ot: sane dialogue re: iraq? [Archive]

Ray

05-12-2007, 05:07 AM

We are still in Iraq because there is no way out. If we leave there will be chaos. With that said, we should have never invaded in the first place. The consequences of the invasion, including the world's terrorists moving into Iraq and Iraq entering into a civil war, were obvious to anyone with knowledge of the region. Unfortunately, our decision makers were unaware of the realities of the region.
+10

Unfortunately, the costs of staying or leaving are getting to be about the same. Chaos if we stay, more chaos if we leave. We're going to leave eventually and the odds are the same level of chaos/genocide will result whether its in 6 months or 6 years. If that's truly the case, we should get out sooner rather than later and be prepared for the disaster we've left behind. Seems to me the only hope is to talk to Syria and Iran and convince them that total chaos in Iraq isn't in their interest either. I doubt they can control it either but they can probably do more than we can. I'm glad we're finally talking to Syria and hope we will soon with Iran, but it's pretty late in the game to do something we should have done from the outset.

All in all, the most intensely screwed up foriegn policy adventure of my lifetime. Viet Nam was worse only in terms of American lives lost - in terms of international consequences, it wasn't even close. As some analyst recently said, we just went and found the biggest, baddest hornets nest in the world and started kicking it. Hard.

-Ray

Johny

05-12-2007, 05:50 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGHty_S0TU0

Climb01742

05-12-2007, 06:08 AM

i heard what sounded like a knowledgeable military "expert" who said that, from a purely military standpoint, the u.s. forces can't sustain deployment much beyond early next year. the u.s. military has simply been over-extended. the system is near the breaking point.

so whatever the politicians call it, the military has to begin withdrawing troops no later than early next year. so the political debate on both sides is just posturing and point-scoring.

what truly frightens me...what if some other part of the world blows up? and the u.s. military truly is "broken" and needs 3-5 years to "fix" itself?

then there are the smaller ripples...like so much national guard equipment being in iraq, that when a natural disaster strikes here, there's a fraction of the clean-up needed to help folks here get their homes and lives back...like that town that was just wiped out by a tornado. they're screwed because our "national" guard is in iraq. how much more f'ed up could this get?

JohnS

05-12-2007, 07:54 AM

Climb's comments are why our current posturing towards Iran and North Korea is just so much hot air. We look stupid doing it and they know we can't do anything to them.

Ray

05-12-2007, 07:57 AM

Climb's comments are why our current posturing towards Iran and North Korea is just so much hot air. We look stupid doing it and they know we can't do anything to them.
Its not FOR them. It keeps the base fired up - that's why they do it. On both sides.

-Ray

LegendRider

05-12-2007, 08:05 AM

Cheney said the following in 1991:

If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?

He was right then. What changed his mind?

rwsaunders

05-12-2007, 08:24 AM

The Chinese military is 10 times the size of the US military, and their country is on the verge of consuming more energy than ours.

Taking a lesson from our global economy, a simple solution would be to outsource the military coverage of Iraq to the Chinese. We'll have a situation that cost less, utilizes a highly trained staff and we'll minimize concerns of quality control.

thwart

05-12-2007, 08:24 AM

The folks running things now see Vietnam as America's worst point, an embarrassing and morale busting defeat, caused by lack of will and liberal wimpiness. There is no way they "will allow that to happen in Iraq", and have their names associated with it in the history books... it takes true courage and leadership to admit a mistake.

I just really feel bad for the kids over there. :crap:

Kevin

05-12-2007, 08:36 AM

I just really feel bad for the kids over there. :crap:

+ a gazillon.

Kevin

39cross

05-12-2007, 09:00 AM

Taking a lesson from our global economy, a simple solution would be to outsource the military coverage of Iraq to the Chinese.Best idea so far - Chinese mercenaries in Iraq!

I was going to stay out of this, but, you got me. The problem is the same as in Vietnam - a lack of self-honesty and a blindness to the facts on the ground on the part of the Prez and his men. They have to admit to themselves that they screwed up, totally. Ideology blinds. What's the chance? Basically, there is no plan, except Bush is gone in 2008 and he'll leave the mess to someone else.

The only way out I see is they have to admit to the world they f***'ed up, eat humble pie/crow, stuff the arrogance, and get others involved. The dangers created by our disaster in Iraq are far beyond the mess in Vietnam, which despite the domino theory were relegated to SE Asia. The rest of the world knows the danger as well as we do - the prospect of creating a state which will promote international terrorism and regional instability beyond anything we have yet to imagine. But how can they work with a man (aka Mr. 28%), inflexible, dogmatic, arrogant, ignorant of history? His brakes are sticking, for sure.

dave thompson

05-12-2007, 09:43 AM

Ahneida Ride

05-12-2007, 09:44 AM

Just Remember..

This action ( it is not a war, only Congress can declare war )
is funded by the fed and its ability to create it's unredeemable Notes outa thin air.
There is no word in the English Language for creating $$$$ outa thin air.
I invented one. Frnacation. frn = fed reserve note.
We ( you and me ) get diluted as prices go ballistic and a privileged elite
concentrate wealth and power by collecting interest on $$$$ created outa
thin air.

If we actually had to pay thru taxes to fund wars. well .....
If we had a draft and EVEYBODY had to serve including the kids in
Greenwich, Conn. Well .....

Phony Monopoly money is the mechanisms by which Governments fund wars. We pay thru the hidden tax of inflation/dilution. Make no mistake,
inflation/dilution is a tax, and perhaps the most regressive.
Not one person is 1000 understand this duplicity.

I paid about 3200 for my Legend frame and fork 5 years ago. Today
That same frame/fork is 5200 frn. That is a dilution rate of 10% per year.

But not to worry, I am sure that everyone on this esteemed forum has experienced a post tax salary increase of 10% and post tax returns on their investments exceeding 10%.

I find it remarkable that the funding mechanism for these "Police Actions"
is never discussed. NEVER !

Always follow the Money (opps frn). It leads straight to the truth.

It is time to end this Financial Terrorism and allow Americans to retain their wealth for which they labored so hard.

eddief

05-12-2007, 10:00 AM

was curious if the rank and file (us) were of similar opinions on the issue. it appears i'm not sitting here in berkeley with the lone opinion on the screw up.

i'm for admitting the mistake now, pulling out, being embarrassed and spending the billions at home on whatever would make this a better place for us.

i'm thankful that the powers that be allowed me to be born here and not some other godforsaken place with a history of hundreds of years of religious stupid fighting.

how much can we afford in phony money and lost lives to watch over the entire planet?

dbrk

05-12-2007, 10:02 AM

I receive monthly updates from Iraq from two of my former students, both officers in the Marine Corps. They are good at keeping their political and private feelings to themselves and they must, that being a code of conduct sort of thing. I teach a lot of the NROTC at Rochester, they flock to my classes because we talk about great classic texts of life and death, love and war, success and failure with unabashed, critical openness. So whatever else may be said, I am confident that many of the younger officers have the intellectual and moral education that they need to make good decisions. The issue is not who is serving but who has put them there, kept them there, and is deciding their futures. When the choice of so many young people is the military or working a very unsatisfying job (jobs being what they are for all but the most qualified) or the cost of an education, what does that say about our society? There are so many issues but the country is utterly polarized and what more needs to be said about our leadership than this?

dbrk

JohnS

05-12-2007, 10:03 AM

I invented one. Frnacation. frn = fed reserve note.

It looks like it would be pronounced "fornication". Somehow, it fits... :crap:

JohnS

05-12-2007, 10:08 AM

My pragmatic view is that we should pull out and deal with whoever takes control. There are two absolute truths in the world. Everyone hates Americans and everyone loves American dollars (or FRNs). Whoever is in control WILL sell us oil...

RPS

05-12-2007, 10:13 AM

Unfortunately, the costs of staying or leaving are getting to be about the same.Agree. I see it as being trapped in a burning high-rise building with two choices -- burn or jump. The outcome is pretty much the same -- and both really ugly.

fierte_poser

05-12-2007, 10:53 AM

A few [not necessarily related] thoughts:

-The political-military-industrial complex. Why We Fight. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/

-The US military is trained to wage war, which they did very successfully in Iraq. They are not trained for a prolonged occupation.

-I read an op-ed recently that compared current day Iraq to Northern Ireland circa the 1970s. They reasoned that since everyone in N Ireland has now laid down their weapons and is talking that Baghdad will be fine and dandy in 30-40 years. But, I don't agree with that... N Ireland had 'the rule of law' behind them. In Iraq, its all 'tribal law'. Hence why the idea of instilling democracy in a few years time was a crazy idea from the start. :crap:

-New handlebars installed last night (Deda 215 Deeps) + new bar tape (why was the right side tape *so* much harder to install) and I'm riding in 45 minutes. :banana:

-Why do people continue to buy Prius's? Don't they know they are just keeping the price of gas [temporarily] lower for all of those SUV owners to buy up? I say we consume all of the dead dinosaurs as fast as possible. Then we'll find real alternative energy solutions. Ethanol is red herring, pork barrel BS.

Ride safe,
Kent

thwart

05-12-2007, 01:55 PM

I just really feel bad for the kids over there. Don't. Try talking to a few of them that have been there or are going. Creating hardships at home, to some. To others it's what they are paid to do and they want to do it the very best they can, and leaving the politics out of it. That's my son's opinion.
With all due respect... I bet the kids over there have many different views on this.

Your son is to be commended for his attitude. You've raised him well, and are right to be proud of him. Seems that we have a lot of idealistic, moral young people fighting for the sake of their country whose lives are, unfortunately, in the hands of leaders not up to the task.

