US Bashing

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Skipjack wrote:Well in all honesty, the invasion of Iraq was totally unnecessary to begin with. It did not change anything for the better there and it definitely did not help in the war against terror. In contrary a weak Iraq has made Iran feel stronger than ever and allowed them to persue their nuclear plans. That would have been impossible before without causing a serious response from Iraq.
It also did not help with the impression the rest of the world has of the US.

The possibility that Sadam Hussein could make one scud mounted nuke aimed at Tel Aviv was sufficiently serious that the term "Necessary" becomes quite subjective.

As to whether or not it didn't change anything for the better I have to disagree. My thinking is this....


The Arab world is VERY poor, except for the Rich who are usually VERY rich. The Rich enjoy life, the poor not so much. They turn to faith and piety for there is nothing else. The Rich like things the way they are and maintain a strangle hold on the means and methodes of income. Corrupt, nepotistic leaders establish themselves and get often get rich off of the Public treasure.
The poor get resentful and need to hate someone. The leaders don't tolerate the poor hating them so they allow the poor to preach hatred of the debauched western world that is stealing all of their money and opportunities etc.

The ranks of terrorists come from these disaffected poor arabs who often have nothing better to live for than a Holy war against evil interlopers like US and Europe.

The solution ?


Make them prosperous.




Can't be done in the Dictator/frightened masses form of Government. It CAN be done in the Western Style Democracy free capitalistic society, but they don't have that kind of system.


If they DID have that kind of system, most people could work their way up to having a nice middle class life.

Create a LARGE middle class, and they will hold the lid on the trouble making terrorist minded people so as to keep them from rocking the boat that has allowed them to climb up to the middle class.


A large middle class is the major cause of stability in any nation. It protects the Rich from the poor, it protects the poor from the rich, and it protects itself. It even protects OTHER countries by reigning in the trouble makers. (don't want them screwing with the gravy train.)


A large prosperous middle class in Iraq will create a domino effect in neighboring countries who's poor will be envious and desirous of the same goodies that the poor in Iraq managed to attain.

Happy people want to remain happy and will become very unhappy with people who try to interfer in their happiness !!!

Solve the prosperity problem in Iraq, and you will likely solve the Terrorist Problem in the middle east. You will also likely solve the immigration problems in Europe.

George Bush has set this train in motion and let us all hope it eventually arrives at it's destination.


(All that being said, I am VERY unhappy with George Bush.)

David

Skipjack
Posts: 6897
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

LOL, is all I can say, really.
I mean you guys are pretty much allone with this view in the entire world, yet you claim to know it all. Almost ironic.
Saddam did not have any nukes, never had any. The WMD that he had were poison- gas based. He never had the tech for nukes, much less than Iran has now.

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Skipjack wrote:LOL, is all I can say, really.
I mean you guys are pretty much allone with this view in the entire world, yet you claim to know it all. Almost ironic.
Saddam did not have any nukes, never had any. The WMD that he had were poison- gas based. He never had the tech for nukes, much less than Iran has now.
There are one or two who agree with his view.

BTW I don't know if you remember the Run up to the war, but the big fear was poison gas. And poison gas is a WMD. The Israelis feared it when Saddam was lobbing scuds at them.

And Saddam had a nuke program. And lots of yellow cake. As far as I'm aware there was no major colored glass industry in Iraq that would have required large quantities of yellow cake.

Saddam also had stockpiles of the type of high explosives required to trigger a nuke. Why obtain that stuff when other high explosives are cheaper?

Now admittedly Saddam's nuke program was relatively dormant at the time of the war. However, there was a big push to end sanctions at the UN lead by the French. Once the oil was flowing freely he would have had the $$ to reactivate the program.

In any case Saddam was sure he had big stockpiles of poison gas. His generals lied to him. Better than getting fed feet first into a shredder.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Skipjack wrote:LOL, is all I can say, really.
I mean you guys are pretty much allone with this view in the entire world, yet you claim to know it all. Almost ironic.
Saddam did not have any nukes, never had any. The WMD that he had were poison- gas based. He never had the tech for nukes, much less than Iran has now.

