JHK: "A Hard Place"
Posted by Prof. Goose on October 2, 2006 - 6:17pm
From our friends at Energy Bulletin comes this piece from JHK:
I don't think it's accurate to call it a "war" anymore. It was one briefly back in 2003, and it may become a wider one again in the region. But for now the American situation in Iraq has degenerated into a dangerous, half-assed policing operation. We're not really fighting anyone, just getting in the way of factions fighting each other. A large part of our failure in this project has been our inability to get the electricity and water running properly. Any group of Americans might be equally pissed off and crazy after three years of that. [...] The purpose of our Iraq project was to stabilize the Middle East by creating a successful buffer state between Iran and Pakistan and the nations west of Iraq, especially Saudi Arabia. Why? To preserve the status quo in our oil deliveries from the region.Discuss.
“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”
—James Madison, FEDERALIST #57 (1787)
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
My response:
Just think how different things might be if the US had not decided to make Iraq the enemy in 1990 and sequester their oil from the market. The Iraqis would be producing 6+ MBD using a state-of-the-art oil infrastructure, the world would be at 87-88 MBD, there would have been no run-up in prices such as we have seen the past few years, and the world might even still have some spare capacity left at this stage.
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/IQ/iraqLaherrere.pdf
Another one with lots of nice maps is at
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/gong03/index.htm
Just off the top of my google...
But what I find most interesting are the rumors that Iraq doesn't have nearly as much oil as we thought. This was also reported at ASPO.
Supposedly, the U.S. conducted a survey of Iraq's oil reserves after the war. It is classified. It was supposed to be made public in 2004, but here we are, nearing the end of 2006, and it's still classified.
But the "whisper number" that has leaked is only 47 BBL. Not the 112 BBL claimed.
Why so low? Partly, for the same reason Kuwait's reserves are in question. When OPEC decided to base quotas on reserves, everyone juiced up their numbers. Partly, because the oil fields have been severely damaged by the way they were produced during the ten years of sanctions.
Thus preventing the penetration of the peak oil concept into the public mind, ensuring continuing low fuel prices, and causing renewable energy technologies to continue to languish as they did through the 80's and 90's. Right up until we hit geological peak, and find ourselves entirely up a creek.
Maybe the Republicans are alot smarter and more forward-thinking than I've been giving them credit for... Naw. :)
And frankly, I suspect that if prices had remained flat while production grew further, we'd have just ended up with exactly the same scenario we saw from July 2004 til now, only a few years later. Eventually we hit a production plateau and prices rise to constrain demand.
"It's the only major oil exporter occupied by the US military (makes me wonder about the reported production numbers), "
I have thought of this more than once. What if production could be/was pumped up 500,000 or down and nobody knew.
Would it be possible to do that? Have their production be kinda like an "Oil Slushfund" so to speak.
What we need is a rational idea of what we can do to exit it soon without leaving it more of a mess than we are currently making it.
Joe Biden (D-Del) has at least been talking about some new ideas, even if they may have certain flaws
So, let's brainstorm some ideas on the way forward...
Also, if the Ds don't get control of the Senate, impeachment would be a moot exercise. And if that's the best they can do as an alternative agenda to the Republicans, they don't deserve to win...and I mean that.
- how can the speaker change daily? you mean the day after the election results are final or literally daily?
comment -personally, i dont think democracy works, or was designed to work at populations greater than the tribal level(100-200) - democrats and republicans are both primarily influenced by big business, perhaps democrats slightly less so. we really do live in a world of $1 dollar 1 vote. Bush is a knucklehead, but we are kidding ourselves if Kerry or Gore would have made that much of a difference - geology, overpopulation and other woes would have taken the same path, perhaps slowed somewhat by lefter leaning policies. we need to be accountable ourselves and stop relying on (or blaming) a particular political party.
Ultimately we need a new party based on science, run by engineers or some such and headed by a 'benevolent dictator'- but our populace is not conditioned to vote for truth - charisma and abstractions 'feel' better.
You're not wrong Nate, I've often told my classes that representative democracy probably works a lot better when your MoC only represented 10k or so compared to the 700k represented by every MoC today...of course, the problem with that is that the size of the House has been capped at 435 since 1929 and the House Reapportionment Act.
The public has so far been resistant to changing from this system, generally with a compromise (with at least a modest number of competitive districts) occurring only when one party controls the statehouse and another the governorship. Obviously, extremists in general, and most elected officials themselves, have a strong interest in the status quo.
Perhaps, in those states with term limits, the officials could be bribed with a temporary increase in term in exchange for a permanent change in how districts are created. The public must be bribed, too, because they like term limits and the current reapportionist system.
So, my proposal for a CA ballot initiative "Eficiency in Government": change the legislature from bicameral to unicameral (single house) with total legislature spending to decline in proportion with the change in total elected officials, and with half the savings going to schools and the other half a reduction in sales tax; allow a new clock for term limits for the new senate; and, most important, invite various groups, inncluding, say, the black and hispanic legislative caucuses, the league of women voters, each party, the legislature and the governor to each submit a redistricting plan to teh CA supreme court, with the court determining which plan has the largest number of competitive districts. In the case of ties, the court would select the one most likely to result in representation of minorities in proportion to their share of CA population.
CA has sufficient US representatives to also have the number of state senators be the same as the number of US representatives, and could therefore have coincident districts.
I understood Nate Hagens to be saying we needed less democracy, and that we need a scientific ruling elite - Prof Goose seemed to agree, and then to say that we needed more representatives.
I have to say I'm baffled by the idea that we need a scientific ruling elite. I don't think it's an exaggeration (or even disproportionately inflammatory) to say that it sounds like something from 1920's fascist literature, or 1890's socialist literature. I think scientists like Andrei Sakharov would strongly disagree.
Prof Goose: Do I understand you correctly? And, if so, what do you suggest as an improvement?
The problem with democracy, as Madison put it, is that the public will is so subject to emotional decisionmaking that, sooner or later, it will make a decision that is fatal if left to its own devices, hence the creation of the representative republican system.
In my opinion, we need smaller districts/MORE representatives, which would mean concomitantly a MORE representative government, if we're going to stay with the system we have now that is.
I would not favor a pure technocracy, though I think that's where we're heading. A technocratic and corporate elite that controls the massive behemoth of government, whether it's fascist or socialist or whatever, we can all debate that.
Either way you look at it, the size of government is continuing to grow...and the growth that has occurred in the past five years is all attributable to the maintenance of order. Let's see, let me look up the word "reactionary" and "fascist."
Of course, Madison was just guessing, as no one had any experience with real democracy at that point. The original design had senators appointed by governors, the franchise limited to a small % of the population, etc., and yet an expansion of participation has, I think, been clearly an improvement. Has there ever been any real evidence that there can be too much democracy?
I agree that our recent problems with the "current occupant" have been the result of too little democracy, not too much.
"we need smaller districts/MORE representatives" an intriguing idea, and it kind've makes sense to me. OTOH, I wonder why the Senate now seems to be the moderating influence over the much larger house?
"the growth that has occurred in the past five years is all attributable to the maintenance of order. "
And yet, it seems clear to me that all this growth of "maintenance of order" has been counterproductive. The long-term interests of the US would clearly have been better served had we never tried to control the Middle East, starting 60 years ago. The sooner we give up the illusion of control, the better.
The example of Japan seems illustrative. They've prospered with no extension of military power at all, just a mercantilist approach.
So now if the U.S. can just get someone else to spend their money to protect them, they can follow the same path.
I think it is inaccurate to suggest the Japan or Europe would have stay unmilitarized if the US wasn't providing their security servcies for them.
If the US withdrew from Asia, Japan's view of self defense would change very quickly, as would that of every other country in the region.
AFAIK, the US defense of Japan really has been defensive, leaving the corporations of Japan on their own to negotiate with other countries. That has worked very well for Japan economically: their Self-Defence Force has stayed at roughly 1% of GDP, and yet their corporations have been extremely successful. Contrast that with the pre-WWII Greater Japan Co-Prosperity Sphere, or the US's counterproductive projection of power post-WWII.
It's with respect to the conduct of war that democracy posed the biggest problems to the Athenians. They did best when they appointed a dictator for the duration; and they did disastrously badly when the democratic institutions conducted the war themselves.
My main point is to do away with gerrymandering that creates non-competitive districts. Changing from 40 senators and 80 representatives to 53 senators is not increasing teh size of senate seats, but reducing their size. And, it matters not that representatives have smaller districts since the more powerful seneate remains less democratic.
Bush is more (and less) than a knucklehead, but I agree with your basic point.
Ultimately we need a new party based on science, run by engineers or some such and headed by a 'benevolent dictator'- but our populace is not conditioned to vote for truth - charisma and abstractions 'feel' better.
I think this is the wrong direction, however. This sounds too much like Technocracy. The technofix is not the answer to our problems.
We as a culture need to learn to value cooperation rather than domination, people rather than profits, sustainability rather than growth, cutailment rather than consumption, relocalization rather than globalization, and giving birth to creative ideas rather than creating more babies.
Otherwise we cant afford to build the apropriate technofixes.
We need to build technofixes that people both want and need otherwise the products will end up being useless and the profits will be pissed away at marketing.
We need technofixes for the long haul.
Good technofixes need to be recycleable so that we can technofix for hundreds of generations and beyond.
We cant build technofixes for all, some people and production will need to move, perhaps a lot of people and production. Fortunately global shipping via electrified rail and nuclear container ships will be fairly cheap to run in the post peak oil world.
Yes, we will need a lot of new technofixes. And babies, the world would be depressing withouth young people.
Nate - This is nuts. Firstly, to believe in a benevolent dictator, you have to think that power doesn't corrupt. Sure there have been a few instances of successful benign dictators, but it is hardly the rule.
I actually live in a country with a hugely successful benevolent king (Thailand). He is loved and respected because of his committment to thai people. However, almost no one thinks this is a model for other countries. Just great luck.
I have to go with Churchill on this one:
How would people in the US feel in the EU demanded that Mexico be made the 52 state.
I don't know but it doesn't seem like the U.S. is adding anything positive to the equation. Come up with a solution, any solution, but get the hell out within less than a year. If the Dems take over, pass a resolution calling for a planned withdrawal. In the mean time, impeach both the Pres and Vice Pres. I'm sure it won't be difficult coming up with a bill of particulars since it has already been written.
President Bush has stolen our Republic, not to mention democracy. He has gotten himself exempted from his previous crimes and misdemeanors. But he can't get exempted from impeachment.