RPS

05-12-2007, 03:27 PM

-Why do people continue to buy Prius's? Don't they know they are just keeping the price of gas [temporarily] lower for all of those SUV owners to buy up? I say we consume all of the dead dinosaurs as fast as possible. Then we'll find real alternative energy solutions. Ethanol is red herring, pork barrel BS.Kent, the French felt nuclear was real years ago when oil was still cheap; and it's not something that has to be found. Obviously it scares many, but if combined with plug-in hybrids or electric cars, we could reduce oil imports significantly.

christian

05-12-2007, 03:38 PM

Unfortunately, our decision makers were unaware of the realities of the region.

People say that, but it strikes me as a woefully inadequate and willfully naive interpretation of the knowledge and decisions of our president, vice-president, secretary of state, and DoD officials.

I knew the realities of the region, the fallacy of the search for yellowcake uranium in Niger, and the lack of substantive proof of weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion. My expertise? None. I'm a management consultant, and my only intelligence sources were the NY Times, the WSJ, the Economist, and a couple of Swedish dailies I read every now and again.

You didn't have to be receiving the president's daily intelligence briefing to know...

- Christian

Climb01742

05-12-2007, 03:57 PM

i'm old enough to remember vietnam. hell, i'm old enough to have protested against the war when i was in high school and my draft age neared.

one thing i'm glad is different now... today no one blames the troops. our soldiers have done their job. they seem to be good, decent, even noble "kids". its our leaders who, again, have f'ed up.

i hope there is a special places in hell for cheney. when he was supposed to have fought, he got 5 deferments and "had better things to do." now he's gotten over 3000 americans killed. he's a coward and a liar. by the late 60s, early 70s, the simple truth for 99% of kids facing the draft was...i don't want to die for the domino theory. he won't even admit to the truth of why he avoided the draft. we were scared of dying for nothing.

my formative years were shaped by america's involvement in vietnam. that colors my view but how the hell did we get ourselves back into another one?

Kevin

05-12-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Unfortunately, our decision makers were unaware of the realities of the region.

People say that, but it strikes me as a woefully inadequate and willfully naive interpretation of the knowledge and decisions of our president, vice-president, secretary of state, and DoD officials.

I knew the realities of the region, the fallacy of the search for yellowcake uranium in Niger, and the lack of substantive proof of weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion. My expertise? None. I'm a management consultant, and my only intelligence sources were the NY Times, the WSJ, the Economist, and a couple of Swedish dailies I read every now and again.

You didn't have to be receiving the president's daily intelligence briefing to know...

- Christian

In the interests of preserving the decorum of this forum I gave the President the benefit of being uninformed as opposed to being a liar and a manipulator. I think you would find that if we spoke frankly that you may discover that I am not as naive as you may think. :)

Kevin

Elefantino

05-12-2007, 06:06 PM

In the interests of preserving the decorum �
Kevin

OK, that's it. This thread is going to be shut down and you're all going to migrate over to the new site of E-Bushie (other screen name: "gitmo"), warforum.net, and leave the few of us behind.

But seriously. I do news. I have to read most everything from Iraq every day. It is beyond sad.

I've also read too many books on the buildup, the invasion, the aftermath, the politics � and while some of that makes my blood boil, it's tempered � or maybe stoked � by the fact that each person who dies, on either side, is somebody's child.

jl123

05-12-2007, 06:24 PM

"Run for President, get elected and run things the way you want to."

Nothing in the universe is impossible- that is until and if we can ever figure it totally out- doubt that.

But becoming President takes a minium of 15 years of government experience unless your father was already the president and he could call in some favors.

Forumites running for president is really not a plan- I'd put the odds at around
1 in 200 million.

Elefantino

05-12-2007, 07:07 PM

"Run for President, get elected and run things the way you want to."

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said this on The Daily Show:

"The president is only accountable to the people who voted for him." � regardless of your politcal bent, it's an interesting comment.

thwart

05-12-2007, 07:28 PM

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said this on The Daily Show:

"The president is only accountable to the people who voted for him." �
I think that quote speaks volumes.

Too bad... it's a very important time for our country. We needed a leader with more wisdom and courage than George W. in that office right now.

Hope we don't shoot blanks again in '08...

Ray

05-12-2007, 07:41 PM

I think that quote speaks volumes.

Too bad... it's a very important time for our country. We needed a leader with more wisdom and courage than George W. in that office right now.

Hope we don't shoot blanks again in '08...
I wish it had been as benign as shooting blanks. I think we turned a fully loaded magnum on ourselves. I'd take blanks.

-Ray

Chad Engle

05-13-2007, 01:42 PM

Agree. I see it as being trapped in a burning high-rise building with two choices -- burn or jump. The outcome is pretty much the same -- and both really ugly.

POTY. I agree that we broke it and have the responsibility to fix it, although I'm not sure how well it was working. What if it can't be fixed?

Bill Bove

05-13-2007, 02:07 PM

POTY. I agree that we broke it and have the responsibility to fix it, although I'm not sure how well it was working. What if it can't be fixed?

Did we really break it? We have to define broken for that. We deposed Saddam, the Iraqi people are now in control of their own country, most of whom want us to leave. From their standpoint it sounds like we fixed it and it's time to leave. From our point of view leaving Iraq now would be a disaster, it would be like Afghanistan after the Russkies packed up and went home and we all know how that worked out for us. So the situation, as I see it is we walked into the pottery barn, looked at a pot, said "hmm I think I can make it look better" broke the pot, tried to make it look better and the good people of pottery barn are yelling "get the hell out of here! you broke our freaking pot and now your making it worse." We gave them back their country, now we have to let them run it the way they want. I'm not in favor of having U.S. troops stand around being shot at while the Iraqi parliment summers in the Hamptons.

SBash

05-13-2007, 02:25 PM

two glasses of wine and friday night in berkeley and i can't believe the generals are requesting more troops. i am old, i have not fought, and for the life of me, in this case, there appears to be no plan.

the usa is a great place to live, but this stuff scares the crap out of me. and look who is in charge.

any way out of this?

http://www.davidgrant.ca/donald_trump_on_bush_and_the_iraq_war

eddief

05-13-2007, 03:22 PM

he must sleep well at night.

shinomaster

05-13-2007, 03:28 PM

Try having your good old boy brother rig an election for you. ImhoImpeachAtmo.

sailorboy

05-13-2007, 06:32 PM

I have a lot of conflicting thoughts on this topic, as should everyone. I think it is time to end it for lots of reasons and don't want to get into all of it...but there was great moment on MTP Sunday--damn, Tim Russert is good--when he had McCain on the hot seat and put a quote on the screen that was un-dated and with no names where the person was basically talking about the dangers of having the US military be the police force for the world...the unneccessary risk of being in the middle of a civil conflict etc. and he let McCain answer to it. He answered with some condescending statement like, "Well Tim, I would ask that that person talk to any of the experts about what would happen if we pull out, and the disaster blah, blah..." Tim turned to him after he was done pontificating and said, "Senator, that was you in 1993 speaking about the need for the U.S. to pull out of Somalia" followed by some nifty tap-dancing by McCain.

DOH!!!

+1 on what someone said earlier about the documentary Why We Fight by Eugene Jarecki. Watch it.

Chad Engle

05-14-2007, 08:59 AM

Bill:
I agree, I don't think it was un-broken when we went in. But it is certainly in a different state of repair now. I believe we should get the troops out as soon as possible, regardless of whether we leave now or 3 years and billions of dollars later, that Country is going to literally explode.

I'm done, war is hell, we can all agree on that. War in Iraq is actually hotter than hell.

God Bless the troops and their families.

goonster

05-14-2007, 10:28 AM

Everyone hates Americans

That's not true, and I think it's a dangerous myth.

On 9/11 there were very, very few people who cheered.

People say that, but it strikes me as a woefully inadequate and willfully naive interpretation of the knowledge and decisions of our president, vice-president, secretary of state, and DoD officials.

I knew the realities of the region, the fallacy of the search for yellowcake uranium in Niger, and the lack of substantive proof of weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion. My expertise? None. I'm a management consultant, and my only intelligence sources were the NY Times, the WSJ, the Economist, and a couple of Swedish dailies I read every now and again.

You didn't have to be receiving the president's daily intelligence briefing to know...

- Christian

I'm with Christian on this.

I was travelling frequently to Europe in the Spring of '03, and was struck between the huge disconnect in popular attitude and opinion. Europeans were not angry that the U.S. was pushing for war, they were utterly baffled. Yet, over here, two-thirds of Americans supported the use of force. It was almost like noone remembered Vietnam, only the first Gulf War. There was a little shrug of the shoulders and people said, "eh, we'll kick Saddam's butt."

When I hear reports of the mess today, I think back to that time and am less inclined to assign all of the blame to the people at the very top (although they certainly need to be held accountable for their decisions), and think more about how many people were so willing to believe the administration's flimsy case. There was virtually no serious dissent in Congress, which was too busy insulting anti-war France with the cafeteria menu. That's were the soul-searching needs to start, and the lessons should be remembered by many future generations, imo.

RPS

05-14-2007, 10:39 AM

I think that quote speaks volumes.

Too bad... it's a very important time for our country. We needed a leader with more wisdom and courage than George W. in that office right now.

Hope we don't shoot blanks again in '08...Is it possible that our standards are too high for public officials, that we expect too much? I�m not defending Bush; but who is running that resembles a Lincoln or Churchill? And let�s not forget that even these great leaders led their nations during difficult periods costing 100s of thousands of lives. I�m not comparing Iraq to the Civil War or WWII, but in today�s world where wars are fought on CNN and FOX, would either have maintained much public support? I doubt it. POTY. I agree that we broke it and have the responsibility to fix it, although I'm not sure how well it was working. What if it can't be fixed?That's the point I was trying to make. Some times we don't have a "winning" solution to a problem, or at least a short-term solution that is apparent to those of us who are out of the decision-making loop. An immediate pullout will be a disaster, and staying will likely accomplish very little. IMO it appears a lose-lose situation, but I hope I'm wrong.