You misunderstand my point. When it comes to decisions it doesn't matter what the truth is. It Only matters what the person making the decision thinks it is.

The US (and others) thought Saddam was trying to make Nukes. (he was at one point. I have seen the pictures of destroyed Calutrons.)


We thought Saddam was going to make a nuke, and his most obvious target is Israel. Rather than take a chance on creating a third world war, (which would have happened if he had hit Israel with a nuke) we thought it was safer to just take him out.

The evidence AFTER we could get in there seems to be that Saddam didn't have a serious nuke program, but wanted everyone in the region to believe he did.


Again. No one makes decisions based on the unknown truth. They make decisions based on what they THINK is the truth.



David

TallDave
Posts: 3152
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Saddam did not have any nukes, never had any.


No one ever claimed he had operable nuclear weapons. It is well-establshed, though, that he had a nuclear weapons research program, one which the Israelis bombed at Osirak and was later rebuilt.

After the 1991 Kuwait invasion resulted in a cease-fire in which he was supposed to give that up, he had his nuclear engineers burying critical components in their gardens at home, and sworn to secrey on pain of torture and death. He had not given up on nukes by any means.
He never had the tech for nukes, much less than Iran has now.
True, but the 1991 postmortem found he he had been only a couple years away -- much closer than had been believed.

The inspections/sanctions regime was crumbling in 2003; the UN was being massively bribed through Oil-For-Food to end the sanctions and Saddam was starving his own people to blackmail the international community. Had we not invaded in 2003, it is quite possible Saddam would be testing nuclear weapons today, with the aid of the recent runup in oil prices.
Last edited by TallDave on Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

TallDave
Posts: 3152
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

MSimon wrote:Dave,

I was not aware of that. Do you have a post up on it?
It was covered at the Long War Journal a little while back.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/ ... qi_air.php
During stage two, the Iraqi Air Force will receive 516 aircraft. The Iraqi Air Force has ordered 36 F16 fighters, 24 AT-6B trainers, 24 EC-635 Utility/Attack Helos, and 24 Bell-407 Armed Recon Helos, all to be delivered in 2011. The trainer aircraft are probably a one-time buy. The others are probably the first of five yearly deliveries, with the remaining extras being additional fighters. Twenty-four aircraft are standard for an Iraqi helicopter squadron and 18 aircraft appears to be the standard for the fighter squadrons.
I've cited this a few times because some people seem think the SOFA means the Iraqis are kicking us out. Nothing could be further from the truth; they are establishing a decades-long agreement here.
While all these squadrons will not be fully trained at the end of 2015, this schedule indicates that most, if not all of the squadrons will have their aircraft by the end of 2015. This fits with the Minister of Defense's statement that they should be independent in 2018 to 2020. He was allowing for training time, slippage in training time, budget delays, and delays in deliveries. The Iraqi Air Force is developing, but it will not be ready until sometime during stage three (2016-2020) of the Iraqi Security Force development plan.

TallDave
Posts: 3152
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

It's worth noting too that a majority of Iraqis polled have responded that the invasion/liberation was the right decision. This opinion is held by a large majority of Shia and virtually all Kurds, while a large majority of Sunni Arabs disagree.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

its also true to say that UK and US intervention in Iraq goes back a very long way, and spans several distinct political backdrops.

along the road, vested interests formed and further plans were laid to extract profit and advantage from the situation.

the theoretical (war game) outcomes of various 'western' interventions had been well studied. in 1999 one significant report concluded :
... that the creation of a democratic government in Iraq was not feasible, but a new pluralistic Iraqi government which included nationalist leaders might be possible, suggesting that nationalist leaders were a stabilizing force.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm

despite having concluded this, the US and UK administrations were 'persuaded' to act unilaterally, against a background of accumulated intelligence reports. there is ample evidence of 'spicing-up' of the evidence for public consumption as well as the political coercion of non-cooperative states, not to mention 'well positioned' private commercial interests in the venture.

some good historical perspectives on the whole set-up here:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/is ... tindex.htm
and
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/is ... nindex.htm

not to overlook the UN resolutions on iraq - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... rning_Iraq

the whole thing stinks and always will do.

however, we are where we are.

