client base of underclass.
This was set to continue, but, the ramp in oil prices and food prices now competes with the Chancellor's hand in our pocket book.
Interest rates, flat wage increases, energy, food and fuel increases now competes with a decade of stealth taxes and increases in duty.
The UK tax paying milch - cow is only good for so much, and then the teat dries up.
The teat has dried up.
I have no problem with taxing the 'sins', but when you also tax the 'good', then a rebellion will happen.
Its happening now. A government cannot tax, tax and tax again, especially when so much is clearly wasted and none is hypothecated to good works such as public transport, underpinning a renaissance in nuclear power etc.
The price of crude has some impact on fuel, but the duty levied and the overall Value Added Tax escalates beyond this.
This Government announced an effective doubling of Vehicle Excise Duty on cars and it was retrospective on vehicles manufactured between 2001-2006.
It was masquerading as a 'green tax'.
It is not so. It is a tax on middle to low income drivers who cannot suddenly switch to a new , low emmission vehicle and so this demographic cohort is trapped with double VED tax, no chance of selling the said vehicle and just too strapped for cash to buy a prius
(the merits of which are highly suspect since the bulk of a vehicles life cycle carbon emissions are actually in the manufacturing phase).
Fine.
UK Gov wants to go 'green'?
Then:
1. Recognise that: As a nation we are full up - people we got.
2. No social security for able bodied people that have left school as long as they are not disabled. (I think you called it tough love in the US). There is work if you look for it.
3. You want babies? - fine , pay for them your selves: should not be a charge on the state.
4. Consider if we need any of the following none-jobs on the public purse:
'Community enforcement officers' (Dog poo and anti smoking wardens)
'Lesbian , Gay, Bisexual , Transgender Outreach Coordinators'
'Five a day healthy living officers'
'Real nappy coordinators'
'Diversity Awareness Officers'
Yes, these jobs plus inflation proof, index linked pensions do exist in the UK.
You could cut about 25% of all government employees by tomorrow lunch time. Take 3% off income tax and increase fuel duty by the following day - AND USE THE SURPLUS FOR PUBLIC WORKS
But we wont.
We will slide into anarchy.
Ten more years. Thats what we got.
Ten years.
(inflation-proof index-linked pensions? I don't believe it ;) )
A slide into anarchy?
Given UK's social history, I rather expect a slide into ever-more-vituperative fascism .. via the Sun, mail, telegraph, etc.
Your hopefully-ironic views miss the curious caste system in force since heavens-knows-when, where a large portion of the population subsist in quite impoverished circumstances, and now, with dumbed-down education, impoverished states-of-being too; a tiny minority in the UK live lives of unimaginably refined luxury, thier wealth squirreled away in financial mazes touching on cyprus, liechtenstein, belize, etc etc.
It's very clear to me that UK right now is an awful lot about making sure the very rich continue to get richer, and with the stranglehold the right wing have on the media, labour's hands were always going to be tied. Brown has and will be bludgeoned into oblivion the second he looks like he's even thinking about the colour red.
happily for you, I think all you can expect is more of the same, all the way back to ration books and feudal estates, indentured servitude, etc.
So .. you're in Burkes, eh ? :/
No, unlike a recent Labour Election Candidate, I am not in Burkes.
The Inflation proof , Index linked Pensions are true (for the payroll vote, not for many others though). How else do you expect the Government to retain a constituency? - Turkeys never vote for Christmas. Read the Guardian Jobs page.
'Happily for me'? Doesnt much matter about me. I weep for the next generation though.
Anyhoo,
Gordon Brown is making yet more pleas to OPEC regarding price and today he meets with Oil Company Execs to see how the UK can produce more oil.
That is the calibre of the man in charge.
The calibre of the man in charge:
Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling are meeting oil industry chiefs today as pressure mounts over soaring fuel prices.
Writing in the Guardian ahead of the talks, the prime minister said there was no quick fix to the "third great oil shock".
He called on nations to unite to stabilise the price of the commodity, which has increased from $10 a barrel a decade ago to $135 today.
And he said that the UK will argue that a global strategy to tackle the impact of higher oil prices will be put at the top of the agenda at the next meeting of the G8 group of industrialised countries.
Brown will use this morning's meeting with energy chiefs in north-east Scotland to attempt to secure a higher output from the UK's declining North Sea oil fields.
Yes - he really said that:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/28/economy.transport
If I could be permitted to add one more quote from the latter article as it indicates its importance. The author, Alan Duncan is a leading member of the British Conservative Party and will likely (on opinion polls) be a senior member of the UK government after the next election (within two years).
I once wrote to Alan Duncan about three years ago regarding peak oil.