JohnS

05-14-2007, 10:41 AM

That's not true, and I think it's a dangerous myth.

That's just shorthand for no matter how much many other people dislike Americans, if you're ever in a jam anywhere in the world, you better have USD or GBP in your pocket. Everyone loves dead presidents and queens. :)

Serotta PETE

05-14-2007, 10:46 AM

Yep, sounds like a great idea........

The Chinese military is 10 times the size of the US military, and their country is on the verge of consuming more energy than ours.

Taking a lesson from our global economy, a simple solution would be to outsource the military coverage of Iraq to the Chinese. We'll have a situation that cost less, utilizes a highly trained staff and we'll minimize concerns of quality control.

JohnS

05-14-2007, 11:01 AM

Yep, sounds like a great idea........
Only problem is than China would be in charge of both our oil and our consumer goods.

William

05-14-2007, 11:31 AM

In that context..

When I look at my nine year old son. I get butterflies and it scares the crap out of me.

William

JohnS

05-14-2007, 11:41 AM

what scares me even more is where on the one hand, they talk about curtailing our civil liberties (Patriot Act) "temporarily" while they then say that this is a long term war that our children will still be fighting...

Climb01742

05-14-2007, 12:38 PM

eddief

05-14-2007, 12:51 PM

somthin about absurd profits by the oil companies coupled with your statement strike me as ironic/moronic. some great divide between us and those in control of those complexes, we probably can't even relate to their reality and they certainly don't give a crap about ours.

keep us fat, relatively happy, drinking beer, and watching football and we will put up with just about anything. i include myself in those masses.

paulh

05-14-2007, 12:53 PM

Some point to the fact that there has not been a major terrorism incident in the U.S. since 9/11.... well, I guess you could include Virginia Tech in there, but no repeat of 9/11, thankfully.

Anyway, I, with respect submit one reason for no further attack, is that the Mission Accomplished banner was mis-placed. Osama himself did accomplish his mission... he could have displayed the banner on the rocks behind him in his few videos. If he's not dead ,he can drag his dialysis pole around the India-Pakistani border for a while longer knowing he completed his mission and can die happy.

The rest of them are killing each other in the terrorist playground in Iraq, and some of the more inept sleeper cells are hanging around all parts of the world.

RPS

05-14-2007, 01:21 PM

somthin about absurd profits by the oil companiesIf oil companies lowered fuel costs and made less profit, wouldn�t we be using more oil, thereby supporting terrorist states even more?

SBash

05-14-2007, 01:41 PM

meanwhile, the guy who actually did plan 9/11 is alive and probably happy our attention and so many troops are tied down in iraq, not chasing him. iraq is also doing his recruiting for him.

moreover, as tom friedman pointed out this weekend, we can't "solve" iraq unless we solve our dependence on oil. the last 5 years have been squandered instead of pursuing greater energy independence.

IMHO, This war is about 3 things, OIL, PROFITEERING, MILITARY SPENDING.
Iraq is estimated to have from 1/4 to 1/3 of the worlds oil supply and the region up to 2/3's. Whoever controls Iraq, Dominates! Lives don't matter to Bush/Cheney/Reps/Dems, they are controlled by Big Oil.
All they needed was a reason (not the real reasons), 911, then Evil doer, Mushroom clowd.
Someday, I hope for future generations we have more than a 2 party system, possibly 3 or 4. This is not working anymore, like it should. Also we need a popular vote, no more of this electoral college crap.

SB
PS: Wow, felt good to vent.

Dekonick

05-14-2007, 07:59 PM

Don't. Try talking to a few of them that have been there or are going. Creating hardships at home, to some. To others it's what they are paid to do and they want to do it the very best they can, and leaving the politics out of it. That's my son's opinion.

+1000

My best friend is going over in a week. This will be his second tour.

If you talk to him, or the guys in his unit, they will tell you that they feel good about what they are doing. Are they scared? Yes. Do they want to go? Ideally no - but "it is my job, and I am going to do my best" is what I hear from them.

We are in a bad situation, but give the grunts your support. Iraq is more than just Bush's war - it is also of strategic importance while the world adapts and switches from an oil economy to something else...

There is more at stake here than our ego's.

Just my 2 cents.

Back to the newborn...

Dek...

Dekonick

05-14-2007, 08:29 PM

Dekonick

05-14-2007, 08:38 PM

Kent, the French felt nuclear was real years ago when oil was still cheap; and it's not something that has to be found. Obviously it scares many, but if combined with plug-in hybrids or electric cars, we could reduce oil imports significantly.

+1

Nuclear is probably the bridge we need until another solution is 'discovered'

Frankly, it is not that frightening if you understand it - even nuclear waste can be dealt with.

Chad Engle

05-14-2007, 09:44 PM

If oil companies lowered fuel costs and made less profit, wouldn�t we be using more oil, thereby supporting terrorist states even more?

I think I can honestly say no. I don't drive around for fun, I drive where I have to drive. Now if gas gets so high I have to make changes, whatever that amount is, I'll make changes. But for now I just pay more.

I honestly don't think cheaper gas would cause me to use any more than I do now.

Chad Engle

05-14-2007, 10:04 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave thompson
Don't. Try talking to a few of them that have been there or are going. Creating hardships at home, to some. To others it's what they are paid to do and they want to do it the very best they can, and leaving the politics out of it. That's my son's opinion.

+1000

My best friend is going over in a week. This will be his second tour.

If you talk to him, or the guys in his unit, they will tell you that they feel good about what they are doing. Are they scared? Yes. Do they want to go? Ideally no - but "it is my job, and I am going to do my best" is what I hear from them.

We are in a bad situation, but give the grunts your support. Iraq is more than just Bush's war - it is also of strategic importance while the world adapts and switches from an oil economy to something else...

I agree. I have no use for anyone that does not suppport the troops.

But what else can a soldier say? When a soldier is deployed it does no good to debate the mission. What would be accomplished if the 1st Sgt tells his wife, "I'm going to war for no good reason, and I'm going to tell all my troops that. Be strong while I'm gone"?

Profesional soldiers know that without morale they are doomed, just like a football team that knows they can't win.

A soldier cannot truly speak from his/her heart until the mission is over and morale is not a life or death issue. As a soldier you only get to volunteer once, after that you do what you are told and do the best you can to accomplish the mission and get the guy/gal next to you home to see their family.

Dave and Dekonick, I don't have the words to thank those enough who volunteer to risk all they have to protect my children. Thanks and God Bless.

Buzz

05-15-2007, 12:05 AM

A couple of years ago over a few glasses of wine I had a conversation with an acquaintance of mine who is one of the best and brightest in the armed services. It will surprise no one that knows him if someday he becomes a commander of his branch of the military. If you met him and spoke with him you would be thankful that there are such incredibly intelligent, thoughtful, humanistic people in our military.

Here's what he had to say about 9/11, terrorism and the war in Iraq.

First, there are men who are actively seeking and would have no qualms about detonating a nuclear weapon in this country or do anything they could to take massive casualties on US soil. Second, and underscore this as it is the entire justification / reason for everything: YOU CANNOT ALLOW AN ATTACK ON THS SCALE OF 9/11 ON THE UNITED STATES TO GO WITHOUT A HISTORY ALTERING RESPONSE BY THE USA...THERE HAD TO BE A RETALIATION. Third, it was never about weapons of mass destruction. Fourth, Iraq was the easiest place to make said response /retaliation. Fifth, it will be 20 or 30 years before we know if our actions in the middle east, specifically Iraq have altered anything.

So there I sat dumbfounded, in front of the "best and brightest" of our military thinking "thats it?" That's the grand strategy...a "response?" Well, I was very disastisfied and felt let down that with the explanation...

I thought about it for a few months and began to realize that he was right. It wasn't just enough to chase down the criminals who brought about 9/11. It was about sending a message to the world that a leading city in the world cannot be attacked by hijacked airplanes, major buildings brought down and thousands murdered without severe retribution. It was about impressing on the world that if such an event occurs there will be severe consequences.

And look what we have done: We have gone halfway around the world with an army, attacked and occupied one of the largest countries in the middle east, hunted down and executed its leader, fundamentally changed the government /ruling power and in the process trashed a country with resultant hundreds of thousands of deaths.

I should say that I have been opposed to the war in Iraq and the administration that promoted it from the beginning because it just seemed to be so poorly planned and because anyone opening up a history book could have seen that such occupations ultimately become mired down and fail.

But, "something" had to be done. I know it is totally unsatisfying that this is it. That there is nothing more to it than an act of retribution. A stab at trying to do something to change things that may or may not, in the long run, make a difference.

But in the end, the single most important thing is not that we have won such and such a battle, or changed a country but that we made a response, that the world could see that there would be catastrophic consequences for such an attack on this country.

So, I say, we have made our "response", the middle east and world has taken notice and its time to come back home. We will eventually be leaving anway. Every occupier does..its just a matter of how much time, material and deaths the occupier is willing to sustain before the plug is pulled.

If muslims want to kill each other let them have at it. We are constantly told that this is a religion of peace. Maybe after we have left they can start proving it.

thwart

05-15-2007, 12:34 AM

Yikes...

If you think that "US retaliation in Iraq" could be a good thing in the Middle East, even in the long run... then you and our friend Osama have similar assessments of our intervention there.

And only one of you is right. :crap:

And unfortunately he's still running free...

Tom Byrnes

05-15-2007, 12:47 AM

If you met him and spoke with him you would be thankful that there are such incredibly intelligent, thoughtful, humanistic people in our military.

. . . . .