Skipjack
Posts: 6897
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Until he invaded Kuwait, Iraq was a "friend" of the west.
Everyone was happily sending weapons his way and building rocket factories there. After all he was an enemy of the evil Iran...
The perseption changed a lot after the invasion of Kuwait.

On the WMD, I think it was already pretty clear after the first gulf war that Iraq had- besides being the second best equipped military power on the gulf - very little to resist a modern army with. The quick destruction of the Iraqi forces by coalition troops in this war shows that very clearly too. UN inspectors, while being resisted in many places claimed that they had no evidence for Iraq having any WMDs.

The nuclear weapons program was never really very far. Their enrichment programme was years behind schedule, even the construction of the facilities for that.
The only thing they had was designs, something you can find on the internet these days.
All this had already ended after the first gulf war and there was no evidence that there was anything going on after that.

Iran is making much more progress towards a nuke now than Iraq ever was. Personally these people scare me a LOT more too.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

Skipjack wrote: Iran is making much more progress towards a nuke now than Iraq ever was. Personally these people scare me a LOT more too.
all true.
let us hope they adopt a language of 'detente' and do not experience the hard way, the folly of MAD in a 'regional' context.

the same can be said of Israel, Syria, Pakistan.
then there are the pan-Sino situations.
even the Russians are beating their chests again.
American language has been restrained in some quarters and 'authoritarian' in others.
UK has to do what US does.

I think we must also conclude that the real medium term prospects of intercontinental nuclear ballistics, never really went away and are about to bubble to the top of the international agenda again.

so far at least there seems to be some 'rational' involved and perhaps we should all feel reassured by the fact that there cannot a head of state on the planet who isn't thinking about these issues, one way or the other.

just waiting for good ole BHO to settle into his chair there ....

TallDave
Posts: 3152
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Until he invaded Kuwait, Iraq was a "friend" of the west.
This is another popular meme that doesn't have much truth to it. You may have noticed virtually all of Iraq's Saddam-era military equipment was of Soviet origin -- and Saddam's Iraq was a Stalinist state. At best he was semi-neutral.

The only good thing about Saddam from the West's point of view was he was fighting Iran, which was even worse.
despite having concluded this, the US and UK administrations were 'persuaded' to act unilaterally, against a background of accumulated intelligence reports.
There are so many things wrong with that view. First off, clearly the bigoted assertion that Iraqis could not achieve a state that allowed basic freedoms and democracy was wrong, and the neocons' basic premise was correct: everyone wants freedom, not just Westerners. The "civil war" talk has vanished, violence is below that of nations like Venezuela, and Iraq's GDP and basic services have doubled since 2002.

Second, it's long been well-established that Saddam was only a few years from a bomb in 1991.
Acquiring a Safeguarded Fuel Cycle

Since its inception in the early 1970s, Iraq's nuclear weapons program has depended on deception and determination. Originally, the plan, which one of us (Hamza) authored, was to acquire a complete nuclear fuel cycle able to produce and separate plutonium. The plan focused on the foreign acquisition of complete nuclear facilities with training in their use conducted in the supplier country.

During the 1970s, Iraq concentrated on acquiring nuclear facilities overseas that would have been under IAEA safeguards, since Iraq had signed the nuclear Non--Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968. Nonetheless, Iraq reckoned it could defeat the safeguards at these facilities or secretly build undeclared duplicate facilities.