Frankly, if is a waste of time. Just like there is a huge cultural difference between Eastern (i.e. Kurdish) and Western Turkey, there is a huge gulf between Western Europe and Western Turkey. This is not just about religion it is all-encompassing.
The British government is one of the few that is genuinely in favour of Turkish accession to the EU - just another of these poodle Blair attitudes.
Rubbish. The cultural differences are not that great. And if you don't want people of Oriental culture in the EU, what on earth are the Greeks doing in here?
Biden's ideas aren't new. The so-called "Three-state solution" was proposed back in Nov. 2003 by Leslie Gelb in a New York Times op-ed piece. I think its a non-starter, though the international press comes down on both sides of the aisle.
My solution: pull the troops out within a three-month period, then let the Iraqis decide what kind of government they want for themselves. After that, pay reparations for the indescribable amount of damage that's been done to the country's infrastructure.
Of course we know this will never happen volutarily because withdrawal was never an option, even from the very beginning. You know, with those "permanent bases" and all. However, the same sort of bases were built in Vietnam as well.
That's a good start, and well beyond what I expect we'll ever see, but it still is rather insulting to Iraqis. How much is human life worth in the United States? More than zero. Typically the actuarial value is on the order of a million dollars. So, let's say a million times a hundred thousand lives - that's only another hundred billion dollars. Well within the US government's ability to print money. After all, more than that has already been spent on destroying the country.
Why does this idea of paying keep surfacing? We rid them of an evil dictator and did rebuild quite a bit so why shouldn't they pay us instead?
We wage war on an enemy and are supposed to then repair the effects of that war? When did this ever start? To me it always seemed that looting was the outcome. Fine, we don't loot, maybe warlords and others did, like perhaps Mohammad, but we don't, at least to any measurable degree--a few war surveniors perhaps.
So why pay? Seems the malcontents are doing a lot of damage as well.
I don't see the US citizens paying for this. If its all just about oil? Then take it, seize the country as well and quit lying about it. Old fashioned occupation which involved colonization which I might add that now 3rd world countries who once were not in such bad shape are now devolving into chaos, starvation and being overrun by local despots and warlords.
I don't read a lot of history anymore and I could be incorrect with the 3rd world countries but paying for damage? Also I don't think our military should be 'care givers'. Their job is to protect and defend , not hand out condoms or whatever passes these days.
But to sum it all up. They are no longer being beheaded, beaten and the women do have some freedoms they never had before. If they want to go back to that , rule by the Quran, then let it be so but lets not give them the money to do so. We are on a fast downhill slope. We need to quit trying to be the worlds shining knights and take care of biz at home.
Airdale-- Can I get an Amen on that?
Dave Barry
I don't hang mine out. I let my slave girls do that.
You are kidding, right? A hundred people a day are being executed by death squads of one sort or another, in the most grotesque ways imaginable. Attacks on women in particular have accelerated recently, especially around Mosul.
Iraq was never a threat to the USA, and the invasion was illegal under interational war (the bad boys condemned at Nuremberg were charged with "waging a war of aggression", which sounds uncomfortably close to the Iraqi circumstances). The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing . . . to initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
It seems to me that in this situation paying reparations is the least the USA should do.
No amen from this corner.
That is painfully obvious.
Women have far fewer freedoms now in Iraq than they did before. Women in Saddam's Iraq were free to go out on their own, pursue just about any career, wear western fashions, etc.
No more. Women are afraid to go out without an escort. They must cover their heads and arms. They are banned from working the jobs they used to.
Riverbend has a heartbreaking entry on her blog, about what happened when she tried to go back to her office and take up her old job as a computer programmer after the war.
If that's what you're trying to do then you're doing a really really really really really bad job of it. Hint #1: killing people does not make you their friend. Hint #2: destroying a country's infrastructure so that the inhabitants have worse access to the basics (water, shelter, electrical power) does not make you their friend. Hint #3: unilaterally ignoring international law does not make people predisposed to trust you. I could go on, but there's little point as your world view is obviously not fact-based.
I thought natural rubber was a quaint, boutique, product. Not so! Military tires are all natural rubber, and civilian tires are partially natural rubber. Rubber was a big cause in WWII and everyone was familiar with the saying "The Army moves on a sheet of rubber". Read up on this stuff, it's fascinating! Sure, the Germans came up with "Buna", artificial rubber, but the natural stuff is essential and "buna" can only be used to stretch (lol) the supply of natural rubber.
Rubber just doesn't get any respect! This shit is important! And with global warming, will we have rubber problems? (Or be too busy engaging in the big Dieoff party we're all invited to).
The Vietnam War suddenly makes sense one you read up on rubber.
http://uniteourstates.com/about/speeches?id=0010
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2055380.cms
JHKs statement, "we're not really fighting anymore" is laughable. US forces are facing 100's of attacks on a weekly basis and the trend has been rising for years. The American public isn't being told the truth and don't expect things to change anytime soon.
Next up Iran: Naval forces deployed for arrival Persian Gulf Theatre - Oct 21.
The 'Long War' will not end in our lifetime.
I think he is saying that we are not fighting a government or even freedom fighters trying to kick us out. We are just acting as side targets to all the various groups that are really more interested in fighting with each other.
This war has changed the world, its ramifications -- oil, financial, political -- have only begun be felt in the US.
...which in turn will have to wait until the world stops supporting the U.S. dollar.
20,000 Sailors Go To War - Massive US and Allied Naval Deployment
by LondonYank [Kos]
Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 06:01:15 AM EDT
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22872011
The current Ayatollahs that actually run Iran would rather see all the oil infrastructure blown up than land in the hands of the infidel Americans.
One problem with Iraq, according to two of my friends that each spent some time attempting to train the new Iraqi military, is the lack of allegience to the country of Iraq. The military recruits seem to have loyalty to their local religious and tribal (warlord type) leaders first and the country second. I don't see the country existing in five or ten years. Any backout of Iraq now would require the US to prepare for a long term oil shortage, which the public would respond to with outrage and disgust way beyond what they have shown toward the current situation in Iraq.
Any event that would rub the public face in reality would be so welcome.
Any sign that the MSM is not perfectly lockstep with Rove brings hope.
Therefore, it's my view that no matter how bad things get in Iraq, the Bush regime is not going to pull out, for the simple reason that it would be an admission that whole Bush administration was a total failure. Rather than back off, they might very well attack Iran, so as to make it impossible for the next adminstration to pull out of the Middle East any time soon.When things are going really bad, people sometimes have a tendency to deliberately make them even worse.
What really gives me the creeps is that, according to Bob Woodward, Henry Kissinger evidently still has a great deal of influence in the Bush White House and visitst there whenever he's in town. His stated advice is that the only acceptable Iraq withdrawl strategy is total victory. So, being that the Prince of Darkness himself is whispering in Bush's ear, it looks like we're going to stay there until our presence become completely untenable. Kissinger is still living in 1971, and it's going to be Vietnam redux.
And you're right there is no Plan B.
It will be years before we have a measure of how deep we are in the shit.
Everyone who despises Kissinger should reread The Price of Power and think on how slim the mans' resume is. Kissinger is master of nothing but promoting Kissinger. Also note how the 'accent' is all over the map from one film clip to the next. The accent is an act.
huge pdf http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
it's all in there including the need for the usa to fight to major land wars at once
I would like it to have turned out differently, peacefully, but it isn't going to happen.
This muslum vs muslum warfare seems to be spreading. The West may just end up being a sideshow with some occasional terrorist bombings. We need to keep our involvement overseas to a minimum and prepare to live with a lot less oil. Funny, if we had invested what the Iraq war has cost us to date in renewable energy and conservation, we would be halfway home by now. Too bad, we will have to do it the hard way.
I watched Gunner Palace last night, decent movie and I'm smart enough to know it's very sugar-coated compared to reality.
Anyone reading www.urbansurvival.com knows the US/Mexico border is considered by some in the know to be the most dangerous place on earth right now, the fight is indeed coming home to the Empire.
Darfur, Iraq, a dark alley in detroit. You can get killed walking your doggy. Fleam, there is disorder to our south and we need to secure the border politically by charging employers and physically with increased security. But until a horde of bionic velociraptors with lightsabers storm texas I think there are about 1000 other worse places.
get real.
Kunstler has made some accurate (but certainly not original) observations about suburbia. His colourful prose has earned him a position of prominence among the many critics of suburbia. I'll give him that.
However Kunstler is not to be taken seriously for economic or geopolitical observations. For one he was a cheerleader for Y2K doomerism and also last year predicted the DOW would shortly drop to 3000 in 2006. For another he is firmly wed to all the tribal values and mass delusions of the Likud/neocon faction. We have heard far too much from that faction and their mass media mouthpieces and stenographers over that past 6 years. Enough already.
The madman of Saratoga has his own blog, let him spew his warmongering rascist anti-Islamic propaganda there.
By the by, if you all thought my posting it was an endorsement of the views of the piece, well that's kind of like asking Mark Foley if he likes older men.
As far as Foley goes. Hey now, that might be a cheap shot :) I thought we all agreed Monica Lewinsky was no big deal. Why's it gotta be different for Republicans?
Clinton to this day continues to deny it happened and his followers say "it's no big deal." Foley blamed it on an alcohol problem after 15 minutes. Different tactics, same strategy.
I'm a Clinton follower now, by the way. I've come around. I'm voting for him this November, and in 2008 as well.
Yours Truly,
Jack Bauer
Oh, yeah, and that 16-year-old didn't know what he was doing. And Foley was only some schmuck Rep. from Florida. You want to morally un-equivocate some more? Please.
Are you suggesting that the child in question was hitting on Foley? Especially when the IM transcripts show Foley pushing the converstation where it shouldn't go? And Foley isn't old enough to be able to turn down advances from at 16 year-old? Um, ok.
"A 21-year-old intern and the President of the United States. Remind me where the consensual part was, Mr. Psychologist in VA."
Did she ever file charges of any sort? Sexual harrasment certainly would have been in order if she had been inappropriately pressured. Frankly, they both made horrible judgements and suffered quite a bit for it. On the issue, Ms. Lewinsky says: "That's not how it was. This was a mutual relationship, mutual on all levels, right from the way it started and all the way through."
Anyway, there's a big difference between the two situations and if pedophilia is a joke to you, seek help.
You have no sense of humor. And you are missing all the serious points I'm trying to make(which are almost all of them). You are clueless.