YOU CANNOT ALLOW AN ATTACK ON THS SCALE OF 9/11 ON THE UNITED STATES TO GO WITHOUT A HISTORY ALTERING RESPONSE BY THE USA...THERE HAD TO BE A RETALIATION.

. . . . .

We have gone halfway around the world with an army, attacked and occupied one of the largest countries in the middle east, hunted down and executed its leader, fundamentally changed the government /ruling power and in the process trashed a country with resultant hundreds of thousands of deaths.

So, I say, we have made our "response", the middle east and world has taken notice

. . . . .

Hi Buzz,

Is your military friend saying that it was better to make a BIG RESPONSE, even an incorrect and ill-planned "reponse" that has resulted in "hundreds of thousands of deaths", rather than methodically locating and eliminating the people responsible for 9/11??

The BIG RESPONSE was necessary or better for who? The American people? Certainly not the Iraqis. I would like to hear your friend explain how he believes that the interests and safety of Americans have been enhanced by what has occurred in Iraq. I think the opposite has occurred.

Can anyone question the tremendous advances in medical research, public health services, education, environmental sciences, disaster relief, etc. that could be accomplished in this country with a $1,000,000,000 a day?

What a tragic state of affairs.

Tom

vaxn8r

05-15-2007, 01:03 AM

I admit it. I'm a flip flopper. I'm not sure who first coined the term "hornet's nest" pertaining to Iraq, but my first thought in the months following 9/11 were that 1) we, the USA, were going to respond in a huge way. 2) If we went into Iraq we'd be busting a hornet's nest with a baseball bat.

2 years ago gasman and I were split on Iraq. He was opposed but I had come around with the thought we had to leave with honor and pulling out at that time was not honorable. I then voted Republican for the first time in my life. Yeah, heck of a time to do so. What a freakin' flip flopper I am! Argghhh!

Now I see there really is no honorable end. Just more lives and dollars thrust into oblivion. Sorry Dave T if that offends, because I have a ton of respect for our young men over there and what "they" are trying to accomplish. But I have lost all confidence in our leadership. I regret my vote. I echo the desire for a 3-4 party system but can not see it happening in my lifetime.

goonster

05-15-2007, 02:18 AM

Here's what he had to say about 9/11, terrorism and the war in Iraq.

I agree, i.e. I believe that these points are real rationale for the war, and my sources in influential places, that are somewhat aligned with the ideology of the current administration, concur.

I also believe that the executive is elected to make the kinds of tough decisions that we'd rather not know about, and the country needs to unite behind its leaders in time of crisis.

However, in a free and democratic society those decisions should be owned up and defended at some point. The "our intelligence was flawed" line doesn't cut it.

First, there are men who are actively seeking and would have no qualms about detonating a nuclear weapon in this country or do anything they could to take massive casualties on US soil.

OK. And the invasion of Iraq reduced this threat how?

Buzz

05-15-2007, 02:33 AM

Hey Tom,

I know this explanation by my friend is totally unsatisfying. I was very put off by it. I mean, I totally agree that this has been an entirely devastating, illegal and immoral action. We have, in essence, punished the Iraqis for something OBL did.

My friend kept coming back to the theme that you cannot allow the USA to be attacked on this scale. It took me a long time to come around and see that he is right on this point. If we are under attack, unable to defend ourselves, then there will be true instability in the world. Our nation has a lot of flaws, but it has stood as a rock of stability in this world leading through two world wars, a nuclear age, cold war, etc. If the economy of the US fails, so goes the world economy. If the US does not support the UN, etc., then who would actually do it? A lot of people criticize the US but just as many if not more in this world count on this country for its support and for its ability to stand firm and survive.

Think about all of the forms of governments, economic systems and political philosophies that have come and gone in the past 100 years alone with grievous consequences on tens of millions of people. And during that time, the US, despite its many flaws has essentially continued on, in relative peace and stability.

Ultimately, that is what is so disturbing about this. There is ultimately nothing noble, intelligent nor meaningful about Iraq if it was just a power play to ensure the stability of the US. You would have hoped that this all could have been accomplished in a smarter less costly way (in terms of lives, etc.) Unfortunately, we were limited by our leadership's intellectual abilities and lack of foresight. But I have yet to ever hear anyone come up with a better way of handling this whole problem of fundamental islamists from the middle east hell bent on destroying us. And as my friend kept repeating, something had to be done YOU CANNOT ALLOW THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO BE ATTACKED ON THIS SCALE even if in hindsight our response turns about to be all wrong.

That's what makes this such a terrible tragedy. You are damned if you act and you are damned if you do nothing. I am sure everyone trully wishes 9/11 never occurred. But it did. And something had to be done in response. I do not agree with our response and what has happened and especially the devious deceitful manner it was put to us. But this is the way it has evolved and we will have to accept it, worts and all, just like we have to accept that 9/11 occurred. Sometimes, it is all just too much. So sad. I just hope there is some good, somewhere that emerges from all of this.

Buzz

shinomaster

05-15-2007, 02:34 AM

http://students.northern.edu/peace/epic.jpg

Tom Byrnes

05-15-2007, 02:49 AM

Hi Buzz,

I can sympathize with the argument that we had to respond a big way. If the thinking was that we had to launch a big attack, why didn't our military attack that mountainous area in Pakistan and Afghanistan where they think OBL has been hiding? We have destroyed the wrong place.

It's kind of like the LAPD's response to the recent May Day demonstration at MacArthur Park in Los Angeles where supposedly some hecklers threw stones or bottles at the LAPD, and the police responded by beating up and shooting rubber bullets at a huge number of people (including quite a few journalists and television people) who had nothing to do with the alleged assault on the police. Overreaction and aimed at the wrong people.

Not trying to pick on you or your buddy - just very sad and frustrated by all of it. Seems like the opposite of a win-win situation.

Tom

P.S. Did you start your trial?

learlove

05-15-2007, 02:50 AM

Bush, Cheny, Rummy and that Condi Crack Whore should all be put in jail for what they've done. Toss in Bush Sr. also.

goonster

05-15-2007, 03:57 AM

If the thinking was that we had to launch a big attack, why didn't our military attack that mountainous area in Pakistan and Afghanistan where they think OBL has been hiding?

Pakistan is a friend of convenience and has nukes. Oops!

Climb01742

05-15-2007, 05:11 AM

my vote for what the response should have been for 9/11 is what we did...first...go into afghanistan and get OBL. stay there and really do the job right. but then second, on 9/12 if we had "declared war" on our oil addiction, we would have at least begun to defund many oppressive middle-east governments. iran, for example, could not fund its weapons program w/o oil money. it could not continue to bribe its people. the saudis could not continue to fund schools that teach hatred. ultimately, saddam could not have funded his dictatorship w/o oil money.

but we opted for the "easy" olution, or so cheney thought.

i still think our two best weapons against terrorism are: heavy funded black ops, fight terrorists on small scale but lethal battles with special forces, and by giving the world a true alternative to oil. if we could crack that technological challenge, the world would be better off, and we'd have a huge industry to become our next silicon valley.

Elefantino

05-15-2007, 05:15 AM

If we stop importing oil, OPEC drops the dollar as the petrocurrency and goes with the Euro instead.

Our economy crashes.

Drive a Hummer and save your job.

JohnS

05-15-2007, 05:32 AM

Elefantino

05-15-2007, 06:38 AM

After listening to NPR just now, I wonder:

Is it not natural and inevitable to assume that there will be a civil war in Iraq whether we leave now or later? How have the last five years changed 1,400 years of history?

Moot questions, I know, but I like moots.

stevep

05-15-2007, 06:47 AM

the never been in the military fools that started this catastrophe panicked and gave osama bin laden a gift that even he could not have imagined.
a disastrous us military adventure in the middle east that would sap the strength of the us military. get us no where and cost lives and ongoing dollars.
9-11 cried out for a response based on intelligence, patience.
we needed to track and find that man and deal with him and his group.
our response completely failed to address the problem.

the leadership panicked in a time of crisis.

look at these guys/women.
would you expect anything different?

by the time the next administration takes over the only option will be the removal of us troops as soon as possible. we have a year and a half to wait this out. these incompetents will never admit what they have done.

history will not be kind to these so called leaders.

Climb01742

05-15-2007, 08:41 AM

+1 It would havemade a bigger statement if we had hunted OBL down and told the world "if you mess with us, you can't hide, we will hunt you down wherever you are".

+2
imagine if every terrorist when to bed wondering if his wake up call was going to be a cruise missle up his *ss?

Chad Engle

05-15-2007, 08:54 AM

Climb01742 Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnS
+1 It would havemade a bigger statement if we had hunted OBL down and told the world "if you mess with us, you can't hide, we will hunt you down wherever you are".

+2
imagine if every terrorist when to bed wondering if his wake up call was going to be a cruise missle up his *ss?
That's the problem, they do not fear death as we do.

JohnS

05-15-2007, 09:09 AM

That's the problem, they do not fear death as we do.
Oh, don't you believe that. They all want a "glorious, headline-grabbing, death" but they sure don't want an anonymous, "disaappeared from a cave in the middle of the night" one. If OBL is so fearless, why's he in hiding? He's really good at sending others out to die, but not himself. Hmmm, sounds like GWB?

Serotta_Andrew

05-15-2007, 09:22 AM

Anyone getting out for a ride today??

eddief

05-15-2007, 09:34 AM

it may be time. i started this thread on friday out of my own need for some dialogue. i got what i asked for and think my colleagues have done a great job of keeping it quite civil.

please feel free to do what you think appropriate for the good of the forum. i'm completely ok if you delete this and i will be carefuller in the future.