In 1976, Iraq succeeded in buying from France a 40-megawatt materials test -reactor called the Tammuz-1 reactor, or Osiraq reactor, that ran on weapons-grade uranium fuel. In 1979, Iraq established a radiochemical laboratory, equipped through a contract with the Italian company SNIA-Techint, suitable for laboratory research on reprocessing. It also acquired a fuel fabrication plant from Italy that was suitable for making natural uranium targets for secret irradiation in the Osiraq reactor.

Iraqi teams calculated that the Osiraq reactor could conservatively produce about 5 kilograms to 7 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium per year. This value could be higher or lower depending on how the targets were arranged in the reactor; it also depended on the frequency of visits by IAEA inspectors and French personnel. The Iraqis believed that the safeguards on the reactor, which would have included periodic inspections and surveillance cameras, could have been defeated. Prior to visits by IAEA inspectors and French personnel, Iraq planned to pull out the unsafeguarded targets. Iraq had also developed plans to defeat the cameras.

Before Iraq could illicitly produce any plutonium and put the IAEA's safeguards to the test, however, Israel bombed the reactor in June 1981, shortly before the reactor was scheduled to go into operation. The radiochemical laboratory and fuel fabrication plant were not bombed. Later, the fabrication facility was used to produce unsafeguarded targets which were irradiated in a Russian-supplied research reactor to produce plutonium. The reactor also irradiated bismuth targets to make polonium-210, a material used in beryllium-polonium neutron initiators which trigger the nuclear explosion. Material from the targets was extracted in the Italian radiochemical laboratory, which was expanded in the early 1980s.

Iraq Goes Underground

Following the bombing of the Osiraq reactor, Iraq decided to: (1) replace the Osiraq reactor or to develop a heavy water or enriched uranium reactor and associated plutonium separation capability; and (2) develop a uranium enrichment production capacity.

Iraq tried to replace the Osiraq reactor, but by 1985, it realized that it could not buy a replacement. Before the bombing, Iraq had developed plans and purchased some minor items for a 20- to 40-megawatt heavy water natural uranium reactor. After delays in buying a replacement reactor, Iraq decided to pursue this reactor project again. In the late 1980s, however, it put its plans on hold, facing resource limitations. But Iraq continued its efforts to learn how to separate plutonium from irradiated fuel and to make heavy water. Depending on the success of the enrichment programs, Iraq may have reconstituted the nuclear reactor project.

Even before the Israeli bombing of the Osiraq reactor, Iraqi scientists had been evaluating the development of uranium enrichment technologies. However, Iraq has declared that a decision by the Iraqi leadership to pursue these options came after the June 1981 bombing. An Iraqi evaluation finished in 1981 concluded that electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) was the most appropriate technology for Iraq and that gaseous diffusion was the next most appropriate option. Gaseous diffusion was planned to produce low--enriched uranium (LEU) which could be used as a feedstock for EMIS, dramatically increasing overall HEU production in EMIS separators. If EMIS was unsuccessful, the plan called for expanding the gaseous diffusion facility to produce HEU directly. At the time, gas centrifuge technology was viewed as too difficult to accomplish. (See below.)

EMIS

The goal of the EMIS program was to build two production units, each able to achieve 15 kilograms per year of weapons-grade uranium using natural uranium feed. Iraqi estimates of the HEU output using LEU feed (enriched to 2.5 percent uranium-235) vary between roughly 25 kilograms and 50 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium per year. The variation reflects different plant designs and performance uncertainties.

After several years of research and development work of mixed success, Iraq nonetheless started in 1987 to build its first EMIS production facility at Tarmiya, north of Baghdad. Also in late 1987, Iraq decided to build a replica of Tarmiya at Al Sharqat, about 200 kilometers northwest of Baghdad. This facility, which was built by Iraqis only, was originally viewed as a second production site that would come into operation roughly at the same time as Tarmiya. In the late 1980s, this plan was modified to one where Al Sharqat would operate after Tarmiya was finished. Iraq also sought unsafeguarded LEU on the international market during the late 1980s. However, it has declared that its search was half-hearted and unsuccessful. Whether this declaration is complete is unclear. As of 1997, the Action Team had not pursued this issue further.

