Okay, so given all this: the war on Iraq is bad economic policy in that it furthers a inefficient status quo - the oil-based energy economy - at the expense of good economic policy which would also, in this case, happen to save lives: developing alternative energy sources and reducing total energy usage.

This is not a war which can truly be fought over economic benefit. It is one fought for economic convenience.

As I mentioned earlier, it's up to each individual to decide how valid this is as a motivation. For most of us: errrrr I guess it's okay just don't tell us about it.

The problem is the gap there and here. Suppose efficient, cheap solar was developed today, and everyone decided they love nuclear power. You still need massive dollars to bootstrap our infrastructure out of oil-consumption mode. Spending those dollars while the world is full of openly-hostile nations would weaken our country, short-term, and subject it to more attack.

Long-term, I agree that your strategy is dominant. But there's a good reason why we built the interstates after WWII.

To be sure, the suffering of the laid-off American autoworker can't compare with the suffering of the Saddam-ruled Iraqi, but what about the killed-and-raped proposed by Get Your War On? In short: why would you tolerate the armament and militarization of corporations, why would you stand for their abuses of American citizens, if you will not tolerate the arming and militarization of Iraq and the abuse of the Iraqis?

I don't. I strongly oppose unchecked corporate power, because its logical conclusion is an end to our way of life. I read a comparison of coroporations to robots, human creations that have grown more powerful than humans by subverting the social contract, yet were never taught Asimov's three laws.

The imbalance of corporate power is one of many warts on our system, but I maintain we're better-off defeating one enemy now, and that enemy next.

For one, the system still works well enough that enrichment of corporations means eventual enrichment of the people. For two, the cost of stunting their power will be high: see the point about solar.

I also think victory on that front will come sooner and cheaper than you imply. If push comes to shove, corporations cannot win a war against people. There's already lots of anti-corporate talk, and Microsoft/Enron/Worldcom demonstrate that people are willing to take mutual fund hits to pen the golems.

Their charters handicap them with transparent agendas and short-term vision. All it will take is one unpleasant demonstration of corporate power, one politician to sound the battle cry, and that "war" may be over almost before it's begun.

You can't achieve that without crushing Iraq's resistance first, i.e., through war. The end result is what I've been saying is inevitable and right: the destruction of Iraq's "way of life", whatever that is, and replacement by our own. The upfront costs in dollars are higher; in lives, maybe lower. The profits are still there (locked up in the inherent value of natural resources) but deferred until Saddam is overrun by someone willing to sell.

Ray!