Did she file charges? Oh, so now you want to do forensics? CSI DC in VA?
I've been watching and listening to much of the coverage of this thing from several different news sources from several different sides of the political spectrum since it started. I've heard little about pedophilia. Who knows, maybe you are right. Maybe that will be the catch-word tomorrow.
Until then, you're just a rabid partisan.
Has the kid filed charges? Did that happen today? Maybe I missed it. I might have been looking up the price of oil.
I think you have finally disrobed and shown all your partisan tendencies, just as I suspected.
You align yourself with the Republicans by words and thoughts and yet you still defend the indefensible.
Pure effing amazing.
Like the Republicans you support you have no shame.
I often wonder why the the country is so effed up and now I have a clear example.
Consensual adult sex = predatory pedophilia!
I can see the benefits and distractions in many different points of view.
Your last sentence that attempts to paint me in some type of Orwellian light as the bad guy is pure bullshit. Maybe if you could afford more than a few sentences of naive/hate-filled rant it would be more understandable to the hoi polloi, you ignorant "eff."
No, I'm not a Republican. I have friends of many persuasions. None of them are evil. My friends, I mean. People believe a bunch of stuff, it doesn't make them bad. It's only when you start pushing some idea(like you are doing now) that problems occur. I'm non-affiliated with any of these ridiculous "causes."
Including yours.
Crawl back into your "cave" and emerge when your "God" tells you it's time to go back after the Oil CEO again.
"Who the Hell Cares?"
You've shown your own political(doomerist) tendencies. So you couldn't be considered hypocritical in the past. But you've finally taken a stand on me.
It's hurts me, Leanan. It hurts. I expected you of all people to parse words and make sensible judgments. Maybe I was right, maybe I was wrong. You may have killed me.
And no, I'm not going to look the two words up right now. I'm sufficiently trained in Latin and Greek to believe they mean two different things. I'll risk that. Prove me wrong.
I don't believe this makes Virginia a haven for pedophilia, however.
This is one of things which makes America so difficult for Europeans to understand - since when did a 16 year old become the equal of a 6 year old in terms of sex? But listening to the outrage coming from so many quarters in the U.S., you would think that there is no difference at all between a 6 year old and a 16 year in what is admittedly a very prickly subject area - except for the number of pregnant 16 year olds in the U.S., a number which Europeans find appalling, and further proof that America has a real problem with one of the fundamental areas of human existence.
I remember a line from some Britsh movie, where the character of a former RAF bomber pilot, who wore female underwear on his missions, is leading a pack of journalists through a bordello, saying 'come inside, ladies and gentlemen - you children of fornicators all' or some such.
It is the simple truth, after all.
Naw...nothing at all hypocritical here.
Of course Foley and page(s) can't get married - they all seem to come from good Southern states, where marriage like that is absolutely beyond consideration. Pregnant 16 year old girls? More abstinence education is required, obviously, along with stronger covenant marriages. Along with longer jail terms for sexual predators. At least if you belong to the party Foley belongs to.
I think the discussion between the two above was actually more along the lines that a 16 year old and a 21 year (or whatever age Ms. Lewinsky was at time) are really not the same, though the Republican controlled Congress spent a lot of time and taxpayer money firmly establishing that yes, President Clinton did have various forms of sexual contact with someone not his wife. As if anyone who has anything to do with politics in DC needed to be told that about essentially all major political figures (I especially note that Henry Hyde, affair meister himself - that is a pun, by the way - is the current favorite of the Washington Times to become House Speaker).
What is happening is an extremely vicious reaction, a sort of the revolution eating itself moment, which though looking very bad for the no longer so moral appearing Republicans, doesn't actually look so bad for those comfortable with the status quo.
Which is essentially the entire current power structure in DC, by the way. This topic is a true blessing for those people who actually thought the various problems no longer possible to simply deny in American society would become impossible to avoid. At least for a while, we can all watch more sex and hijinks, instead of talking about things like Iraq or how torture has now joined the pantheon of American virtues.
I'm not sure sure. Hyper moralizing hypocracy is part and parcel of the religious right in the Republican party. That a co-sponsor of an act to protect children from sexual preditors could himself be caught by the act is a gift to those that oppose US fundamentalists.
I also think that corruption and protection of other house members no matter how bad they are is another sympom of the disease. So, I am not sure this is a pure distraction.
Finally, I don't think the US public is going to get so distracted by this one issue that they forget about everything else. OK, maybe TOD is getting pretty distracted by this issue, but there is still time before the election and Iraq, the economy, etc. are still at the front of voter's minds.
I would be shocked if you agree. My read is that you are entirely predictable. US is bad, Americans are all stupid, you are glad you left when you did.
Bin Laden is laughing. He's scored a major victory.
Though it is gratifying to see clowns like Foley and OilCEO expose themselves for what they are.
For example, the 'secret' orders to send a few ships to the Persian Gulf? Though I won't put anything past the utter incompetence of those running America these days (Bush, Cheney, Rove, whoever), it is a fine way to fuel the conspiracy theory minded, while ridiculing their concerns in public. That attack Iran thing is getting pretty boring, don't you think? As a matter of fact, why even worry about it at all, unless you are some anti-American peacenik green ecoterrorist. Or someone terrified at the idea that the utter incompetence of those who expected Iraqi rose petals and sweets are now convinced the Iranians will throw off the shackles of their Islamic Republic with a few well targeted American bombs.
And yes, I am very predictable - it is one of my very many flaws. But at least living here, I don't stand out so much as a lunatic - Germans do believe conservation is a necessity and not merely a personal virtue, they do think five or ten years is fairly short term in terms of planning, they do believe their are other measures to life than corporate profits, and after having done so many things America is currently just gearing up to do, they seem to feel that the conquer and seize style of international relations is a war crime - taught to them by the nation that just legalized torture for whoever the Executive (I'll let you translate that into German) says deserves it, for as long as the Executive feels it necessary, as secretly as the Executive feels required.
See? Very predictable - my belief that torture, for example, is evil remains unchanged, even as my fellow Americans seem to think it is no big thing.
Of course, my disgust is much deeper and broader than most people in Europe - after all, they know all too well what governments do if left unchecked, and quite honestly, they just can't get too worked up about it as long as they are personally comfortable. Besides, the shine was off America's crown here when Bush was re-elected - the general opinion of most people I know is that any society dumb enough to re-elect a moron deserve everything that will happen to them. And New Orleans was the final proof in their eyes. Nobody could have imagined that a country like Sri Lanka actually was more functional than the world's greatest superpower in terms of dealing with natural disaster.
Enough - maybe it might be a good time to talk about bicycle paths and how best to build and maintain them. Not that Americans are interested in their children bicycling from and to school - there might be sexual predators lurking somewhere, right? Better to drive them in a family friendly and safe SUVs (well, for those in them), modelled on well tested military designs, and available in the kids' Happy Meals.
See - I'm predictable. So is America. It was driving me crazy, as you may actually be able to discern.
You are right that huge portions of the US agree with Expat and a fairly large majority is fed up with the damage that Bush is doing to all things American.
But the only reason Bush is president is that Kerry lost the election. If Nader had sat it out, or if the Democrats had found a better candidate they would have won easily. Simple as that.
Now, it is much easier to accuse Bush of stealing elections than it is to mount an opposition, but someone better f***ing do it.
I am sick and tired of everyone spending every second of their time thinking up clever nicknames for Bush when they should be thinking of how they are going to win and election and fix the country.
There is a lot of blame to go around.
So wrong headed that it's beyond laughable.
It's not the candidate stupid, it's the mixed messages.
Try this one on for size:
"We molest them over HERE so that we don't have to ABHU GRABE them over there."Attah boy, spanky.
I deeply regret that the American left is equally incompetent and is engaged in what I call symmetrical idiocy. As stupid as the Republicans get their enemies are always willing to match them. That is the reason for Bush's stay in office, not any nefarious plot.
I agree fully with your comment on torture. I don't understand the "secret ships" claim. As I noted above, I think the main reason the opposition is not believed is that they are not believable. I have close friends who are anti-Bush freaks who will believe anything about Bush as long as it is bad. The fact that they have lost credibility with the US public is hardly a surprise or a blackmark on the US public.
Neither am I especially concerned with European opinions. I do think that Bush has badly damaged the standing of the US in the eyes of the world. It will take a lot to rebuild it, but I do think it will be done. I doubt that the European elites will come around as bashing the US is their favorite activity, and distracts them from matters at hand much more effectively than a little sex scandal.
As you may know I am also an expatriate and spend my time in a range of Asian countries. It may surprise you to learn that opinions on the US are far more sophisticated here. I have experienced very little anti-Americanism, except from European expatriates.
The role of the US in the world is complex and has both good and bad features. It is also evolving. I think that a single minded condemnation or justification of everything that the US (or any other nation does) is foolish.
(I agree. That's why we are discussing specifics, I guess.)
I feel your pain. It would probably help if you didn't take it personally when people criticize the policies of the Bush administration.
Anti-Americanism is an infantile disorder. Even Europeans (and New Zealanders, who are sometimes considered the worst) can grow out of it.
This seems an odd comment in light of the fact that I said in the comment that you replied to that the administration is incompetant and ill intentioned. Hardly chearleading. Elsewhere in the thread I have heartily agreed with other criticisms.
But if I have somehow been too subtle hows this:
Actually, I left the U.S. in 1992, before either Clinton or Bush were elected. Neither right nor left comes close to describing my politics - as a tiny example, I am anti-abortion because I am pro-birth control starting with puberty, for anyone who wishes it (sort of like the average German viewpoint, by the way). Abortion is to be avoided, as it seems to be a bad experience for most who have experienced it - much like most male soldiers involved in killing other humans find it to be a bad experience. I wonder which 50% of Americans agree with those thoughts, in a society which seems to have gone into hysterics when some woman singer's plastic surgery mutilated breast was seen for some fraction of a second on national TV, during a broadcast filled with tales of the virtues seen as connected to America and being a soldier, dominated by ads for things like beer, which anyone under 21 in the U.S. is not allowed to purchase or drink (again, as the legal age for beer and wine in Germany is 16, this is hard to understand here).
To me, it comes down to what people do, not what they say or believe. Drive a bigger car than 10 or 20 years ago? Done anything to better insulate your house? Cut down on 24 hour always-on electrical devices? Consider consumption to be a stupid waste, and not something to boast about or justify?