The EMIS program faced repeated delays and technical problems, and by the time of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Tarmiya was at least a year behind schedule. At that time, Tarmiya was not expected to produce its first goal quantity of weapons-grade uranium, or 15 kilograms, until at least 1992, assuming that the plant would function well and that a stock of LEU would be used. If natural uranium was used, the date for the production of the first goal quantity would have been 1993 or later.

Because of the large size of EMIS facilities, few expect Iraq to try to secretly rebuild its EMIS production facilities. In addition, it still has to overcome several technical problems, including problems in vacuum technology and ion sources, before its separators would work properly. Armed with a stock of LEU, however, Iraq could produce 15 kilograms per year of weapons-grade uranium with a facility about one-third the size of Tarmiya.

Enrichment Options

By 1987 or 1988, when it became apparent to the Iraqi leadership that the gaseous diffusion program was not progressing well, Iraq decided to de-emphasize this effort. It instead concentrated on chemical enrichment as a source of LEU feedstock for the EMIS program. By 1990, Iraq had made little progress in building a chemical enrichment plant. However, both programs could be reconstituted, although substantial technical challenges would need to be overcome before Iraq could operate production-scale facilities.

After the cancellation of the gaseous diffusion program, the team started to work on gas centrifuges. The team had already been transferred from the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center to a new site on the northern edge of Baghdad near Rashdiya, later named the Engineering Design Center (EDC). This change reflected a change of authority from the Atomic Energy Establishment to the Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization.

This group managed to acquire extensive overseas cooperation in designing and building gas centrifuges, so much so that inspectors have characterized the assistance as key to progress in the centrifuge program.

Despite such help, at the time of the Gulf War, Iraq was still a few years from an operating plant able to produce goal quantities of weapons-grade uranium, declared by the centrifuge program as 1,000 centrifuges producing 10 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium per year. Because of the relatively small size of a gas centrifuge program and the extensive progress made before the war, Iraq is viewed as likely to reconstitute its gas centrifuge program.

Weaponization

Iraq's effort to produce a nuclear explosive started in the mid-1980s. Under a 1988 plan, Iraq intended to have its first weapon by the summer of 1991, based on an implosion design. Iraq had worked on developing the capability to make fissile material for many years prior to this date, and Iraq has explained that the decision at that particular time reflected the expectation that domestically produced HEU would become available within a few years. Iraq intended that its nuclear weapons would be put on ballistic missiles. Iraq faced many problems in trying to reduce and ruggedize its design to fit on top of a ballistic missile.

Questions remain about the status of Iraq's weaponization program at the time of the allied bombing campaign in January 1991, when most activities were halted. Nevertheless, the Action Team inspectors have concluded that with the accelerated effort under the crash program, Iraq could have finished a nuclear explosive design by the end of 1991, if certain technical problems were overcome.
http://www.isis-online.org/publications ... t1298.html

Now it's true the intelligence community estimates post-1991 were probably overcautious, esp those regarding WMD. But prior to 991 they had erred the other way, and to echo a popular statement in 2002, this is kind of estimate where you want to err on the side of caution, because if you're wrong the smoking gun may come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Skipjack
Posts: 6897
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Well one can actually read up on Wikipedia (I think, I read that there) that Iraqs nuclear programme was very much on hold after the first gulf war. And anything that was not design was years behind schedule even before that.
They did have some things before the first war, but they were as I said years behind schedule. Even if they had had one nuclear bomb and the ability to conduct one test detonation that does not make a nuclear force. And even that first bomb was still years away. They simply did not have enough weapons grade fissile material.
This is another popular meme that doesn't have much truth to it. You may have noticed virtually all of Iraq's Saddam-era military equipment was of Soviet origin -- and Saddam's Iraq was a Stalinist state. At best he was semi-neutral
Sorry but this is absolutely not true! He did have a lot of western help.
Yes Russia delivered weapons to Iraq, but so did pretty much everyone else. Russia just more (and maybe more ruthlessly) than others.
The French sold them a lot of F1 Mirages, e.g.
The US gave him mostly financial and intelligence support, even some military support at some point.
The British also supported him (to what extent I do not know).

