Whose City? Whose Culture? Whose Civilization? Whose family? Certainly the economics of all of this will effect everyone in Minneapolis. Here are a couple of other numbers that we need to keep in mind as they deal with Minneapolis numbers. -The post oil embargo oil spike sent, by 1980, $438.8 billion to OPEC annually; that is nearly half a Trillion a year (unemployment doubled, GNP dipped for the first time since WWII, and we went into a deep recession); for contrast: it was $83 billion last year (due to the frantic oil drilling in Alaska, North Shore, Venezuela, etc.). You can follow this discussion and get more detail in Jeremy Rifin's book "The Hydrogen Economy," especially his chapter "The Islamist Wild Card" (remember, Jeremy is on the left). If that happens again (sending OPEC nearly half a trillion a year), it will implode the Western economies (including that of Minneapolis) and decimate the 3rd world ones. As Jeremy points out, Osama has called for oil at $144/barrel, which would implode our economies much faster. These are the REAL economic numbers that would impact on Minneapolis. Some felt the post-embargo prices were an act of war whereas others said how can we interfere, it is their culture. And today we continue the debate. P.S. My apologies for forgetting to sign the response to Vicky's post on Pensions, the one that started "Excellent question." P.S.#2 For those who asked about the end of Gulf War I, don't forget that the UN deal stipulated that, to get the coalition and UN agreement, the U.S. had to agree to not step across the line into Iraq. It's important for the discussion to have clear that relevant fact. Saddam knew this, so his bet that he could body bag us into retreat was covered because we agreed not to chase him to Bagdad. You can argue that the U.S. cut a bad deal by agreeing to that condition of the UN, but what then happened (Kurds, etc.) was because of the UN condition. It is that fateful deal that has probably caused such resistance this time around from Bush II to let the UN call the shots. Had the UN pulled together this time they could have forced Saddam to disarm. Obviously, the EU and Russia see the world differently that we do (its interesting to note that the UN backing we have is from the nations formerly under the foot of the Soviets, and who have written eloquently about liberating oppressed people). What a sad game of high stakes chicken. The UN seems to think that Bush II is too stupid to play with the big boys and they can bluff him out. Whether the first part is true or not is immaterial, as their belief in the second part has led to our empasse. Saddam, having gone on war footing today, obviously has no intention of disarming and obviously thinks he can again body bag us back out of his country (he said in 1991 that once there are 10,000 American body bags on the tarmac, they will leave). The recent book on our move into Aghanistan by Bob Woodward (of Watergate fame) and the current cover story of Atlantic on "The Mind of George Bush" both point out that he is making the decisions, not Rumsfeld or Cheney (although most of us would have said differently two years ago; but I find these pieces very persuasive and evidence continues to mount to support them). And these are both liberal sources. This adds a whole different dimension to how we analyze what is going on. Depending on which side of the political fence you are on this is either good news or even more scarier news. P.S.#3 The coming clash with Islam has been discussed in grad schools since that fateful period of $430 billion/year going to OPEC. The debate was between those who felt Islam would use the monies to complete its unfinished task of the middle ages to take Europe and there were others who said that the monies would enable them to free their people and bring them into pluralism and peaceful relations with everyone as their every want would be taken care of. As Rifkin points out, in 1745, a small time ruler with the last name of Saud came to an agreement with an Islamic scholar with the last name of Wahhab (you'll recognize Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism from these). Their agreement called for Saud "to accept the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam as the basis of governance," and in return Wahhab, "the religious leader" agreed "to accept the governmen as the legitimate ruling body." Since 1745, "the partnership was kept alive by intermarriage between the two families." Peter Jessen, Portland
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 10:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Mpls] Wrong place//Offline What will the war against Iraq cost Minnesotans? In a message dated 3/15/03 7:52:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > And it will cost Minnesotans $1.5 billion to destroy the mothers and their > babies. Put thine head in the sand if you insist, but the reality will > burrow down through and into your consciousness and may God have mercy on > what happens there. > > Andy Driscoll > Saint Paul > -------- Stop punishing us on THIS LIST. Statewide Issues is appropriate place for your drama. Keith TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