Trust me, the percentage of Americans that agree with my beliefs as expressed by how they live is much, much smaller than 50%. And I don't care about what they say, just what they do. As you may guess, it makes me poor company.
However, just a small story from my high school days, when a daughter of then newly elected Rep. Newt Gingrich shared a class with me (don't know if she was the lesbian one, by the way). Politics is an interest of mine, one which at least is understood in DC. But throughout the whole year, though we spent a fair amount of time talking about a number of things (another strange hobby of mine is talking to those people who seem to be sincere in their religious beliefs - I respect sincerity and don't mock it).
But she never talked about her father or what he was doing in Congress - even then, Gingrich was a fairly interesting political figure. About 10 or 15 years later, I understood why she wasn't interested in talking about her father - that was the time that Mr. Values was divorcing his wife, who was in a hospital bed with brain cancer, which she was expected to die from.
I don't need to read the media to know what politicians, military, lobbyists, etc. in DC are like - I grew up among them, and just paid attention. The same way that I know just how the system works in terms of taking care of its own. Though the baying for Foley's blood (as apart for his merely resigning) is disturbing in its way, as the old rules of taking care of problems (as the Catholic Church has discovered, world wide) doesn't seem to work as in the past.
This is one of the things that does currently bother me about American politics - it is turning vicious in a way which is very harmful to society, and no one seems to be disturbed by it. Maybe it is not that surprising, in a country which seems to feel its safety is threatened by freedom, in a land where Homeland Security is more important than piddling impediments like that old fashioned Geneva Convention or that wimpy musty old habeas corpus legal mumbo jumbo.
And to clarify a last point - I don't think Bush is Hitler (what a stupid comparison) - I just think that slowly, all the tools a future Leader needs have been and are being implemented now, and when that Leader is ready to step up and take his 'rightful' place, it won't be clear that something monstrous has happened, since the Leader won't be seen as doing anything un-American at all, but merely using powers Americans approved of years ago. My current thinking is that this Leader will not be either a Democrat or a Republican - and that the entire left/right split so fashionable today in American discourse will be seen as one of the major causes for the rise of that Leader.
But I am certain, based on what I saw and read over 3 weeks this summer in the U.S., there is no way 50% of Americans agree with much of how we live here.
For anyone who reads the Washington Post, the Marc Fischer article in the Washington Post Magazine about toxic parents in mid-August was a great example. Let's just say, most German parents are not acceptable as trustworthy adults in dealing with teenagers according to the framework of this article. As would I, considering my attitudes - hard to imagine that for about 6 months, it was legal for me to buy and drink beer when I was 18 in Virginia in the early 1980s. During my first visit to Germany (also early 1980s), when eating and drinking with some railroad workers, we talked about drinking ages, and one guy was very confused by the idea that a 16 year could get married in the U.S. and have children, but not be able to buy or drink wine until turning 21. He thought this incomprehensible, which when you think about it, is an interesting reflection on different social frameworks.
I do realize that many, many Americans do not agree with what is presented as the mainstream - but I believe that the number of such people is not that large, and that they are considered more a threat to normality by the majority than some sort of model to emulate.
Just my opinion, which hasn't really changed over the decades. Except to grow darker, unfortunately.
Well you are certainly able to see only what you want to see. You have basically reversed my position then claimed that is what I said.
I have been highly critical of the Bush administration which I dislike and oppose. I also said that a majority of Americans oppose them.
But score one point for me in claiming the opposition to Bush are idiots. Even when I rip into Bush, You need to rip into me because I haven't used the right buzz words. Since I didn't say Bushcriminal or Rethuglicans you probably think I am a right winger. The instinct of tghe left to instantly attack any one who doesn't use their code words is one more reason that I fear they will be doomed to electoral failure. And i regret this.
Lots of minesweeping, minehunting and anti-sub duty in Iraq these days there expat?
And if there were other people in charge of the White House, I would say such a movement was either related to a very harsh Iraqi related action (you do realize that Basra and Abadan are very close to each other, and that shipping going to Basra has to go along the Iranian border? - and that Abadan was essentially flattened in the Iran-Iraq war - I knew Assyrians who used to live there, before they left what no longer existed), or was just part of the standard practices of diplomacy, raising the ante, so to speak.
In no way do I think the Bush, Cheney, Rove axis incapable of yet again performing military acts of mind numbing stupidity, but a major amount of American military force currently stationed in or steaming towards the Persian Gulf is not exactly something I find surprising - it has been true my whole life.
What a lot of people don't realize about the first Iraq War is that Saddam managed to run into a part of WWIII - the Stealth planes and cruise missiles are Carter era hardware, and the prepositioned supply ships and various air bases were also started in the Carter era, in part to deal with an anticipated Soviet move to sieze Iran (the Soviets had 40 divisions on the border in the 1970s/80s, is my memory), to either make up for their falling oil production or to deny that oil to the West (or both, of course).
This is what I mean by time wasting - America projecting power to protect its interests in the Persian is really old news. And let's not be coy - the man who started the process, Carter, was very explicit that thosee interest were oil - strange how the manly Republicans can't say that word in terms of their war planning and execution. I guess that is because a Naval Academy graduate and nuclear engineer had different priorities than an oil company who had other priorities than serving his country.
But who knows - maybe this time, it will be the Iranians that shoot down an airliner full of innocent passengers, instead of the USN.
Ms. Lewinski was born in July 1973. Her first sexual encounter with President Clinton was on November 15, 1995. She was 22 years old at the time, not 21, and obviously not "just old enough to drink."
Technically still an intern at the time the encounters started, Ms. Lewinsky had been hired for a paid position on November 13, with a start date of November 26. In early April 1996 Ms. Lewinski was transferred to a job in the Pentagon.
There were a total of 10 sexual encounters between Ms. Lewinski and President Clinton, eight during the November 1995 to April 1996 time frame and two in the February-March 1997 time frame. The 1997 encounters took place at meetings requested by Ms. Lewinski. At the time of the last encounter she was four months away from her 24th birthday.
Also, there was never any indication that Ms Lewinski was an either an unknowning or unwilling participant. From the Independent Counsel's report:
The month after her White House internship began, Ms. Lewinsky and the President began what she characterized as "intense flirting."(136) At departure ceremonies and other events, she made eye contact with him, shook hands, and introduced herself.(137) When she ran into the President in the West Wing basement and introduced herself again, according to Ms. Lewinsky, he responded that he already knew who she was.(138) Ms. Lewinsky told her aunt that the President "seemed attracted to her or interested in her or something," and told a visiting friend that "she was attracted to [President Clinton], she had a big crush on him, and I think she told me she at some point had gotten his attention, that there was some mutual eye contact and recognition, mutual acknowledgment."
I was and still am disgusted that Clinton could not keep his pants zippered. That said, what he did does not equate to chasing 16 and 17 year old pages.
How we determine what is good and what is bad and what needs to be punished and what needs to be seen as simply wrong yet acceptable from a societal crime point of view.
I've struck a nerve with certain Democrats by suggesting that the Tail is wagging the Dog in this case. And that Dog is foaming at the mouth.
The people who have been smacking me in this thread don't seem to have any ability to deal with these issues. Instead of trying to prove a point, they digress into blatant partisanship and name-calling.
I will only step down to their level when I can make it entertaining to watch their demise. Until then I'll have to suffer their garbage.
I don't know what happened in either case and never will. And I don't pretend to.
This is opposite from my detractors. Thay all "know" everything.
This has of course always been my position on a number of issues including peak oil. Again, the exact opposite of my detractors.
Dishonest? I'll give you dishonest. But when I give it to you, will you change you're opinion of those I finger?
On the Foley case, it would seem that the things I've said have been authenticated even more by developments in the last 24 hours.
That's easy.
If a Democrat stains a blue dress that's grounds for
impeachment.
If a Republican kills thousands of people and runs a country into financial ruin, that's patriotism.
(Republican mottos: "We pedo-phile them HERE so we don't have to Islamo-defile them over THERE." "Marriage is between a Republic-MAN and his woohoo pages." "Either you're with us or you're again spanking it online for us." "Oh, that's just my liquor and Rush Limbaugh pills talking. It ain't me. It ain't me. It's really them. It's all their fault.")
Kudos for a good job being well done. Nothing should be off the table if it involves in any way the freight train heading right straight at the eyeballs of our society.
This society needs open discussion, dissent or otherwise.
This forum is the best I have seen in many a year. All get to speak, censorship is almost nil, the subjects are pertinent and I know my spelling is not checked , as it should be but I find that this is where I tend to go immediately after my onerous harvestwork out here in vast fruited plain , where most of tend to survive on a pittance and dialup is the best that it gets.
Ok ...so keep to your guns but don't take them to town.Hide them out instead. You and your colleages are doing a great service. (a shameless suckup job but I wanted to say it nonetheless)
Hey, when one keeps hearing over and over that he's worthless, after a while he begins to believe it.
I'd like the war to turn around, but i think it's being run by commanders in the states and not by those in the field. Sounds like Vietnam all over.
To put in context though, i've heard that California has had approx as many deaths since the war started, though i can't confirm it. maybe someone else knows.
I use to think what the big picture of this war was all about, WMD's? Oil? Prophecy? Terrorism? to stimulate the economy? Clearly there is a ultimate goal out of all this and lives lost are not important for the end result. Is it peace in the middle east? resource wars i.e. oil?
Not sure. I am sure the USA could take off the gloves and deal with this a lot better than it has been going, and finish up much faster. but this hasn't happened. Why would this war be prolonged, when it could be ended much faster?
clearly there are more questions than answers.
I don't understand. As many deaths as what?
Wars never have an ultimate goal. If they do, it constantly changes. The 30 Years War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. All good examples. And all the other ones, too. Even Gulf War I, although we all like to delude ourselves that is was quick, multilateral, and "good."
(source: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/)
Population estimate for California (2005) is 36,132,147, compared to the US's 296,410,404 -- so 12.2% of the US population is in CA.
(source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html)
Assuming that the rate of death by car is proportional between California and the US, that would put it at roughly 5300 deaths in 2005.
This is bullshit. What in the hell are these so-called tribal values ? So Kunstler is Jewish... BFD. Lot's of people are Jewish. You got a problem with Baptists because Bush is one?
Not agreeing with Kunstler is fine. Leave the religious thing out of it.
Other than that, he has a proven track record of being pro-war, biased, and just plain wrong (Y2K).
"The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual
character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism,
whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist
state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real
character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to
do in the future." - 1948, Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, et.al.