In short, his reply was :
'Not to worry my pretty little head....go back to sleep.... I was in the oil business and I know there is more than enough oil out there etc...'
So, was he a fool or a knave three years ago?
As I found this claim
http://rinf.com/alt-news/contributions/over-60-of-people-do-not-trust-th...
I dug a bit and found this:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/zogby_voters/2008/05/15/96275.html
Huh. So the citizens are not happy with leadership or actions.
Meanwhile, when "the market" is working (Right you free market supporters?) the Germans get upset:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/05/26/cnoil1...
Say - the hedge funds are just a vibrant part of "The Market" - right? Why would the Germans get upset over "The Market"? Its like a bunch of 'em are commies or socialists or something.
Not suprisingly with oil and gas prices approaching their real value we hear less and less from the pro-taxers on this site.
Combined with a growing awareness of the fecklessness of our "elected" leaders maybe the futility of increasing governmental revenue is finally being recognised by them.
(edit) typo
'Leveraged trading' is what the SPD transport minister wants to ban.
Strangely, leveraged trading was seen as one of the causes of the financial calamities of the late 1920s, and for two generations afterwards, leverage was seen as poison.
But as memories fade, a new generation decides to ignore the past.
But Germans remain surprisingly conservative. Remember, the socialist SPD is over 145 years old - yep, they are older than the automobile age.
But not only the socialists have a certain distaste for financial capitalism, especially as compared to the 'Soziale Marktwirtschaft' (Americans don't understand it anyways, so no translation provided) which is practiced in Germany.
Strangely, Germans in general seem to represent their interests - a regional strike of milk deliveries to dairies is going on at the moment - and feel that people who simply don't stand up for themselves won't actually get much.
Taking on the trading floors of Chicago, New York, and London may seem a bit silly, but let's be honest - somebody has to. Whether it is actually worthwhile may be open to debate, but at least reminding people that the price of oil is a complicated business with massive amounts of self interest. For example, that of a certain capitalist cabinet member whose fingerprints might actually be on a fine bit of oil market manipulation, which definitely added nicely to that year's bonus (just the cash, not the position it may have also earned him).
Sometimes I miss a certain poster, who was at least aware of how profoundly complex 'price' actually is, and what a poor measure it makes in many of these discussions. And how different players can have very different goals, though all are considered part of the same market. The one that the oil fairy is in charge of, the one that will guarantee cheap gasoline until the exurban home appreciates enough to pay off the debt on the spiffy SUV.
Removing leverage from the market is not really a radical position - it just seems that way currently. Nonetheless, it will probably be removed, regardless of any German proposals.
Yep, but are citizens pissed off enough to do anything about it? When's the last time they wrote a representative? Have they EVER shown up for their state/local sessions to see things in action? People can gripe/moan all they want, but unless they're part of the action in changing things, things will never change. I was shocked at how the state congress worked after I showed up for a comittee session. (Shocked, but not in a good way. Rhetoric before facts, but as is par in most debates, and straw men everywhere...)
As long as the situation can be changed on a political level, you can assume that people will NOT change the situation. It's only when the situation CANNOT be changed via politics will people finally be pissed off enough to do something, but by that point, they may be too oppressed or scared to do anything about it.
A Representative of whom? Their are many in our government busy "representing", but I'm not naive enough to think that I am part of their constituencies.
What if the situation actually "CANNOT be changed via politics". It is possible to take a rational look at the system and to decide that it is incapable of effecting meaningful change from within.
Not to worry. Nature will take its course & situations that actually "CANNOT be changed via politics" will be changed nevertheless.
I saw this, and though I don't necessarily agree with the author, his point is interesting:
Iraq War May Have Increased Energy Costs Worldwide by a Staggering $6 Trillion
The guy makes a good point IMO-the Iraq invasion was never about securing supply for Joe Sixpack (i.e. "we" are going to get "our" oil)-Saddam worked for America for years and would have been quite willing to supply the USA-the invasion was about ownership and control of the wealth generated by the oil fields-although he pays the entire bill, Joe Sixpack sees none of the rewards.
In 1999, Hussein had offered Clinton an increase in oil extraction of 3Mbpd if he would lift the Genocidal Sanctions*. Instead, Clinton escalated the undeclared war and ongoing Holocaust through increased bombing in the illegal "no-fly zones." Bush and his bipartisan congressional allies only escalated an already ongoing war and Holocaust, although their actions were just as illegal as Clinton's.
*The source for this is Dr Salameh: an international oil economist, a consultant to the World Bank in Washington and a technical expert of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in Vienna. He is also Director of the Oil Market Consultancy Service in the UK and a member of both the Institute for Strategic Studies in London and the Royal Institute for International Affairs. Here is a link to the html version of his ppt given at the presentation where he made the above cited remark. Furthermore, there seems to be a lot of other presentations and interviews given by this expert I'd not heard of before.