RPS

05-15-2007, 09:37 AM

There is ultimately nothing noble, intelligent nor meaningful about Iraq if it was just a power play to ensure the stability of the US.....snip

snip.....You are damned if you act and you are damned if you do nothing.I don�t like to be judgmental because for all I know the statement made by our response in Iraq may have not been directed at the Iraqis.

Maybe Iraq was used as an example to show leaders and people of the region what would happen if they continue to support radical extremist. Since we couldn�t attack the real culprits, maybe Iraq was simply a warning shot.

All I know is that I can only speculate because I can�t possibly know what is going on behind the scenes.

Buzz

05-15-2007, 09:53 AM

"Maybe Iraq was used as an example to show leaders and people of the region what would happen if they continue to support radical extremist. Since we couldn�t attack the real culprits, maybe Iraq was simply a warning shot."

I think that this is basically what this comes down to.

Again, I am not trying to justify what has happened, I would have thought that as others have written that we would have hunted down OBL, etc. but that didn't happen. You would think that we could have come up with a better response and solution. But we didn't.

The side taking and politics of this that use to been seen on forums debating this has decreased markedly...it seems like there is a sense of sad frustration and resignation to this whole affair.

And yes Tom, I did start my trial. SHould be done by next week.

Buzz

thwart

05-15-2007, 10:20 AM

it may be time.

Very emotional topic. I'd have to agree here... Andrew, it's time.

JohnS

05-15-2007, 10:26 AM

Very emotional topic. I'd have to agree here... Andrew, it's time.I don't know...it's been very civil and enlightening...not like some in the "old days".

SBash

05-15-2007, 11:33 AM

Hi Buzz,

Is your military friend saying that it was better to make a BIG RESPONSE, even an incorrect and ill-planned "reponse" that has resulted in "hundreds of thousands of deaths", rather than methodically locating and eliminating the people responsible for 9/11??

The BIG RESPONSE was necessary or better for who? The American people? Certainly not the Iraqis. I would like to hear your friend explain how he believes that the interests and safety of Americans have been enhanced by what has occurred in Iraq. I think the opposite has occurred.

Can anyone question the tremendous advances in medical research, public health services, education, environmental sciences, disaster relief, etc. that could be accomplished in this country with a $1,000,000,000 a day?

What a tragic state of affairs.

Tom

The BIG RESPONSE! Are we going to have a BIG RESONSE like this everytime we have any terrorist attack. The slogan the WAR ON TERROR is like the WAR ON DRUGS, you will never stop it, we have always had it, control it , maybe. We can't even control our own borders, they are probably already here. Bush/Cheney tell us We are fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here, BS! Maybe terrorism, is not as big a deal, as we are told and is hyped to the hilt. We have always had it through history, but since 911 the WAR ON TERROR (scary slogan) became a monster.
Like I said earlier post:
IMHO, This war is about 3 things, OIL, PROFITEERING, MILITARY SPENDING.
Iraq is estimated to have from 1/4 to 1/3 of the worlds oil supply and the region up to 2/3's. Whoever controls Iraq, Dominates! Lives don't matter to Bush/Cheney/Reps/Dems, they are controlled by BIG OIL.
LIVES, look at all the youg lives lost, ours over 3400 dead, 25,000 wounded, and estimated 300,000-600,000 (we don't keep track) Iraqy deaths, and millions wounded. They have a democracy, lets let them vote on us staying or leaving.

Johny

05-15-2007, 12:02 PM

Can anyone question the tremendous advances in medical research, public health services, education, environmental sciences, disaster relief, etc. that could be accomplished in this country with a $1,000,000,000 a day?

Tom

+1,000,000,000

The leaders of this country should start to ask the right questions like Tom.

RPS

05-15-2007, 01:17 PM

Again, I am not trying to justify what has happened, I would have thought that as others have written that we would have hunted down OBL, etc. but that didn't happen. You would think that we could have come up with a better response and solution. But we didn't.Buzz, I was referring to the Saudi government, not OBL. I think Iraq may have been a warning shot at the governments in the region to get their houses in order and control fanatics and those who support them economically.

Based on how much large corporations use misinformation and deception to reach goals, it�s hard for me to imagine that our government doesn�t also do it; and at a much higher level. Because we don�t have access to all information, our conclusions could be way off base.

RPS

05-15-2007, 01:28 PM

Like I said earlier post:
IMHO, This war is about 3 things, OIL, PROFITEERING, MILITARY SPENDING.
Iraq is estimated to have from 1/4 to 1/3 of the worlds oil supply and the region up to 2/3's. Whoever controls Iraq, Dominates! Lives don't matter to Bush/Cheney/Reps/Dems, they are controlled by BIG OIL.I don�t follow how BIG OIL benefits from Iraqi war as you suggest. The only way I can see the ExxonMobils of the world benefiting is by forcing higher prices; but not by dominating the Iraqi reserves. If putting oil in short supply was their main goal, then why did they help develop oil in that area in the first place. I don't get the logic here. :confused:

BdaGhisallo

05-15-2007, 01:59 PM

I think a lot of folks fall into the trap of not being realistic about reality. The military guy who stated simply that the US had to strike back in a big way was correct. The United States is the global hegemon and is the foundation for the world's current prosperity and relative peace. If it falls, or is seen to be impotent or, even worse, uninterested in defending its status as hegemon, then all hell will break loose. Who else would take over? Russia? China? Some confederation of Muslim states? There aren't any other candidates out there at the moment. India may be ready in another fifty years, but it is still way too poor to take that on at the moment. Furthermore, I don't think we would want any of the other candidates to take over - I don't think we would like the result.

You have to understand how the secondary powers will act when there is a hegemon that is as benign as the US is today. They will take advantage of that to the hilt, knowing both that the US will largely leave them alone and that the US will ensure that most messes that they create will be taken care of.

All this talk of getting help from other nations and allowing others in is bs! Those countries that want to help are already doing it. No amount of diplomatic gymnastics would have gotten France or Russia or the Chinese to help in these efforts. They have their vested interests that they are protecting and they don't care what anyone else thinks. The chinese don't fret over any negative reaction to their cozy relationship with the government in Sudan that is killing tens of thousands of people there. They need energy and Sudan has it - and that's all there is to it!

Those that think that "ending our dependence on foreign oil" will allow us to disengage from the problem are wrong. First of all, oil is a global market. Even if the US imported no oil whatsoever, it will still be subject to prices in the global market. It will still have price jumps and falls due to some actions halfway around the globe. The reason oil is so high right now is demand, pure and simple. The global economy is booming and China and India are growing at ferocious paces and devouring all the energy they can get there hands on. The only way to remedy this is to increase the supply of energy, both oil and non-oil sources. That means drilling in places like ANWR, and more offshore drilling in areas of the US coast where it is now prohibited. It means more nuclear power to lighten the need for natural gas. It means more coal fired plants - US reserves of coal are enough to sustain ALL the nation's energy needs for the next two hundred years. Is the country willing to take these steps? Unless some revolutionary developments come along in the alternative energy field, wind, solar and biofuels are not going to be able to scale up to the levels needed to sustain US energy demand. You could always trim US energy demand, of course. It's easy, just engineer another Great Depression. The economy will tank and demand for energy will plumet. Is that worth it?

Think for a second about how hard it must be to be the leader of the global hegemon. No joking for this. Think about the decisions that you must take on a daily basis that will have far reaching consequences that noone could ever foresee. You would be second guessed by everyone, but only once they have the benefit of hindsight that you didn't have when making the original decision. It is not easy. The world is a complex place and geopolitics are never black and white. You can't divorce yourself from everyone you have disagreements with because you wouldn't be married to anyone! Sometimes you have to dance with some pretty reprehensible nations and regimes in order to frustrate and deal with even more reprehensible nations and regimes. Next year the positions might be reversed. Every nation has interests that they all try to maximize. Often they don't align with US interests and no amount of arm twisting can get them to change their course to suit us.

Not all of the global actors are rational. In the days of the Cold War and MAD, we could count on the Soviets to act rationally, because they liked life and wanted to see their children and grandchildren grow up. Many or our current enemies don't share that same desire and would invite a nuclear strike on their nations!! How do you deal with a regime like that? It is tough!! The guys who were picked up for planning to attack Fort Dix were muslims from the Balkans who were aggrieved at what the US did there. Wait a minute! Didn't the US go in there after years of European vacillation and complete inaction apart from disarming one of the particpants? Didn't the US bomb a christian european capital and subdue a christian regime in order to stop the slaughter of muslims? How does that fit with the grievances felt by the Fort Dix Six?

Now I am a fan of GWB. I truly believe he did what he thought was right and in the best interests of the United States and its allies. He didn't do anything at the behest of Big Oil. Certainly he has made a lot of mistakes and I wish he would have prioritized different things, but he has made the right decisions on the big things. Those big things are all in the realm of foreign policy. In a time like this, domestic issues don't even register on my radar. They are secondary concerns after the primary matter at hand. The most important thing he has done is point us in the right direction with regard to the existential threat that the West faces. Sure there will be a lot of c*ckups as we head in that direction but the most important thing is that we are moving in that direction. All the nation's wars have been marked by grave miscalculation and gross ineffectiveness in many of its leaders. How many generals did Lincoln go through until he found US Grant, the man he was searching for to lead the Union cause?

We can all whine about what has been done wrong to date and what happened to the WMD that every western leader, both political and military, were convinced were there, and who is to blame, but the important question now is what do we do now? The US and, by extension, the West is in a war with islamic fascism. What do we do going forward to battle this enemy to ensure that the risk it poses to us is either annihilated altogether, or minimized to a level that is tolerable and not likely to engender any flare ups in the future? Is an effort to democratize the Middle East the answer? Should the US and its allies have taken the 'more rubble - less trouble' approach and should it adopt that now?

