Re: [OT]Hanoi Jane rides again

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:16:43 -0700, David Erbas-White
<derbas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


>Wow, that would be great! You mean the French are building a nuclear
>fusion reactor?

Was Jane in the "Pepsi Syndrome". (Lame attempt to relate message to
subject.)

>Oh, wait, you're talking about the international consortium that is
>attempting to build one, where France won the contest for PLACEMENT of
>the reactor, aren't you?
>
>Tell you what, as soon as nuclear fusion as reliable and cheap power
>becomes reality, you'll have a point. But right now, oil is the most
>easily transportable/usable energy source.

Gasoline, diesel fuel, and kerosene are nearly ideal transportation
fuels. Since the supply of crude oil is finite and rapidly
diminishing, it should be conserved and limited to that use. Fixed
home and plant heating, and electricity production can use other
energy sources. Eventually we will want to produce synthetic
gasoline, diesel an kerosine at any cost for transportation systems.
As long as the world oil price is below the cost of synthesizing fuels
from renewable sources, we should buy as much oil as we can, while we
can. Of course bulk transportation and storage of oil is expensive.
Ideally, we should buy foreign oil "in the well" and simply take
delivery as needed. For example, we could buy all of Iraq's oil now,
maybe financing the purchase over 20 years, and Iraq could use the
money for reconstruction, security, and defense.


>>Still, we have more than enough oil right here for our needs;

Not for long. We are already scraping the bottom of the barrel. Some
US operations consume more energy than that of the oil they yield.

>> it's just
>>easier to get at in the middle east and therefore cheaper for the oil
>>companies that apparently control Washington.

But that is just economics and capitalism. It makes our balance of
trade look bad, but it is the smart thing to do.


>Umm, yes. You apparently flunked Economics 101. If it is
>easier/cheaper to get it in the middle east, then that is what is going
>to occur. If you don't believe that, then the next time that you would
>like a car, please go mine the ore, smelt the steel, fabricate the
>assemblies, and build it yourself.

Sure, but I am more concerned out the imbalance of trade in
manufactured and renewable goods, and "labor". The US is hemorrhaging
money.

>>And as I've said elsewhere, I'd be a lot happier if we just said we
>>were there for the oil and gave up this "Make the world safe for
>>Deomocracy / stop terrorism / save the poor Iraqi citizens" (pick one)
>>nonsense.

Yes, especially if it was actually true.


>The original 'point' of going in to search for WMD was, and remains, a
>valid reason; especially post 9/11. The failure of the intelligence
>community to actually 'know' where/what/how in regards to the WMD is the
>problem -- not the reaction of going in to Iraq under the belief that
>Saddam had the WMD.

BS. If a clear and present threat of WMD is the valid reason for
going to war, we would have invaded North Korea instead of Iraq.

>Further, you're ignoring the 'iceberg' of the situation -- the search of
>WMDs was the visible tip that was put forth because (frankly, given the
>level of intelligence of most folks) is about the only thing that is
>understood by the masses. But there were many, many, other reasons that
>we went in, and after putting all of those things together, the overall
>need was to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam.

The bottom line is that we invaded Iraq simply because Bush wanted to,
presumably to finish what his father had started. Everything else is
just making up reasons to sell his agenda to the US citizens and the
world. Of course everything was not entirely made up, and some of the
reasons are valid. Bush still has not figured out how to pay for his
war, especially with huge tax cuts for the richest americans.

>BTW, it's not that the other reasons were 'hidden', but the media picks
>up on what it believes will sell. If that weren't true, magazines such
>as 'The Economist' would be outselling 'People' and 'The Enquirer'. The
>stories of WMD fed the same fears as those in the 60s/70s/80s who felt
>that nuclear armageddon was imminent, and went out to build survivalist
>cabins in Montana -- it's a "sexier" story.

I though Johannesburg or Jonestown was the place? ;)

>David Erbas-White

Alan

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: US servicemen forced into slavery for Soros
    ... The satire is that "Libya is all about oil for Obama's buddy ... when the invasion was all about the threat ... It was never ALL about WMD. ... Iraq was all about.. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Angry Reader
    ... The ostensible cassi belli for attacking Iraq were to destroy Saddam's ... WMD, stop his nuclear bomb development program ... We had Saddam boxed in and could have tightened the screws to our ... were denied the opportunity to plunder Iraq's oil fields. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Things we sometimes dont notice
    ... preventing terrorist attacks. ... Assuming that our presence in Iraq makes absolutely no difference ... Some of these reasons are simply not ... Modern agriculture, meaning oil, is how we have expanded ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)
  • Re: Why Gore and the Left dont get it!
    ... Let Halliburton get its own oil. ... > gave Halliburton no bid contracts in Bosnia! ... > Billions of dollars in Revenue, he would have been able to restart his WMD ... > they have them after seeing what happened to Iraq. ...
    (uk.local.london)
  • Re: US servicemen forced into slavery for Soros
    ... The satire is that "Libya is all about oil for Obama's buddy George ... Think back to the idiocy you lot were spewing about Iraq... ... It was never ALL about WMD. ... That sort of thing really makes you wonder what the invasion of Iraq ...
    (sci.military.naval)