Link: http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/NYTimes1948.html
Read his other posts. Among other things, Kunstler proposed after September 11 to destroy the capital cities of the Muslim world. Genocide. Warning in advance doesn't make him less murderous, or where would you evacuate a 100 million people?. To the dessert?. And what a fine understanding of world affairs!
It is not that he disagrees with MicroHydro or me. He really, really is a anti-Muslim war-monger who buys anything FOX News says and more. Objectively.
In case you don't believe me take a look at his past blog. It's all there. You only have to read some post after some nasty terrorist/ME event and he will be saying those things.
I think that's the longest sentence I ever dud....
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, your Boss-Man can now detain you, torture you and in my reading of the details, even deny holding you (old South American trick). So that, plus MSM and Diebold just about wraps it up for democracy. But that will be quite handy when you go toe to toe with the heathen chinee and the russkies for `your' oil... and you need the draft.
Question is, will the rest of the world continue to accept your Visa Card, long enough for you to stay on top as the number one military power?
For US hegemony, it is a race against time. The Iraq oil-grab has backfired, and worse still, the US have grabbed a tiger by the tail. You cannot pull out. The civil war will spill over, threatening the KSA, jeopardising oil flows, ramping the oil price, collapsing Western economies.
You cannot leave, you can only reinforce failure.
Nice shootin' Tex.
What a reverse! Clinton - a seducer yes, but not a kiddy fiddler like Foley, managed a healthy surplus. Where zit all gone?
BTW, while you were doing this, how did you manage to work out that pissing off a nuclear tipped oil power like Russia was a good idea?
What WERE you thinking?
No. You need the oil. Your way of life is not negotiable. The die appears to be cast. Trouble is, the freak show that passes for your government is somewhat intellectually challenged and frankly, not up to the job.
As for us, we need to put some clear blue water between us and the US asap.(I am truly sad to say). But you can have Blair: looks like he will need a job next summer.
if you go to
http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diaryindex.html
you can read all his other posts. Re 9/11, he has recently changed it so that the link doesn't work. You now can only read back to December 2001. How convenient. But I found the correct link changing the address to:
http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary.html
Just scroll down to September 12.
He says:
You may say that was in the heat of the moment. But he has repeatedly made such statements at a later date. Only without explicitly murdering millions.
So if that is not a biased pro-Israel, anti-Muslim, and plain pro-war, clueless opinion of world affairs I don't know what it is.
He will swallow ANYTHING Bush and co. say about waging war. You don't need him for that, just watch Fox News.
Please Prof. Goose. We have opinions from far more qualified people.
and
So please understand that it is not that he defends Israel and feels sympathetic with their problems, or that he hates terrorists. A lot of people think like that, including at the Oil Drum. It goes far beyond that. He is a pro-Israel anti-Muslim cheerleader.
Do you acknowledge that now, Jack? Or do you think he legitimately just expresses another opinion, as valid and informed as yours or mine?
Reading this quote and a few others, I do think the guy sounds like a nut. But I have always thought he was a nut.
However, the quotes in your comment above are much less convincing. It seems patently obvious that Jihadists hate Israel and Jews.
It is reasinable to say that Jihadists want to destroy American and hate Jews, much like it is OK to say Christian fundamentalists want to dictate how these rest of theb world lives. Neither point, on its own, is anti-muslim or anti-christian.
I agree, of course.
What I wanted to show is how his view, no matter how convoluted he expresses it, is something like "They hate us because Hebrew culture represents decent human conduct, blah, blah".
Come on, we all left the kindergarden long ago, didn't we?
I would also like to see Kunstler interact with this blog. He just puts shit out there in cyberspace without engagement.
I think its about us being the devil incarnate and the goal of Islam to dominate the entire planet and if the infidel unbeliever will not submit to Islam then they are to be destroyed.
That is what they fight for and that is why they strap on explosives. To kill the infidel. We are the infidel.
The rest is side issues and MSM pap as well as Bush's administration's nonsense.
First they despise the cross. They despise christians. They despise jews. They want all of the holy land and that includes Jerusalem , since Mohammed flew over it once on a magic flying carpet so therefore it and about a hundred other cities are classified as 'the most holy site'.
Go back to the Ottoman Empire of ye oldense dayse and check it out. Tell me their goals are not the same. Oil is just their way of using our money (via oil sales) to wage their war.
We are still considered , after all these years, crusader murderers. They never forget for their Imams and Ayatollahs keep reminding of it constantly.
They simply do not want democracy. It flies in the face of the Quran.
airdale--"I could be wrong, I have been wrong before."
(but at least I go my screed in , ame as some might find it)
Besides OBL is their hero and they are winning. This has already happened to many countries. Its still happening and will continue. By the loss of many of our hardfought for freedoms we are losing very much already. Bush is no match for OBL.
Letting off steam, huh? The list isn't that long, and really not too hard to keep track of:
- Mecca
- Medina
- Al-quds (AKA Jerusalem)
...and if you're Shi'i...- Najaf
- Karbala
- Qom
Compare'n'contrast the Christian list:- Jerusalem (again)
- Rome
- Ephesus
- Constantinople
- Santiago de Compostela
- Avignon (maybe...?)
Looks about the same length to me, and I'm sure I haven't missed or mistakenly added more than one or two. Or did you have a different list in mind?Of course both religions recognise literally hundreds of historically or mythically significant localities, but I think that's about as far as it goes city-wise sensu stricto. And the Buddhist list is similar in size IIRC.
This doesn't mean that I endorse any specific brand of mass delusion, of course.
For me, when you get down to it, God is about, well, God. It isn't about how humans and in particular, leaders, have corrupted religion.
It's about Jesus and Muhammed. It doesn't matter what "Jesus would say." He said what he said, and didn't say what he didn't. Then he died. That was about 2000 years ago. He had no idea what would be going on today. The Bible itself is probably a complete corruption of what he said.
The same goes for Muhammed. And yet, at the end of the day, Jesus was a carpenter before his career as a prophet. Muhammed became a warrior. This has had far-reaching consequences.
Christianity and Islam today have absolutely nothing to do with what these men intended or wished. They would be sickened if they saw the results.
Gospel according to Python.
This may actually mean something now that they have an F1 race in Dubai. Or is it Qatar? That'll be the day when an Iraqi wins it, instead of a German in an Italian car. And I look forward to that day. Or is it Bahrain? I've gotta get SpeedChannel back, or start downloading these races off of mininova. I'm so out of touch.
Naah, just 'Bubba-bashing', at my peril..
Bob
Let's remember :
- Islam has little or nothing to do with those who are fighting against US occupation in Iraq. (unless you want to say that Iraq was invaded to strike a blow against Islam?)
- Most of the casualties inflicted on US troops are with IEDs, not suicide bombs.
- Most of the suicide bombings are done by Moslems against Moslems (specifically, by Shiites against Sunnis. We are not the infidel. The Sunni compatriot is the infidel.)
Next :When you talk about the goal of Islam, you're certainly not talking about any Moslems I know. Where do you get this, if not from your fevered imagination? First they despise the cross. They despise christians. They despise jews. You could probably characterise 1 to 2% of the global population of Moslems with your blanket condamnation. That makes you a bigot. That makes you a part of the problem.
Go back to the Ottoman Empire of ye oldense dayse and check it out. Tell me their goals are not the same.
Go back to your history books, and you'll see you're laughably mistaken. The Ottoman Empire is about the most cosmopolitan and religiously tolerant political entity that has ever existed (and that includes the pre-Christian Roman empire, which was pretty tolerant, and our modern "tolerant" societies of the US and Europe).
Every time a solitary muslim commits a suicide murder, conservatives "demand" that ALL Muslims stand up and denounce the haneous act.
So where are ALL the Republicans now? The ones who need to stand up and denounce their fellow Foley? Oh. Under cover with him. That's where.
Some of the rest from the bible. I read both time permitting and note a huge disparity.
I tend to read the Torah(first 5 books) in Hebrew and find that what was rendered into english(Elizabethan at that) is not exactly the same, in fact quite different.
The rest I judge on world events. And my DirecTV was disconnected the day my wife walked off the farm , never to return and took her rosary with her as well.
The rest of beheadings , the atrocities and the huge silence coming for the muslims who could speak out but steadfastly refuse to do so. That to me speaks volumes.
I also speak to soldiers who have fought in our wars, including my father and 6 uncles(his brothers) and my own experience as a cold war warrior.
I am not a kneejerk baptist. I have been a baptist and almost catholic for most of my life. I eschew the catholicism completely and my 44 year marriage and now divorce assert that I do stand on the principles I state.
As far as my church going brethren? They are being wasted from the pulpit where not a single preacher has the guts to read portions of that Quran which BTW desires to abolish our religion and supplant it with their own. We on the other hand do not rape and torture muslim adherents as they tend to do to ours.
I rest my case, weak though it be with most Europeans who for some strange reason despise jews also, by and large. Why I never could understand.
I don't read the bible for theology. I read it for SPIRITUALITY. Like democracy it appears to be the best going. AND Ieosus (no J back then) did speak primarily about spirituality and NOT defeating your enemies via warfare.
Compeech?
airdale-- I also read many others books on such subjects and thats why I think we are basically toast. Lack of spirituality takes you to that place. Now who has the guitar and sheet music for the singalong?
Have a nice life.
Then you're talking to me, compeech? As a combat veteran, from a long line of veterans, my response is that you full of s%*t, which is not surprising considering your data sources.
Obviously you've not been in a combat zone for any extended period. During my two tours the victims of rape, torture, murder, mutilation, and humiliation were Vietnamese. My nephew - a Navy corpsman like myself - recently returned from a tour in that hell-hole called Iraq. Nothing has changed, including the silence of most Americans in response to repeated reports of crimes against humanity being committed by the U.S. military. And those reports are only the tip of an iceberg of moral degradation.
But our god is stronger than their god, right? Our god is with us, right? After all, the enemy are subhuman terrorists unworthy of any consideration, aren't they? Maybe U.S. troops should wear the motto on their belt buckle that my Christian paratrooper Uncle wore: "Gott mit Uns".
Your principles are those of a religious ideologue with little empathy, and it's no surprise that your wife has left you.
But the ones who did respond with such venom are truly the truest of true blue liberals.
To think that we are the enemy and that we are the oppressors.
I find this hard to swallow.
I think if you were to get out and talk to many of the folks who don't live in your world that you might find your in the minority as to those views.