I don't think pulling out of Iraq and disengaging from the fight in that region is the answer.

But above all, keep in mind that none of this is simple, and there are no easy answers. Chances are, if your solution can be made to fit on a bumper sticker, it ain't the right answer!

Geoff

gdw

05-15-2007, 02:12 PM

The best post so far.

fiamme red

05-15-2007, 02:40 PM

Let's not ignore the fact that 9/11 was merely an excuse to justify the invasion of Iraq. That invasion had been planned from the time the administration came into office, or even before then, as Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, and George Tenet have written.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0705/S00167.htm

In Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty," O'Neill told Suskind that the Iraq war was planned just days after the president was sworn into office.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill said, adding that going after Saddam Hussein was a priority 10 days after Bush's inauguration and eight months before September 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," Suskind wrote, quoting O'Neill. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He is quoted in the book as saying he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

O'Neill was fired from his post for disagreeing with Bush's economic policies. The White House dismissed O'Neill's allegations, and labeled him a "disgruntled employee," whose remarks about a plot to invade Iraq pre-9/11 were "laughable."

Clarke's book also says the Bush administration was obsessed with Iraq before 9/11.

BdaGhisallo

05-15-2007, 02:49 PM

Let's not ignore the fact that 9/11 was merely an excuse to justify the invasion of Iraq. That invasion had been planned from the time the administration came into office, or even before then, as Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, and George Tenet have written.

Keep in mind that the Gulf War was ended in 1991 not by a peace treaty, but by a ceasefire between Iraq and the United Nations. Iraq violated the terms of that cease fire on many occasions, like firing on aircraft flying under the aegis of the UN, patrolling the no-fly zones. Under the laws of war, the UN was fully entitled to resume their military activites against Iraq since the violation of the ceasefire meant that, legally speaking, a state of war once again existed. Furthermore, under the UN charter, which is signed by all members, those nations with the capabilities were obliged to make war on Iraq to satisfy UN goals as laid out in the original resolutions 'authorizing' that war back in 1990/91.

Perhaps the US went into Iraq again in 2003 seeking to do its duty as a loyal member of the UN. I don't think that was why, but it does cast a different light on things, no?

Geoff

michael white

05-15-2007, 02:55 PM

Having served already in Mideast, under both a Republican and a Democrat president--though a few decades ago--all I have to say is that I think anyone who is pro-war really ought to be there. I mean, if that's how you feel, get offline and serve.

Yes, we should've done something big about 9-11, and I can't for the life of me see why we didn't. In the right place and time.

This other unfinished war is a very strange concoction, exactly and precisely the nightmare Bush assured us it would not be. His engineers are from the Laurel and Hardy school of war-mongering. Someone else will have to fix it. Years from now, we'll all remember the "Mission Accomplished" presidency with utter bafflement. IMHO, of course.

best,
mw

Chad Engle

05-15-2007, 02:55 PM

JohnS Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Engle
That's the problem, they do not fear death as we do.

Oh, don't you believe that. They all want a "glorious, headline-grabbing, death" but they sure don't want an anonymous, "disaappeared from a cave in the middle of the night" one. If OBL is so fearless, why's he in hiding? He's really good at sending others out to die, but not himself. Hmmm, sounds like GWB?

I do believe that and I did not call OBL fearless. My point is that Western logic is much different from Middle Eastern logic. You can't scare them into stopping, you can't show up, topple their government and expect them to adopt ours in 3 years.

eddief

05-15-2007, 03:12 PM

of the united states, with closely watched borders, great roads, schools, immigration policy, great health care, and lots of clean energy sources. couldn't we spend our money more wisely than assuming the role of grand poobah hegemon? that word hegemon gives me the creeps.

bcm119

05-15-2007, 03:28 PM

I do believe that and I did not call OBL fearless. My point is that Western logic is much different from Middle Eastern logic. You can't scare them into stopping, you can't show up, topple their government and expect them to adopt ours in 3 years.
Middle Eastern logic? Don't you mean terrorist logic?

BB63

05-15-2007, 03:32 PM

Any reason the president gave for going to war in Iraq is OK as long as it got us into the fight against radical Islam. This enemy would have seen anything less as a sign of weakness, and as Geoff said, the world needs a strong USA. 40 years from now our grandchildren will be thankful to people like George Bush for not having to live under sharia law, and this may be the only place that's possible.

BTW the #1 baby boys name in Belgium is Mohammed.

SBash

05-15-2007, 03:32 PM

I don�t follow how BIG OIL benefits from Iraqi war as you suggest. The only way I can see the ExxonMobils of the world benefiting is by forcing higher prices; but not by dominating the Iraqi reserves. If putting oil in short supply was their main goal, then why did they help develop oil in that area in the first place. I don't get the logic here. :confused:

Hi RPS,
Well, I think the Saudis/Bushes/Neo Cons/ with very close ties past/present/future did not plan on this turning into such a mess. They wanted to occupy (thought it would be easy) the area and take control. If possibly 1/3 of the worlds oil is there, just maybe that is the real reason they want to stay so long, with many Permanent Bases costing billions of dollar. What really is sorta scary, is most of the terrorist of 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. Just my personal opinion about Big Oil.

This is interesting:

August 8th, 2006 in Articles
by Greg Palast
excerpted from, �Armed Madhouse� (Penguin 2006)

It has been a very good war for Big Oil � courtesy of OPEC price hikes. The five oil giants saw profits rise from $34 billion in 2002 to $81 billion in 2004, year two of Iraq�s �transition to democracy.�

But this tsunami of black ink was nothing compared to the wave of $113 billion in profits to come in 2005: $13.6 billion for Conoco, $14.1 billion for Chevron and the Mother of All Earnings, Exxon�s $36.1 billion.

For these record-busting earnings, the industry could thank General Tommy Franks and the troops in Baghdad, the insurgents and their oil-supply-cutting explosives. But, most of all, they had to thank OPEC and the Saudis for keeping the lid on supply even as the planet screamed in pain for crude.

When OPEC raises the price of crude, Big Oil makes out big time. The oil majors are not simply passive resellers of OPEC production. In OPEC nations, they have �profit sharing agreements� (PSAs) that give the companies a direct slice of the higher price charged.

More important, the industry has its own reserves whose value is attached, like a suckerfish, to OPEC�s price targets. Here�s a statistic you won�t see on Army recruitment posters: The rise in the price of oil after the first three years of the war boosted the value of the reserves of ExxonMobil Oil alone by just over $666 billion. (The devil is in the details.)

Smaller Chevron Oil, where Condoleezza Rice had served as a director, gained a quarter trillion dollars in value. Chevron named a tanker after Rice, but given the firm�s change in fortunes once she became National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State, they should rename the whole fleet in her honor. Altogether, I calculate that the top five oil operators saw their reserves rise in value by over $2.363 trillion.

gdw

05-15-2007, 03:34 PM

"Let's not ignore the fact that 9/11 was merely an excuse to justify the invasion of Iraq. That invasion had been planned from the time the administration came into office, or even before then, as Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, and George Tenet have written."

Interesting and possibly true although Clarke, O"Neil, Susskind, and Tenet have been accused of axe grinding or distorting the truth. I'm always skeptical of books which come out so quickly after an event since we lack access to the classified information that the participants used to make their decisions. We may learn some of the facts behind the decision to invade during our lifetimes but the whole truth will probably never be known and historians will be arguing over Bush's policies well after our deaths.

Climb01742

05-15-2007, 04:02 PM

Ray

05-15-2007, 04:54 PM

the history of "energy" is a chronicle of change. human power gave way to animal power, which gave way to water power, which gave way to steam power, which gave way to oil/internal combustion engine. something will be next.

once, whale oil was the dominant fuel for home lighting. in the early 19th century people worried about it running out. a world without whale oil seemed unimagineable.
As I understand it, and I'm the first to admit I could be wrong, the problem is that there isn't another energy source know to man nor beast that provides anywhere near the energy output for the amount of time/money/energy involved in getting to that energy source as OIL. Those dinosours have been providing the closest thing imaginable to an energy free lunch for many years now. We are addicted. The answer may not just be finding another source of energy because there may not be one (or even several in combination) that will provide as much as we've been getting from oil.

Which may mean just flat out using LESS energy. This is a foreign concept to most westerners and, particularly, Americans. There's a very real possibility that we've roughly reached the peak of overall energy consumption and the challenge is going to be how to we ramp back and make the lifestyle sacrifices we may have to make in a civilized way. The alternative is to continue acting like gluttons and fighting to the death for the last friggin' drop...

I hope what I've read is wrong and there will be other safe energy sources that allow us to continue this energy internsive lifestyle we've gotten accustomed to. But I think it's a stupid thing to count on.

-Ray

Climb01742

05-15-2007, 06:31 PM

stevep

05-15-2007, 06:54 PM

[QUOTE=gdw
Interesting and possibly true although Clarke, O"Neil, Susskind, and Tenet have been accused of axe grinding or distorting the truth. .[/QUOTE]

by whom?
by the idiots that put us into the mess in the first place.
not exactly unbiased. ive read the first 3 books and have no interest in tenet at this point. these men are far, far more credible than..
"in the last throes" cheney or
"mission accomplished" bush
both of whom will baldfacedly lie about essentially every aspect of the war.

tenet is way too little, way too late to recover his soul.
waiting now for the one guy who probably could have stopped this.
mr powell and his nice shiny medal of freedom.

SBash

05-15-2007, 07:39 PM

by whom?
by the idiots that put us into the mess in the first place.
not exactly unbiased. ive read the first 3 books and have no interest in tenet at this point. these men are far, far more credible than..
"in the last throes" cheney or
"mission accomplished" bush
both of whom will baldfacedly lie about essentially every aspect of the war.

tenet is way too little, way too late to recover his soul.
waiting now for the one guy who probably could have stopped this.
mr powell and his nice shiny medal of freedom.