Far be it for me to defend U.S. Government actions, but I have to ask: what was Clinton supposed to do? I'll remind you that that the northern no-fly zone was there at least in principal because the Iraqis on at least one occasion perpetrated a genocide against the Kurds. Also, there were hundreds of Kuwaitis killed when the Iraqis invaded in 1990. The oil that the Iraqi army released in the Gulf and in the oil-fields and set on fire while they were retreating was third largest oil spill in history at 3.1 million barrels and the environmental effects of that are still being felt in Kuwait. Given this, should Clinton have have started dealing with a dictator whose hands held the blood of thousands? I don't think sanctions and bombing helped anyone and certainly hurt quite a few, but then again, I also can't think of a plan that would have helped all the Iraqis (not just the Sunnis or the Baath party).
Gwy: Here is a guy (Saddam) who, while being a loyal servant of the USA for years, profited enormously in terms of wealth and power and likely could still be sitting in the catbird seat right now if he had not decided to inexplicably go rogue on us- this is the story that logical adults are supposed to swallow and I would assume you are selling. Come on-really? This servant decides for no reason to challenge the USA to a duel to the death?
It was not "for no reason". Saddam was given deliberately vague signals when he broached invading Kuwait to US diplomats. The US State department maintains it was a "miscommunication" but personally, I believe otherwise. Sadddam was given an implicit green light by the US ambassador to Iraq to go ahead on Kuwait. Unfortunately, I do not believe that any of us alive today are likely to see the real motivations behind that decision by the US government.
Gwyndion -
May I remind you that Saddam had the blood of thousands on his hands long before the Gulf War. Clearly, the US was perfectly willing to accept Saddam's torture and murder of his own people as long as he was our boy and was willing to play ball according to our rules. (Ditto for the Shah of Iran.)
Unfortunately, Saddam went off the reservation by invading Kuwait, though some people maintain that he was given tacit approval to do so with a wink and a nod by the US, but that the US didn't expect him to 'eat the whole thing'. Some even say that the US tricked him into invading Kuwait so it would have a pretense to take him out.
But we did not try to take Saddam out because he was a bad person. The US has a long and shameful history of dealing with all manner of scum and degenerates as long as it is in its interest to do so.
Birds of a feather...
BrianT and joule:
You all make good points and that's certainly something to take into consideration, but you haven't answered my question. I'm not defending the U.S.' actions in supporting these dictators, which I agree with you on is shameful, but the question still remains: What was the correct thing for Clinton to do, even given the U.S.' past actions? Should he have lifted sanctions? This might have been the best thing to do, simply stop trying to influence foreign governments... But, as you said, if the U.S. was responsible for putting and leaving Hussein in power, doesn't the U.S. bear some responsibility for getting rid of him? That is, wouldn't this have been passively enabling the brutal dictator?
Should he have apologized for supporting Iraq? This wouldn't have helped anyone except in a symbolic way and would have left Hussein in power. Should he have sent supplies and aid to Iraq? The UN was doing that, through the oil for food program. Even with the corruption, it hopefully helped some people. What else should they have done? They could have tried assassinating Hussein I suppose, but maybe this would have led to chaos, it's hard to tell. Even with the risk, assassination would probably have been preferable to the invasion in 2003.
All this stuff about Saddam being an American servant is way off the mark. In the cold war years he leaned more towards the old Soviet Union. They provided him with all his tanks, among other things. He had a much greater natural affinity with the Soviets Remember he was a great admirer of Stalin. More likely he played Russia and the West off against each other. He was certainly never a servant of the US.
Rumsfeld facilitated Saddam's relationship with American chemical companies. The US had supported other regimes' attacks on the Kurds. It also embraced Suharto's regime in Indonesia, inaugurated by the "volunteer" slaughter of 500,000 suspects and followed by later slaughters by the Army in uniform.
But most of all, the administration knew that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were dying from the sanctions. Madeleine Albright addressed that fact by saying it was "worth it". This is not an acceptable basis for our public servants to operate with using our tax money. If the administration was so full of moral outrage about dealing with yet another dictator, why did it refuse to level with the voters about the preferable consequences of sanctions? Americans went through the era simply not knowing or believing the few reports in their media about the devastation.
Maybe in a democracy, the voters should occasionally be consulted to set the standards for which moral compromises are acceptable. We are certainly paying a very undemocratic price now, and for centuries people in the Middle East will remember the Bush/Clinton/Bush/? megacide as being the intentional act of America itself, and a reflection on its people.