Myare somewhat lukewarm compared to what others in my community think. If thats being a redneck from a red state then I will take the label and wear it.
However this forum, specifically DrumBeat is where I thought opinions were aired and not personal attacks.
Anyway thats my belief system and your welcome to yours.
I have just one rejoiner in closing. Read the book Blackhawk Down. I spoke to a combatant who had to go in and rescue the trapped Rangers. I have spoken to some of my old pilot buddies who were in Nam. I believe them more than what I read here in the responses I received.
I was not in combat but we lost men and aircraft just the same. My life was on the line as well and further we carried no armament either.
What many of you are saying is disrespectful to those who have given their lives in service of their country. If they(the enlistees) didn't feel that way we would not see enlistments continuing and increasing.
We are IMO in a religious based conflict. Many here apparently side with the enemy or consider us the enemy.
Goodbye and good luck with whatever comes,but please don't come to my neck of the woods. You won't stand a chance.
By goodbye...I mean like in 'unsubscribed' goodbye. I get the drift. Its all about feeling good while someone else dies for standing on that wall and guarding us.
And for the asshole's comment about my wife?
Kiss my grits cheesedick.
I don't recall the vets name but he was working in a cellphone store in a city I had taken my wifes uncle to for a check up for blacklung(he was denied).
We spoke of our military experiences for half an hour or more and since I had read Black Hawk Down I mentioned it. (not a movie yet).
He said he was in the 10th Mountain Division( I thought it was a brigade) and he was in the rescue team that kept trying to get to the rangers and delta men.
He said the Humvee he was in was unarmored and at each intersection the somalias had set up burning tires as roadblocks. At each stop they took enormous incoming rounds of AK-47 and some RPG. He said they had to jump out and crawl under the Humvee and attempt to return fire.
This went on a loooong time and finally he said to hell with it and they all just starting firing on anyone and everyone that appeared to be part of the action. Men, children and women. Women were part of the combatants of course and also children who carried baskets of ammo to the muslims.
The book explains all this and how the ugly stupid coward Clinton and his Sec of War refused steadfastly to send them armour even though they asked for it repeatedly.
The book descrbes how the cowardly Pakistani drivers refused to use their equipment to aid in the rescue so that the US troops had to drive them their selves. Seems the Paks being muslims as well didn't want to get in on it. Figures.
This was all orchestrated by OBL intelligence indicates.
The planning was not very good due to bad intelligence. But the results were so horrendous to Americans that we just left and more or less left them to rot in hell. Fitting IMO.
Anyway thats what we discussed and here is a website from another veteran of the MOG. Seems to tell it about the same as the vet I talked to.
http://eccentricamerica.net/Somalia/
When in Naval Aviation I also hung with a lot of jarheads(marines) and went on liberty many times with them.
I learned to respect them and still do. You won't find jarheads whining about the war and the actions(well maybe a few but not many) and for that I speak to as many as I know and we find common ground in our beliefs.
Army and National Guard? They do seem to bitch a lot. Especially the reserve components. And yes I know many of them and quite frankly think most took the guard just for the money.
It ranked like this when I was in the service in order of the wimp factor:
- Marines
- Navy
- Army(delta comes after marines but since they don't exist officially)
- Air Farce
- Coast Guard
- National Guard
IMO the last two should not even be in the conflict.I am sure this will piss a lot of people off.
BUT since this is my last post I really don't care. I sent email to the Tech Support to delete my user acct since it appears there is no method for the user himself to effect such.
So if anyone who reads this and wants to give me a hand, ask whoever is able to, to PLEASE delete my user acct.
Airdale--Remember the Alamo! And God Bless John Wayne.
Sums it all up very well.
P.S. IMO anyone running to the sound of weaponry and combat should be considered combatants as well and able to be fired up no matter what. But todays Politically Correct warfare would naturally rule that right out.
Compared to others of the time yes, but....
(and that includes the pre-Christian Roman empire, which was pretty tolerant,
Other than feeding a few Christians to the lions, :)
and our modern "tolerant" societies of the US and Europe.)
Certainly not even close compared to post Enlightenment-era society. By the late 1700's the USA was, in practice, more free and essentially all 20th century European democracies are more open and free than the Ottomans.
The fact that the Ottomans didn't wipe out or expel their internal religious minorities and were comparatively enlightened over some neighbors doesn't make them equal to modern liberal democracy. There most certainly was a state religion, discrminatory religious taxation and limitations on freedoms and opportunities for non-Muslim subjects.
Consider that Ataturk's modernization improved things and yet Turkey is not as tolerant as the Netherlands today.
<i>Consider that Ataturk's modernization improved things and yet Turkey is not as tolerant as the Netherlands today.</i>
Nah. Ataturk's modernization came on the heels of an abominable period of ethnic/religious bloodletting which was unleashed when the Empire collapsed. He abolished the confessional system with a secular system, which paid lip service to equality but was nonetheless an instrument of ethnic and religious cleansing.
How do you figure that the mass expulsion of the Christians (mostly to Greece) was an improvement on Ottoman coexistence?
No Iraqis were suicide bombers until we invaded. We see this pattern time and again: it's occupation that causes terrorism.
If we want to end terrorism, we must pull out of the Middle East. Only "over the horizon" to an aircraft carrier group, maybe, but we have to get off their land.
Must be why there are, and were, Jews in Baghdad, Jews who practiced their religion, for the last 2600 years. In fact, at least until 1947 there were an estimated 140,000 Jews in Iraq. Given how long Iraq had been a Muslim country, I guess that just goes to show how inefficient the Islamists are when it comes to destroying infidels. Admittedly, being a Jew in Iraq was not always easy, but it is only since we invaded Iraq that they have become fearful of even discretely practicing their religion.
Similarly, there are currently about 25,000 Jews in Iran. They, along with the 110,000 (Iranian Government numbers) to 300,000 (U.S. State Department numbers) Christians must also be evidence of the ineptness of the infidel destroyers. That an estimated 1.3 million Christians remain Syria shows a truly unbelievable screw up by the Islamists.
He still tends to generalize a little too much about the "lunatics" in the ME for my tastes:
Possession of the largest reserve of the world's crucial resource, oil, has no doubt driven the people of the Middle East crazy.
But, I think he pegs Pakistan pretty well (especially concerning their behaviour and their possession of nukes):
Pakistan has been off the radar screen of the American media for years. It is arguably the most dangerous state in the region. It has a thousand recent years of Muslim experience on top of perhaps 100,000 previous years of other influences. The people of Pakistan are not ethnically Arabs or Persians, yet they are even more violently anti-western. Pakistan is overpopulated to the extreme. It has no oil but owns at least twenty nuclear bombs. Very little stands between the current government of General Pervez Musharraf and either complete chaos or an Islamic fundamentalist government. If Musharraf fell, would the US try to insert itself in a meltdown of Pakistan? Good luck on that one. For the moment, only fear of a nuclear exchange with its neighbor, India, stands to modify or influence Pakistan's behavior.
JHK likes to take small pieces of information and try to paint a larger picture. Sometimes, he succeeds and sometimes not. I still think he believes we need to involved in the ME somehow because the alternative would be worse. This kind of thinking does not seem to jive well with his writings about how we should rebuild our cities and suburbs to live in a decreased energy economy.
He says:
The truth is probably closer to the fact that the military in Pakistan is a most highly regarded, powerful institution in the country. This counts for a lot. And last time I checked Musharref was still the head of that(or maybe he stepped down in title only recently for appearances sake, I can't remember). Musharref has survived how many assassination attempts intact? Even if he were eliminated, I doubt a Jihadist element could insert itself into national power as easily as Kunstler expects. I would assume the military would retain power and substitute a President just like we do with elections. (Although, I'm probably pushing that analogy a bit too far).
Another interesting point is that JHK talks about "marooned American bases" at some point in the future being useless against China. And yet, look at where those bases are now. They are in the exact places you would want them to be to "insert itself in a meltdown of Pakistan?"
I don't know how Jim missed this. In fact, it was him that pointed out this relationship to me. He wrote it. In fact one paragraph actually follows the other. I gotta read this again.
The purpose of the war is not to preserve the status quo but to radically alter it: to consolidate US control over the regions oil and deny control to any other power or powers. We could easily have kept deliveries flowing by simply buying the oil. The purpose goes beyond just deliveries--it goes to control.
The war will widen to Iran soon. All the same crap that led up to Iraq is happening with Iran. It's there for anyone with eyes to see. Buffer, schmuffer. JHK (and others) vastly underestimate the objectives of the crew at the helm. Normalcy is behind us. We are moving into new waters now, on many fronts.
JHK is absolutely correct in saying that a war with Iran could cause great pain in the US financial sector as China (Iran ally), which holds over $200 billion in short term US treasury notes, could decide not to renew them. This could cause an immediate rise in interest rates and a collaps of the dollar. It would be worse than the 1929 crash.
A lot of different countries are cutting deals with Iran (and Saudi Arabia), much to the dismay of the crew in DC. They intend to put a stop to it. If they can't, the whells come off the cart -- control is lost, the dollar tanks, and all is lost.
It's a very big mistake to think that these guys are just loonies, just as it was to think it of Hitler. Peak oilers are particularly well positioned to understand at least some of the desperation driving them. They too have committed, and that's the great tragedy. There's no backing out. War crimes, Nuremburg. They made an irreversible decision with 9-11. That was the omuerta.
I think you make a very good and interesting point here by golly. And the same can be said for the Iranian leadership - they see the same window of opportunity closing on them in their desire to spread their virulent form of islam.
And they have this year made a number of efforts to tell the West it is time to convert or die (in letters to heads of state as well as in the general media). They are very serious. Perhaps many morally superior folks here disbelieve their silly religious fantasy but they are dead serious.
This dance takes two partners and one of them believes it's Apocalypse Now.
Really? Any links to substantiate this? TIA...
... In letters Ahmadinejad wrote this year to Bush and to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he blamed many of the world's problems on leaders who failed to follow divine teachings...
Mahdaviat refers to the concept of belief in 12th Imam, also known as the Mahdi. Ahmadinejad has often referred to the Mahdi in his speeches since he took office last year...His belief in the Mahdi has unnerved some observers, because one school of thought, based around a secret society, believes the 12th Imam's return will be hastened by chaos on earth.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060906/wl_nm/iran_ahmadinejad_dc
I think Peak Oil and "chaos" will go hand in hand - and the Iranians know it.