I agree, much better to read books on this, digest and balance it out. All the rest of the media (TV, newspaper, radio) are completely owned by like 4 major corperations, just like congress, so you don't know what to believe.
GEORGE TENET: What a flip-flopping-back pedaling SOB, trying to weasel his way out of this. He was suppose to be a independent body. He is the main guy who could have stopped all of this. Cheney had complete control of this simple little turd.
What we need is a 3 or 4 party system to break this mess up. Nobody trust congress anymore, approval rating like 25-30%, and they are almost all owned. Look at this 2008 presidential circus, the media deciding for us, whoever has the most bucks wins. So, why not someone with big bucks, big name, run right up the middle, and break this circus up. I think many are waiting to see this and maybe now is the time.

gdw

05-15-2007, 07:49 PM

Do a few searches on Google and you'll see that there are a number of writers, discount the obvious far right wackos, who raise legitimate questions about O'Neil and Suskind's accounts. Try The History News Network as well. I haven't really followed it but seem to recall that there was controversy over the status of some of the documents that were obtained by O'Neil and Suskind as well as questions about some of their statements on 60 minutes and NPR concerning the infamous map of the Iraqi oil fields. I seem to remember that Suskind claimed the map was obtained from the Pentagon when clearly it wasn't.

The Iraq invasion is a political football and unfortunately we really lack the information needed to completely understand Bush's motives. Both Democrats and Republicans spin the facts and lie all too often and the press has its own agenda and isn't above distorting the truth. .

Karin Kirk

05-15-2007, 08:04 PM

ray, at almost every moment in history, what is undiscovered seems impossible. only the present reality seems possible. could a ship's captain in 1760 have imagined an airplane? could a farmer plowing behind a mule in 1830 have imagined a tractor? could a doctor in 1900 have imagined an artificial heart?

i wholehertedly agree that conservation is a needed step, but it isn't the "real" step. science routinely makes the impossible real. et tu, copernicus?

I'm with Ray on this one. I just finished an interesting book called "Beyond Oil." The book provides a fairly detailed scientific discussion on the current state of the engineering of various energy sources and their potential usefulness in replacing cheap oil. The conclusion is just as Ray stated, that there is no readily available and cheap supply of energy that will be ready to go when global oil production tops out and begins to decline.

I do agree with you Climb that science and technology has produced wondrous things and that will continue to happen. However, I don't think the energy situation will be saved by technology in the near future. Down the road a bit, sure, but we're in need of a replacement for oil now.

And for the record, oil does not come from dead dinosaurs - that's a myth! It comes from marine organic deposits, algae and the like.

DukeHorn

05-15-2007, 08:15 PM

My two cents.

Did anyone travel around after 9/11? I did--headed down to South America and people LOVED Americans, but even then there was concern about what Bush was going to do.

It's just a fact that Americans, as a whole, like to poo-poo the rest of the world as "ignorant" or "socialists" or whatnot, when, in fact, it really seems that we're the unsophisticated ones. I can't tell you the number of times I've been in a "third world" country and run into a Dutch or Swiss citizen that could converse VERY intelligently on the state of US politics. Trust me, the world as a whole travels a whole lot more than Americans do and keep track of American politics a whole lot more than we keep track of theirs.

So with that as my basis, its always amusing to see the pundits put-down the rest of the world in justify this war on Iraq as if the rest of the world is a whole lot stupider than we are.

While the rest of the world focuses on scientific research and trying to get ahead, a lot of the scientists in our country are watching with consternation as (a) "intelligent design" makes a comeback, (b) this administration muzzles our scientists, and (c) the number of home grown graduate students shrinks.

Have any of you tried grading college student papers recently? I was teaching at a fairly decent UC system and I can't tell you how pathetic some of the writing was (basically along the lines of that Virginia Tech shooter). So I sort of shrug when I see these right wingers pontificate about how smart the US is when they're the ones sawing away at our educational system.

Bah, I digress.

A few more points:

a) if we were going to take down Saddam for humanitarian reasons, then there are a whole lot more places for us to go. And frankly I give props to Tony Blair because he had always taken the position that the Brits had some obligation to the world (though their military probably couldn't keep up). He at least has been consistent on that point versus our own politicians.

(b) are we still going after Bin Laden? Sure doesn't feel like it

(c) are we giving up some civil rights? Sure feels like it

(d) does our situation suck? Sure does.......

JohnS

05-15-2007, 09:16 PM

I do believe that and I did not call OBL fearless. My point is that Western logic is much different from Middle Eastern logic. You can't scare them into stopping, you can't show up, topple their government and expect them to adopt ours in 3 years.
Toppling the government of Iraq has nothing to do with finding OBL.

Climb01742

05-16-2007, 04:53 AM

their potential usefulness in replacing cheap oil.

"cheap" oil is the key term. cheap how? relatively cheap to buy. but the long term costs of using oil are high, particularly to the environment. oil is cheap in the way crack is cheap.

tom friedman, among others, has argued that the price of oil needs to be artificially raised to make alternatives viable, encourage investment and research, and conservation. at $2 or $3 a gallon, its true there aren't viable alternatives. but at $5 or $6 a gallon there begin to be.

if OBL and his pals ever succeed in blowing up some of the saudi oil infrastructure, oil could go to $150 a barrel overnight. then oil won't be cheap, yet we'll have no options.

cheap oil will end, one way or another. isn't it better to raise the price of it now, force efficiencies, encourage research and make the transition rationally and minimize the pain?

i've gone from driving a 15mpg gas-hog to a 25-30mpg car. efficiency and conservation could ease the price hit to folks of raising the price of oil/gas. and one of tom friedman's neatest ideas is using part of the revenue of an oil/gas tax to buy back gas guzzlers.

BdaGhisallo

05-16-2007, 05:16 AM

tom friedman, among others, has argued that the price of oil needs to be artificially raised to make alternatives viable, encourage investment and research, and conservation. at $2 or $3 a gallon, its true there aren't viable alternatives. but at $5 or $6 a gallon there begin to be.

That is one thing that should not be done. The government should stay out of it and eliminate all subsidies. Governments have a terrible history of trying to pick winners. They will never be as good as it as the market is, being a summary of millions of individual consumer decisions and preferences. Government favoritism has given us ethanol and mandates to use it. Ethanol is a terrible fuel and is too expensive and too damaging to engines that use it.

Oil and gas are not that expensive if you use constant dollar prices. Prices in the 70s were higher in real terms than today's prices. When you think what you get out of a gallon of gas and how far you can travel compared to what a similar effort would allow you a hundred years ago, gas is a bargain.

And as has been mentioned, oil won't be replaced anytime soon. There is no alternative on the horizon that can replace the MASSIVE volume that the US derives from oil and other fossil fuels. The only plausible alternative at this point is vehicles with little nuclear reactors in them to provide power. Not so attractive is it? At best, and at their most developed and efficient, current sources of alternative energy will be able to replace perhaps 10% of the energy we garner from fossil fuels.

Oil will be with us for a long time.

stevep

05-16-2007, 06:20 AM

[QUOTE=Climb01742 tom friedman, among others, has argued that the price of oil needs to be artificially raised to make alternatives viable, encourage investment and research, and conservation. at $2 or $3 a gallon, its true there aren't viable alternatives. but at $5 or $6 a gallon there begin to be.

s.[/QUOTE]

im w/ climb/friedman-although friedman ( not climb ) was very wrong on iraq and he shoulda known better. we should have an escalating additional tax on gas.
it is the only economic incentive that can help to control what is destructive behavior.
its what governments do to modify behavior and to steer direction.

Kevan

05-16-2007, 06:30 AM

In that context..

When I look at my nine year old son. I get butterflies and it scares the crap out of me.

William

and I'm more nervous than you are and I can't imagine how our pal Dave feels with his son already visiting there. My heart goes out to our troops trying to make sense of it all while keeping themselves whole.

We got into Amsterdam very late Friday (thanks easyjet!) and went trekking, looking for a hole in the wall near our hotel for some grub to eat. We came across a Hungarian restaurant and the broken conversation turned to the view of our leader "W". Everyone understood from both sides of our talk what the mutual thumbs-down meant. Smiles broke out and free dessert was offered and taken.

BdaGhisallo

05-16-2007, 06:38 AM

Energy fuels the economy and its continued, and quite remarkable, growth. Imposing additional taxes on energy will only retard that growth and, if taxed highly enough, may actually decrease incomes.

It would be easy to reduce energy usage and their attendant emissions. If we all agreed to cut our income levels by 50% and do without many of our modern conveniences and drive a heck of a lot less, we could get emissions back to where they were in the late 50s or early 60s. Is anyone willing to make that sacrifice to truly effect a change?

Do we really want the government providing incentives? They have an awful history of it. It rarely works as intended and often has some unforeseen consequences that dwarf the intended benefits. Government incentives give us the ridiculous situation where wheat is subsidized in production, subsidized when it is exported and then taxed again when it comes back into the US as pasta! The taxpayers get taken three times to benefit some narrow interest.

Remember that it is the wealthiest nations in the world that have the best environmental conditions. That's because they have the wealth to invest in improving the environment. Would anyone want to trade the air pollution in London today for what it was like 150 years ago?

Let the markets and consumers figure it out. They will do the best and most efficient job of it. And never underestimate human ingenuity. It is our intelligence that has seen us rise far above our fellow primates. We will figure it out.

Climb01742

05-16-2007, 06:43 AM

That is one thing that should not be done. The government should stay out of it and eliminate all subsidies. Governments have a terrible history of trying to pick winners. They will never be as good as it as the market is, being a summary of millions of individual consumer decisions and preferences. Government favoritism has given us ethanol and mandates to use it. Ethanol is a terrible fuel and is too expensive and too damaging to engines that use it.