Noricum is an Austrian (neutral country but otherwise part of the west) company that was involved in delivering weapons to Iraq (there was a big scandal about that though since Iraq was in a war with Iran at the time).
There were several mid range missile factories about to be built in Iraq by western companies.
The famous Gerald Bull (inventor of the smooth barrel gun that is nowadays used in all tanks) was building a huge cannon in Iraq.
Both of the last two endeavours were ended "rather appruptly" by you know who, but not until AFTER Iraq invaded Kuvait and so turned himself into an enemy of the west.
You can look these facts up very easily. They were all over the news back in the days anyway. Denying them now is like denying the gas chambers. Both would only be done by people that have no knowledge about history, or are dangerously ignorant.

rj40
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:31 am
Location: Southern USA

Post by rj40 »

My two cents:

So it’s 2002 and 2003 and I’m listening to people argue about going into Iraq and getting rid of Saddam. And it is scaring the hell out of me. The people for it are telling me about WMD and terrorists getting the bomb and taking out cities around the world. The people against it are telling me we will loose thousands of people, both military and civilian, and a whole lot of money, and American prestige, for no reason at all. And then Sen. Clinton ends up voting for going in. OK, at this point I am thinking that she knows something. She KNOWS something. You may not like her, but I don’t think it is so easy to pull one over on her (her lovely husband aside). Apparently she did know something, but it was wrong.

This whole time I am asking the “for” people things like:
1. What happens after he is ousted?
a. Average answer: things will quiet down. People want to be free.
2. How long will we be there?
a. Average answer: Don’t know. We have been in Europe for decades though.
3. How much is this really gonna cost?
a. Average answer: Once they start pumping oil again, we can recoup our expenses from that. Cost may not matter.
4. What if Iran starts sending in money and supplies to any guerilla forces? You know, like China during Vietnam. What do we do then?
a. Average answer: Not a big problem since Iranians and Iraqi’s hate each other.
OK, so they had some answers. I mean, they usually tried and they did show they had thought about things. Still, I was not feeling very good.


And I am asking the no-goes things like:
1. So what, specifically, do we do?
a. Average answer: Not my job to figure this out. George Bush is stupid.
2. Do we drop the sanctions?
a. Average answer: Of course, we are killing innocent Iraqi’s. George Bush is stupid.
3. What happens to the Kurds? Don’t we have any kind of responsibility for them?
a. Average answer: I don’t know. Not my job. George Bush is stupid.
4. If we drop the sanctions, why wouldn’t Saddam just start building WMD again?
a. Average answer: I don’t know! Stop asking me these things. Are you with us or not? George Bush is stupid!
Lot of college students in this. Real deep thinkers. Apparently they were convinced George Bush was stupid and it wasn’t their job to come up with answers. Pity.

Now I am sure there were real answers out there, especially for the no-goes camp. But I didn’t see them. No one seemed to have a clue. Wait a minute, I think Chirac did. He said something to the effect that he was sure the Iraqi regime would be ousted, but his fear was for what happened after. He thought it would be very bad. Man was he right.

So, instead of arguing this, how about a new question? What, specifically, can we, or should we, do about Iran? By “we” I mean the rest of the world.