This is one of several times the Iranian Chimpman issued this warning in public. And of course, early in September Osama and the Al-Qaeda's had an "american" moozlim witch issue a Video Warning to the West (US in particular) to join the Forces of Allah before it is Too Late!...
Maybe they are just kidding about their religion and it's prophecies? Maybe they are just like most christians and muslims who just cling to the soft, cuddly side of their godz?
I think we should take them at their word.
If that's a veiled threat... well it's pretty damn veiled. Best you can do?
I mean bladdy hell. Blair is on record about his Christian motivations for intervening in Iraq.
Actions speak louder than words. They finance, train and arm civilian-targeting terrorists groups and faux armies in foriegn countries (right next door to the country they declare will SOON be wiped off the map)... yup, very peace-loving bunch there.
Funny how you would be so quick to just believe what the Iranian Chimp says to deflect criticism of their nuclear ambitions. But then you ignore the threats ("wipe isreal off the map") and ignore their behavior.
Blair and Bush may very well be seeing this through their christian lense as you suggest. I'm not defending them or the US. Like I said - both have a window of opportunty that is closing and it is called Peak Oil.
Don't let your politically correct mind cloud the truth. You might feel holier than thou, but you are in reality being a bigot and naive.
(all the same them muzzlins... sunnies... shites...)
Then the Radicals of Islam can fight each other to the death AFTER they get rid of The Great Satan... or at least that is how they see it happening. Just like they are doing in Iraq now.
The financing, training and exporting of terror strikes directed at civilians is what the evil doers in Iran are good at and they have a World Wide Network of sleepers waiting to Wake people like you... at the appropriate time of course.
My point is that right now BOTH the West and Iran have a short Window of Opportunity with Peak Oil. The Iranian leadership sees it as a Window in which their 12th Imam can climb through.
Another important Window of Opportunity Bush has to worry about closing is the Election Year of 2008.
"Basically, what has happened is the one realistic seat for a pan-arab political movement (which ba'ath was), Baghdad, is now in shambles. This means that the biggest threat to the west - a pan-arab state including Iraq, the Arabian peninsula, Jordan, Syria and Egypt - is now gone by the wayside. In its place is what will in the long run be a semi-secular, Shia dominated Iraqi government that will align with Iran but will probably be more accessible to western exploitation."
I don't think that Iraq is as bad off as most of the other people on here. Yes, the occupation has been horribly run, but within 5 years (which isn't very long) turf wars between rival political/tribal/religious groups will calm down and Iraq will be able to move on. The problem with all of the solutions that American politicians talk about is that it does not take the culture of the region into account. Go to Gaza (alright, don't go right now, but go sometime) or Hebron or Nasrallah and you will see the way that Arab democracy works. You won't see the docile consent to rule that you see here, but you will see a form of reluctant cooperation between disparate groups. I used to think that it was just Hamas or Fatah until I went there and walked around and realized that nearly every wealthy arab with political clout had his own armed militia that may or may not be alligned with one of the major movements. Sooner or later, and probably sooner, the Iraqis will reach an equilibrium that is something similar to peaceful.
The solution should take this into account and not try to wipe it out as we are trying now. Even the Israelis get that much.
It won't ever look like what we have or what we think we have. But if we let them work it out, they will get tired of endlessly killing eachother and a status quo - that will be tested on occasion - will be reached. The fewer interventions by outside powers, both regional and global, interfere, the better off the Iraqi people will be in the long run.
That's fighting the last war.
A secular socialist pan-arab state? A revival of Nasserism?
Osama bin Laden and Caliphate is the new war.
Does that mean getting out quickly? Staying but hiding in our bases? The status quo?
The chart that Bob Woodward showed on Sunday's 60 minutes of relentlessly escalating attacks on US forces didn't look encouraging.
I'm in Austin right now, and while Austinites might be trying to keep Austin weird, fundamentally it is just another sprawling American Sun-belt suburb, albeit with different decoration. Which is another way of saying: while almost every problem we face is solvable on a technical level, I despair when I think about the cultural obstacles that must be overcome. Or maybe the obstacles are even deeper than that: 100,000+ years of sitting around a campfire has given us an unquenchable urge to burn, burn, burn, despite what the second law of thermodynamics might say.
We already have a reasonable one, about $.50/gallon on average right? That has done absolutely nothing to hinder expansion of its use. Maybe a tax of say five times that with revenue going to more intelligent transportation planning would do what you are saying, but that isn't reasonable, and it punishes the poorest most.
The best plan is to credit the use of all carbon fuels to each person every year. That way smart people can sell their share and their kid's share to dumb people that are willing to buy them. This puts money in the hands of people that will actually make wise decisions with it. Simply taxing everyone at a higher rate per unit will do very little to empower the people that need it the most.
But a war that has cost over 2700 American lives, over 100,000 Iraq lives, and ~$400B USD (so far) is? And never mind that Europe gets by quite well with motor fuels in the $5-7 range, which means taxes of at least $2.00/gal more.
"and it punishes the poorest most."
As if the motor fuels tax is the only one the government collects. It would be very easy to find another one that affects the poor (FICA springs to mind) and lower it - if Americans really cared about the poor.
"The best plan is to credit the use of all carbon fuels to each person every year. That way smart people can sell their share and their kid's share to dumb people that are willing to buy them. This puts money in the hands of people that will actually make wise decisions with it. Simply taxing everyone at a higher rate per unit will do very little to empower the people that need it the most."
Complicated, confusing, and liable to hurt the poor as they are the least educated and the least able to understand complex situations, especially ones that have a long-term component. A motor fuels tax is straightforward - expensive fuels will cause people to drive more fuel efficient cars and to drive less. (I am for a broad-based carbon tax, however. A motor fuels tax is just the low-hanging fruit.)
Since I like to answer rhetorical questions that have absolutely nothing to do with my original comment, no, the war is not reasonable in my opinion. Most of the people who died would probably have been better off under Saddam in a sanction-free Iraq. The Americans who have died would probably be better off in a Bush America as well. I don't think war is by its nature reasonable though, so any war would probably fall into the same category.
And don't give me that crap about Europe and how good they are doing. Their comfortable position is mainly the result of geographical luck and centuries of exploitation of the rest of the world. It is temporary, and it is falling apart just like the American system. If anything, I think their efficient system will make a transition more difficult than ours because they will have the means to beat a dead horse for a longer period of time than Americans will be able to do. The upside for Europe is their population density, but I don't think they are in much better shape than the US.
Yes, a credit based system would be difficult to implement but it would give the people who need it most an opportunity to profit from what we think is responsible behavior. The great thing is they will like it even if they don't understand/care about the long term goal of such a program. You don't have to spend endless hours telling them why punitive energy taxes are good for them. They will be able to make money simply from using energy wisely.
"As if the motor fuels tax is the only one the government collects."
I realize the government collects a number of taxes, and I don't think any that charge the guy making $18k a year at the same rate as someone making $18m a year is right. It is however a separate issue from what i addressed.
For the record, I don't think there should be a fica tax at all. It has only created a generation of people who are taking advantage of it as a way for them to get out of working. If anything, Social Security should be need-based and not universal. There is no reason for wealthy retirees to get money that they don't need. If the same social stigma were applied to SS as is applied to welfare programs, I think you would see a lot of old people going back to work or simply living without it. This is off-topic, but you brought it up.
In theory this makes perfect sense. In practice, disability is EXTREMELY difficult to diagnose (or rule out), and so existing disability insurance systems (like Social Sec. Insurance disability) are EXTREMELY difficult to qualify for, in order to prevent fraud. Many, many people who deserve coverage don't get it, or have to fight for years to get it.
There's no effective way to implement a good disability system that would provide adequate coverage for everyone who would need it, in part due to the stigma you mention, which always means that such programs are underfunded.
But I do not see how this is at all praiseworthy or desireable.
I've got to run off now. Paris wants a foot massage. But before I go I just wanted to say that this rare, simple, 6pm Thread was a really good idea. I think you should do this everyday.
While initially, I was less than pleased with the actual topic, I failed to see the bigger picture. Kunstler is certainly an attention-getter and thought-provoker. A modern-day Chomsky. So, good choice.
But more importantly, it breaks up the day, and gives posters in certain foreign locations and with different work schedules an opportunity to get closer to the action then the Daily Drumbeat might.
The high number of posts during a time when activity is typically tame is testimony to this.
Thanks again,
Just Another Greek Shipping Magnate
It had a magnificent, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to then move to alternative fuels and show the rest of the world how to do it.
Instead it chose to build an immense military to take future oil reserves from other people at gunpoint.
Now it's being bled dry and bankrupted by people who are willing to fight foreign occupation.
It's a simple story, really. The Greeks called it hubris, and it always ends in tragedy.
Look on my works. Ye Mighty, and despair!'
Iran wants to set up a consortium with French companies to develop and control its uranium enrichment program.
(news brief in French)
Quick translation :
Mohamed Saidi, deputy director of the Iranian atomic energy organisation, proposed this morning on French radio the creation of a consortium with French [state-controlled] nuclear companies Areva and Eurodif, to create enriched uranium in Iran.
This would allow the companies to tangibly keep track of the Iranian enrichment process, he said.
No word from the companies yet. It seems to be a purely Iranian initiative. A very smart one!
If they are for real, it lends credit to their thesis of a purely civilian program, aimed at mastering the reactor fuel cycle. Also drives a wedge between the US and the Euros, which they are pretty good at!
The Neocons must hate those guys.
If this plays out (and even if it's just a delaying tactic), it's surely good news for everyone except Rumsfeld and Airdale. Providing guarantees, if only temporarily, against Iranian bomb development, and increasing engagement between the Iranian nuclear sector and the West, will make it that much harder for Karl Rove to engineer another war, and to make the Iraq situation even more inextricable.
On the other hand, doombats probably secretly wish for war with Iran. Just think : complete shut-in of Iran and Iraq's production. Probably mass disruption of all other Gulf production. World economic crash within months!
---
To characterise US Bush's foreign policy : he seems to pick on dysfunctional nations and turn them into basket cases (Afghanistan, Iraq). Could there possibly be any net gain for anyone in adding Iran to that list?
(Come to think of it. That might be a good characterisation of Bush's domestic policy too. But as a non-American, I have no standing to say that.)
Do you think the Iranians are aware of Peak Oil and the number of years of export capacity they have left - after which they will become a very poor and insignificant country.
I believe the IRrnian pResident Chimp recently told the UN the 12th Imam may appear earlier than expected.