Oil and gas are not that expensive if you use constant dollar prices. Prices in the 70s were higher in real terms than today's prices. When you think what you get out of a gallon of gas and how far you can travel compared to what a similar effort would allow you a hundred years ago, gas is a bargain.

And as has been mentioned, oil won't be replaced anytime soon. There is no alternative on the horizon that can replace the MASSIVE volume that the US derives from oil and other fossil fuels. The only plausible alternative at this point is vehicles with little nuclear reactors in them to provide power. Not so attractive is it? At best, and at their most developed and efficient, current sources of alternative energy will be able to replace perhaps 10% of the energy we garner from fossil fuels.

Oil will be with us for a long time.

bda, i don't mean this to be harsh but oil will be with us for a long time as long as people believe it will be. this attitude is_part_of the problem. the line between "realism" and "fatalism" is thin. hope is sometimes seen as naive. but i believe realism is often just a veneer for acceptance of the status quo.

there are many long-term problems...poverty...racism...pollution that may seem intractible. they are damn hard to solve but does that mean we shouldn't try?

your view and mine also differ in that i view the role of government differently. i don't see the government as the answer to everything but it is the answer (or CAN be the answer) to certain big problems. for instance, i've never heard a republican say that government isn't the answer to the big problem of national security. if it's the answer to that big problem, why not the answer to other big issues?

lastly, do you really believe the "markets" are truly fair, unbiased and un-gamed? if markets were_truly_free i might be closer to your views. but markets have been gamed by special interests as much as possible.

i know tone is hard to convey in a post but i don't mean this reply to be harsh. we have a fair, honest difference of opinion. i'm not slamming you, just trying to put a different POV forward. i'm glad this thread has stayed civil. thanks to everyone for the civility.

BdaGhisallo

05-16-2007, 07:24 AM

Climb,

I appreciate your thoughts and the civil tone of the thread. I can appreciate the views of others when they are reasoned and considered. I don't countenance folks whose reasoning power rise only to the level of bumper sticker rhetoric.

As for government, you and I do have different views on its role. I tend to hew toward the Milton Friedman view of it. Government should provide for the defense of the nation, preserve and protect private property, protect individuals from violence directed at them and provide a system that both supports and adjudicates private contracts between individual parties. In general I don't think it should do much else.

As for markets, I don't believe they are generally fair and unbiased as they are today and this is mainly due to government intervention. I would remove all government subsidies and incentives. The greatest part of that would be to throw out the US tax code with its myriad of incentives and breaks meant to favour one party over another and act as backdoor social policy. Go to a simple flat tax that is set at a level needed to fund the government and no more, and it would a tax that everyone earning an income would pay equally. Get rid of progressive and regressive taxation. Make it simple - you earn a dollar and you pay a simple percentage of it in tax. If you earn ten million then you pay the same percentage of your income as the one who makes twenty thousand. Fair! No more sales tax or anything like that. No more mortgage deductions. Get rid of all government interventions and let all economic actors make rational decisions based only on the true costs and benefits in any action, without any distortion.

Free markets are by no means "fair" to everyone in their purest state, but they are surely the least worst manner in which to organise an economy.

As for the government solving problems, I don't believe they really solve that many at all. They certainly won't solve poverty, or what remains of it in the US. Increased wealth and a growing economy will do that. They won't solve racism. They may enact laws to prohibit individuals from saying or doing things, but does that really eliminate racism? Solving pollution problems would fall under the protection of private property. The courts can stop polluters imposing externalities on other property holders in the form of pollution or, better yet, make them pay the true costs of that pollution. That will rationally incent the polluter to act to minimize their pollution because it will be cheaper for them to do so.

I agree that markets have been gamed to a degree. That is only possible with government cooperation. Government regulation and occupational licensing act largely to protect current participants against new entrants. The markets will soon suss out a bad plumber. But if that plumber needs to be licensed by a trades board, then they can be kept out, be they good or bad, by the other existing licensed plumbers who don't want the competition.

I am all for technological change and advancement. Afterall, it is what has delivered us to the exalted position of wealth and opportunity that we all adore today. At the same time, though, I think we have to be mindful of certain things that we have no power over. With regard to alternative energy, the Laws of Thermodynamics are one of those things.

stevep

05-16-2007, 07:27 AM

Let the markets and consumers figure it out. .

markets look great in a textbook.
consumer market decisions have no bearing in the real world.
works less well in real life.
there is a need for a government role in all this.
examples are legion.

Chad Engle

05-16-2007, 08:26 AM

Toppling the government of Iraq has nothing to do with finding OBL.
JohnS

I give. I didn't say that or imply that. I agree the two aren't related. Carry on.

sailorboy

05-16-2007, 08:53 AM

So, why not someone with big bucks, big name, run right up the middle, and break this circus up. I think many are waiting to see this and maybe now is the time.

OK, now that's a plan...He might not have big bucks, but I'm thinking Chuck Norris here. His first job will be to roundhouse kick all those caves in Pakistan, and finish OBL with a simple back-hand ***** slap b/c what's left of him by then doesn't even require another roundhouse.

You wanna know the worst part for OBL? All the while he's thinking, OK, that's Chuck Norris, so I guess that's the end for me; but at least now I get to have my 99 virgins in paradise right?...Not so fast! Chuck already paid paradise a little visit, and we all know that means no more virgins in paradise.

Ozz

05-16-2007, 10:56 AM

I found this an interesting read: Motor Trend Mag: James Woosley Interview (http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/112_0705_james_woolsey_interview)

"....Since he stepped down from that assignment, he's become one of Washington's most hawkish hawks, agitating early for the removal of Saddam Hussein, pointing a finger at Iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and calling for the bombing of Syria. By rights, Woolsey ought to drive a big, bad Hummer. Instead, he drives a Prius, and he says that if you live in a country dependent on imported oil, it's your patriotic duty to do the same. His argument is simple: It's a bad thing for transport to depend on oil when the great majority of that oil lies in volatile parts of the world whose governments are hostile to the West. Moreover, he argues that, by making the Middle East so wealthy, we're indirectly subsidizing terror. For Woolsey, the cash register at your local gas station is a collection box for Al Qaeda. "We're paying for both sides in this war, and that's not a good long-term strategy," he says. "I have a bumper sticker on the back of my Prius that reads, 'Bin Laden hates this car.'"..."

Dekonick

05-16-2007, 12:52 PM

ending our dependence on oil isn't simply us using less and someone else using what we don't. it's finding (engineering) a plentiful, affordable alternative that not only we, but (hopefully) much of the world will use.

the history of "energy" is a chronicle of change. human power gave way to animal power, which gave way to water power, which gave way to steam power, which gave way to oil/internal combustion engine. something will be next.

once, whale oil was the dominant fuel for home lighting. in the early 19th century people worried about it running out. a world without whale oil seemed unimagineable.

economic reasons and environmental reasons will, i hope, drive the next energy.

That energy source exists - NOW. If everyone can just realize how safe nuclear energy can be, we can move to a hydrogen based economy fueled by nuclear power. This can tide us over until other better energy is found - perhaps in the form of fusion. The nuclear waste is an issue, but that can be dealt with (the best insulator known is water - and that is plentiful)

My bet is in about 20 years you will see a frenzy of nuclear reactor construction in the USA. It is going to be a rough transition - peak oil production is just about here - and that is when prices will go nuts.

Iraq, the middle east, Venezuela, - it is all about life as we know it. This is more than Bush's personal war or a war of religon. This is, unfortunately, about survival of the industrialized world. I would worry more about China than OBL and his nutso friends...

Oh well - gonna go take the fixie out for a little spin as the newborn is taking a nap.

RPS

05-16-2007, 01:16 PM

That energy source exists - NOW. If everyone can just realize how safe nuclear energy can be, we can move to a hydrogen based economy fueled by nuclear power.I agree 100%.

As I understand it, and I'm the first to admit I could be wrong, the problem is that there isn't another energy source know to man nor beast that provides anywhere near the energy output for the amount of time/money/energy involved in getting to that energy source as OIL. Those dinosours have been providing the closest thing imaginable to an energy free lunch for many years now. We are addicted. The answer may not just be finding another source of energy because there may not be one (or even several in combination) that will provide as much as we've been getting from oil.I do agree with you Climb that science and technology has produced wondrous things and that will continue to happen. However, I don't think the energy situation will be saved by technology in the near future. Down the road a bit, sure, but we're in need of a replacement for oil now.The only plausible alternative at this point is vehicles with little nuclear reactors in them to provide power. Not so attractive is it? At best, and at their most developed and efficient, current sources of alternative energy will be able to replace perhaps 10% of the energy we garner from fossil fuels.

Oil will be with us for a long time.

Merely announcing a serious program to build a significant number of nuclear plants would lower oil prices more than anything else IMHO.

France derives 75% of its electricity from nuclear power plants; and if we really wanted to, we could get 100% of ours within a 10-year period. It�s not science fiction after all; we have nuclear power plants near every major city in the US already. So why not build more? Is it fear of a meltdown or is it storing spent fuel? The French reprocess most of their fuel and we could do the same.

I know that we don�t �presently� use much oil to produce electricity, but if we had unlimited electric power, we could start phasing our transportation to clean electric cars or hydrogen fuel. Obviously we could do the same with coal, but the environmental impact is not acceptable. A recent report from France claimed they can produce electricity at the equivalent cost of $40 oil. That�s not as good as coal, but it�s not bad.

Nuclear plants could power our factories and air conditioners by day and charge batteries and produce hydrogen fuels during off-peak periods; and all without greenhouse gases. And this technology is available now. Even the Chinese are investing in more nuclear plants.