Ideas I have heard/read about, that I think might be a step in the right direction:
1. US should get off foreign oil ASAFP. Really? Who would have thought?.
a. Drill locally, but tax it. Tax the imported stuff even more. Put that tax money into alternative fuel research.
b. Tax breaks to alternative energy (solar, wind, etc.)
c. Yep, I hate taxes too, but I am sick of giving money to 6th century whack jobs. Let’s tax oil and give the money to ourselves.
2. Innovate and conserve and get off all oil. You’re kidding! How radical.
a. More money to basic research
b. Encourage Universities and corporations to work together. Universities should be able to look at energy research as being as potentially lucrative as they look at their football teams now.
3. Get out of the Middle East as soon as we can (hmmm…never thought of that).

The market is pretty powerful, so why hasn’t it addressed this already without government intervention? I suspect two main reasons: it is very difficult to do the above, and petroleum is still so very cheap, at least on the face of it.

The world really needs Polywell to work. I wonder how many coalition soldiers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan a single 100MW commercial Polywell is worth? Talk about a force multiplier.

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

3. Get out of the Middle East as soon as we can (hmmm…never thought of that).
The rest of the world is already effectively out of the Middle East.

Either Uncle Sugar does something or no one does.

The no one does option entails letting the folks in control develop their suicide squads to send on missions to Europe mostly but occasionally the US. Saddam was big on training aircraft hijackers. Look up Salman Park.

Iran now has nuke capable missiles that it can launch to the periphery of Europe. One more generation and all of Europe and possibly the US will be targetable. What would Europe do? "Iran what do you want?"

Let me add that the money available for alternative energy exceeds the number of viable projects. Without any government push.

Getting off oil is a 50 year project. Iran will have nukes in two to four years.

As to getting off oil - what the heck is Europe doing? Oh yeah. Buying from Russia. How has that worked out so far?

I agree that the US needs to develop its resources. The problem with that? Three words NO POLITICAL WILL
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Nanos
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Post by Nanos »

> Until he invaded Kuwait, Iraq was a "friend" of the west.

You know what makes me suspicious, having read once that Saddam before he invaded Kuwait, phoned up the Americans and asked if they would mind/object to him doing so, they replied that it wasn't a concern of theirs and they wouldn't object.

After that, and they then pointed the big bad finger at him for doing so, he didn't trust them so much.. and you can understand why!


> What would Europe do? "Iran what do you want?"

I imagine they would want what the rest of us want, respect and equal access to trade.

Trade after all, is the great peace bringer..


> was in their financial interests to oppose the US messing
> up their gravy train.

From what I see, the US wanted the gravy train all to itself, which is why during the invasion stage they was happy to let everything be looted, so they sell the people shiney new American made goods instead..


> The solution ?
>
> Make them prosperous.

I quite agree there.


> It CAN be done in the Western Style Democracy free capitalistic society

Hmmm... I'm less sure there..


> A large middle class is the major cause of stability in any nation

I'd agree with that too.


> Solve the prosperity problem in Iraq, and you will likely solve
> the Terrorist Problem in the middle east. You will also likely solve
> the immigration problems in Europe.

Agreed on all counts there.


But, lets not forget home grown terrorists, why do we have those if our countries are so great... ?

Its because we screw the poor for every penny.. sure we have a wealthy middleclass, but its at the expense of the poor which they exploit that its created. Not because the middleclass happen to be really good hairdressers or bakers..

If we had no poor and just had the majority as middleclass, then I imagine we'd get rid of a lot of our own domestic trouble.

Which, in all honesty, I don't see disappering from the likes of Iraq as we replace one dictator with another under a different name, so that for the poor people at the bottom there isn't any change..

In fact, the change so far, the majority poor (even though they are being killed off at a rather high rate..) are even poorer than when Saddam was in power!

I don't know what it is, its either the lack of hospital supplies, or the huge increase in price of petrol and fuel... but for some in Iraq life is back to normal, even better, so we hear from those people, but not the ones living in abject povety..

Kinda reminds me of the homeless in my own country, we rarely get to hear from them how great our democracy is working in making sure they aren't poor..

And with thousands every week loosing their homes due to the mortgage situation, our poor are getting poorer..

Some might say, we'd be better off with our own version of Saddam..

Post Reply