Too many people here assume that because they are rational so is the rest of the world. Too many here are culturally biased and culturally insulated - they have not met a suicide bomber personally apparently.
Good thing our leadership knows reality from pansy fantasy.
As to whether French companies can provide a "guarantee". Not as such, but full engagement would seem to provide better guarantees than trying to shut them down by posturing. Having French technicians in all of the Iranian facilities would likely facilitate verification, however. The IAEA is the best guarantor that military activities are not taking place. The IAEA can't get access during an embargo or a war, that's obvious.
You are all exercised about the hallucinatory pronouncements of Ahmadinnerjacket (it's a shame the moderate, pragmatic Rafsandjani wasn't elected instead : US sabre-rattling was the main cause of that), but just check out his foreign policy actions. They are generally a great deal more measured, realistic and sane than those of a certain US president (whose foreign policy is far from reality-based, and can perhaps best be analysed by a desire to hasten the Rapture).
Immunity from procescution and ability to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for bribes.
It worked with China and France played the same game with Saddam.
I expect it will work this time too.
What do you mean "it worked with China"? I thought they developed their own nuclear technology. I know the Israelis got a lot of help from France initially.
I should have said it (the bribery strategy) "is" working with China. Iran (and other countries) provide favorable oil deals in exchange for political cover from China. The new overture to France appears to be an effort to extend this strategy.
I think the Iranians are aware that it could work. As I noted, Saddam provided lucrative oil deals to French and Russian companies and individuals, which he thought would buy him protection. It almost worked.
In this regard, I actually think Bush was cleaner than his French and Russian counterparts in the Iraq affair. That doesn't mean that I don't think the war is a catastrophe and Bush a complete failure.
Neither am I claiming the US is any better. I recall seeing notes from Cheney during his Haliburton days suggesting a similar strategy for the US with Iran - lay off them in exchange for oil contracts.
Or do these words only apply when it's the US doing the "bribery"?
The US has no trade with Iran to lose, which is why it is so keen on an embargo. (I have a feeling that the US is incapable of pursuing even a rational self-interest policy with respect to Iran, because of the loss of face in the embassy hostage business, what was it, 30 years ago?)
Germany is first source of Iranian imports (lots of pumps and machine tools I guess), followed closely by France and Italy. Russia is big too (mostly arms).
Concerning access to nuclear weapons, however, it's a different story. France is a member of the nuclear club, and a jealous guardian of the exclusivity of that status. The idea that Iran can buy off France in that respect is rather shallow and silly.
I have just looked at situations such as Iraq and Burma, which make it clear that France has a price tag. I was not aware of the conditions. I don't think this makes me shallow. Silly, maybe.
Yes, the Germans are just as bad. Thanks for reminding me and Expat.
The term bribery applies equal whether it is Japan trying to get whaling rights, Venezuela in pursuit of a UN seat, China looking for oil, or the US in their manifold activities.
I call it both "bribery" and "trade and geopolitics". I think it is illuminating to realize that it fits in both categories and that everyone is doing it.
We're getting close to freedom-fries territory here. (Just call them Belgian and be done with it.)
Burma : I guess you are talking about the gas pipeline. In which the shareholders are :
TOTAL 31,24% (French)
UNOCAL 28,26% (American)
PTT-EP 25,5% (Thai)
MOGE 15% (Burman)
So I guess every oil company has its price. Surprised? Indignant?
France was helping Iraq to build a civilian nuclear reactor, which was bombed by the Israelis. Iraq was still generally seen as a respectable partner at the time (wrongly).
We're currently in the ludicrous situation where it seems that, despite the coming energy crunch, no Arab or majority Moslem country is "allowed" to develop nuclear energy. Because that leads to bombs (like marijuana leads to heroin. Or kissing leads to babies.)
The only fundamental reason for that absurd interdiction is the Israel/Palestine imbroglio. Time to cut that Gordian knot.
I am not going to make a judgement regarding whether Iran's attempts to arm itself is "right" or "wrong". However, I personally think the world is better off without nuclear weapons in Iranian hands. I think the ideal number of nuclear armed countries in the world is zero and any movement further from it is a bad movement. That may be hypocritical, but I am nor sure any other policy isn't.
I also do think that Iran is a more dangerous state than many others. This is not based on religion of the people of that country. I would prefer to see Malaysia with nuclear weapons than say North Korea.
Oh. You don't believe them? (well nor do I actually) So it looks like they're in a bit of a bind there. Nothing they do or say is going to satisfy you if you are hell-bent on war. (where have I seen this scenario before I wonder...?)
However I think that it is not realistic to expect developing nations to renounce nuclear energy in order to limit nuclear weapons proliferation.
How do you feel about Egypt having nuclear power?
Of course not.
What could be done, and is done in other countries is this:
Allow the IAEA to transparently design and develop a nuclear power infrastructure in full cooperation with the nation. If that were done by Iran, there would be no problem. Are people seriously concerned with Argentina's nuclear reactor? Not any more as there's a democratic government and no evidence of weapons production.
The problem is that Iran is hell-bent on uranium enrichment technology at a large scale, as well as heavy-water moderated reactors (can be good for weapons grade plutonium)---well before they have constructed any where near enough civilian reactors for this to be a remotely sensible economic investment. How many do they have? Zero working on one.
These enrichment services are easily available and a truly transparent civilian program would buy reactor-grade enriched uranium or the processing services from somebody else.
I think it's pretty clear Iran wants a "flip-a-switch" nuclear weapons program so that they can be on the edge and make many weapons in a short time if they desire.
The other problem is that Iran runs Hezbollah, but without the responsibility that comes as if Hezbollah were an actual part of the Iranian army.
The toutet uranium enrichment program of Iran thus far has succeded in producing just insignificant amounts of fuel-grade U. Now if you add those two facts you can not escape the conclusion that the timing of this program is just about right.
There is also the small matter of making nuclear weapons. They are clearly a long way off that (more like ten years than five, at a minimum), so there is no conceivable urgency. There is no sensible alternative to engaging with them, negotiating. The thing about stopping their current tinpot enrichment right now is just pointless, their current systems can not produce weapons grade uranium in any quantity at all, on any timescale.
There is no particular reason ???? Well, take away their oil and what the hell do they have to fall back on for an economy? Take a look and tell me please. And who gives a flying coitus about their grand past history - that has no bearing on their future (just ask any of the other past great civilizations).
Also, they can have nuclear power - no one is saying they cannot.
The french companies would offer no protection whatsoever. It sounds like you have high hopes for verification through french energy employees - and maybe you are right. They would likely be as effective as UN observers who are not allowed to go where the Iranians do not want them to go.
"You are all exercised about the hallucinatory pronouncements of Ahmadinnerjacket
I think you are about hallucinatory fantasies based on your own sheltered life full of cultural and religous bigotry. Not all peoples of the world think like you. Being naive and/or politically correct doesn't change reality - just your perception of it.
"but just check out his foreign policy actions. They are generally a great deal more measured, realistic and sane"
Financing, training and arming terrorists that target civilians, or fake armies in foreign countries Hezbollah is measured, sane and realistic. Sounds like someone is under hallucinatory fantasies.
As for your favorite "moderate, pragmatic Rafsandjani," at least he was honest about the Radicals and their Faith:
"Rafsanjani, said in 2001: "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the... application of an atomic bomb, it would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damage in the Muslim world."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525797583&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
- George W Pubes
Here it is on CBS News
Enrichment. That's what capitalism's all about, after all. Isn't it one of the fundamental precepts of the US Constitution? Life, liberty and the pursuit of enrichment?
Keep that paragraph in mind. JHK may go over the top every once and a while, but this article is sharp. Keep an eye on Pakistan, and it's 20 nuclear heads. They scare the shit out of me.
Enjoy
==AC
If you're gonna cook up, you gots to hook up.
I miss the old Angry Chimp who circulated a variety of different conspiracy theories and actually posted about energy sometimes.
I guess you can cover much more ground just dumping links. It also seems that when the conspiracy theorists try to actually document their claims in writing they get shot down. So it's link and run.
It is an extremely hard topic to deal with. You and I are the only ones who have ever even approached the subject on a consistent basis over the long term. It is no coincidence that at the same time our views and how they are treated put us on a very small island.
The Editors of this site have a hard job to do. They are not being paid. Which makes it harder to do, but easier to follow a particular mindset. I tend to follow the mindset. Because I like it. The mindset of how the site is run. Not the mindset of the site itself or that of the people that are running it. That only makes sense to me.
I think Stuart Staniford is Professor Goose.
My name is Nicole Kidman and I want to have his babies - AND drive his electric car to the bank.
Absolutely BRILLIANT Post!!!!!!!!
I encourage all TODers to set time aside to see these BBC videos! I just viewed the first hour--now going back to see some more. Please--Will someone repost AC's post& link early tomorrow if I end up sleeping too late. Big THXS to whomever does this--we got to spread the news.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I'm not going to waste my time downloading it if I don't know whether it is another WTC claim, the latest hit music, or a porno.
==AC
The video linked above will show why crying and whining and crunching "solutions" to peak oil is a big waste of time. Now get off the dam computer and go bang your wife! And for Oil CEO go bang your sister...
==AC
I got the girls named Paris and Scarlett who-are-not-related-to-me disease, instead.
Is there an advantage to being Amish? These things confuse me. Perhaps I rely too much on the same sources of news as the rest of you fellas?
How about a phone number? I have plenty of foil to go around!
==AC
Stanley Kubrick is a favorite. But he's dead, so you can fill that spot. Recently, "Prison Break," "Vanished," "24," and "Lost" are the big deal. They love that shit. No wonder. So do I.
Yeah, I know it's TV, but Hollywood is going through some bad years. I'm happy about it. I wish I had it this good when I was a kid. But then, my parents didn't let us watch TV when I was a kid. They suggested we read books. That was probably better. So I take that back about being a kid. I had it the best.
1-800-ENTERTAIN-ME
They probably won't answer, just leave a message. They're playing hard to get.
==AC
But seriously, I do miss you. I just wish people would keep their posts clear and concise. You have certainly improved in that department. You've got some good stuff. I haven't had time to watch the latest viddy, but soon.
While I totally disagree with you on many levels and on many points I am one of your biggest fans. Keep it coming, brother.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
You know how much your opinion means to me.
==AC
Of course, with all the depleted uranium littering the country, they'll all be dead eventually anyway...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUz_JHeM59M
==AC