The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] There is a question as to whether the USA wants high or low oil prices. I accept that it would like stability as well. Alan Greenspan made a speech in which he made it clear that a jump in oil price seems to cause a recession. This is a reference to that speech: http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn13183.htm Although there are some things that are debateable. I don't think the US's simplistic desire for relatively low oil prices is debatable. Tony Blair showed his ignorance when he made a speech in which he claimed the price of oil was not important. That only applies when we have a surplus. The profligate lifestyles of the west cannot continue (in terms of energy consumption). The only issue of doubt is when the reversal will be forced. I do think the campaigning against sanctions has had some effect. My own political party adopted a position against economic sanctions a few years ago and there have been changes made. It is important to understand the uncaring nature of bureaucracies and the challenge in making them change as well. I don't think that Shock and Awe has been released to soften up the public. The logic of Shock and Awe is to make your opponents give up which is strategically what they would be aiming for. It is sad, but I do think they intend to launch 300-400 cruise missiles a day at Iraq at the start of the war. I have done a bit of research into this matter. The key I have found in original documents is the following statement: ============================================================= The second example is "Hiroshima and Nagasaki" noted earlier. The intent here is to impose a regime of Shock and Awe through delivery of instant, nearly incomprehensible levels of massive destruction directed at influencing society writ large, meaning its leadership and public, rather than targeting directly against military or strategic objectives even with relatively few numbers or systems. One would presume that this is against IHL. _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk