Political Correlation?

quote:

---

Quite simple. Major powers use military force when their geostrategic interests are threatened, not to solve every social problem in the world.

---

BINGO! And let us remember that geostrategic interests are usually determined by the self-interests of the power elite.

This is really sloganeering. Economics, resource distributions, geography, cultural differences all play a larger role.For instance, the Middle East has large petroleum resources, and energy is important, not just to the USA, but to everyone. So yes, oil does play a role. To deny this is to deny reality.Suppose the US totally withdrew from the Middle East. Then, a Taliban like regime takes power in Saudi Arabia and cuts off oil shipments to the rest of the world, despite it being economic suicide. Are you naive enough to think that some other power with sufficient strength would not intervene militarily ?

It is my skepticism about idealistic ideologies, and my empirical observations that historically they haven't worked, that leads me to be conservative.Academics tend to think the entire world is like the university campus, a place where intelligent people can settle things through discussion. Unfortunately, it isn't.Imagine a bunch of MBA's coming into the typical campus and demanding that all the programs be justified on performance and profit metrics. The academics would go ballistic. And to a degree justifiably, since making money isn't the mission of a university. But it is the mission of business. Businesses operate under a quite Darwinian paradigm, really, and their actions are motivated by the need to survive.Politics and diplomacy is worse. The US may be run by people who think like MBAs, and this bothers many academics. But many other countries are run by people who think like the bullies who beat up the academics in junior high gym class. It takes equally tough, but principled, people to face these types down.

quote:

---

For instance, the Middle East has large petroleum resources, and energy is important, not just to the USA, but to everyone. So yes, oil does play a role. To deny this is to deny reality.

---

Well, except for the fact that for the last 30 years we have had a chance to change the reality. But for some reason, despite having popular support, our govenment officials have been very loathe (with the exception of the Carter administration) of funding research into alternative energy resources and conservation measures like public transportation. Do you think the petroleum lobby has had anything to do with this?

No, I don't. I think economics has to do with it. I tend to be very sceptical of conspiracy theories of any kind.One can only conserve so much and maintain an industrial economy. Japan is geographically compact, has extensive public transportation, and conservation measures, yet still consumes 5.4 million barrels of oil a day. By contrast, the US, a larger economy and a larger country, both in population and area, consumes 20 million barrels a day.If you think alternative energy technology is important, get vernture capital and develop it.For example, a big challenge in developing hydrogen fuel cells is developing robust materials that can be mass produced inexpensively enough for cars of comparable cost to current technologies. There is funding available from the Big 3 automakers and German and Japanese manufacturers. Business is indeed investing in this because the potential payoff is there.

I think this may be a little tough, but I will agree that most academics tend to HOPE the world is like a university campus. Agreed, the real world is filled with people that attack first using any excuse they can think of at the time. That is who we must fight. Sometimes such bullies are as much homegrown as they are foreign.I am not some bleeding heart liberal that does not like military. I think we need to be tough, but the question is against who.You have yet to show me one bit of evidence supporting Bush's decision to invade Iraq, nor anything linking him to the "successes" you have claimed (and which I will note came right off of nightly talking points from Republican boosters). Can you think of anything more idealistic than believing we can change the dynamics of the MidEast by attacking a country that was NOT posing a danger to any of its neighbors and imposing a democracy in it, because DEMOCRACY is the best form of government and leads to the spread of freedom?Oh yeah, and empirical evidence is that it doesn't work. It certainly failed in Iraq, to such a degree that when the invasion occured some iraqis were attacking British soldiers because of the bad feelings over their LAST INVASION (to create a democracy and so liberate the MidEast).I repeat I see no scepticism from you side on the rhetoric regarding Bush's so called "successes".Man, even Tom Clancy has the administration pegged as a screw up.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I tend to be very sceptical of conspiracy theories of any kind.

---

Who said anything about a conspiracy? The large money donors are very open about who they give money too and how much. I think the campaign finance laws even require this. I suspect that most of the large money donors would be quite honest about the reasons they donate money as they do: they donate to campaigns of candidates that they feel will promote their interests. Do you know of any exceptions to this? Is the oil lobby an exception? Is this muttering about a "conspiracy" an attempt to poison the well?-

quote:

---

If you think alternative energy technology is important, get vernture capital and develop it.

---

Of course no one is going to provide venture capital unless there is some reason to believe the the technology will be feasible enough to make a profit. That is why there is so much public funding of science and technology to explore these issues, and get them ready enough to interest the capitalist class.-

quote:

---

For example, a big challenge in developing hydrogen fuel cells is developing robust materials that can be mass produced inexpensively enough for cars of comparable cost to current technologies.

---

How much of the research into this was initially done using public money? How much faster would this technology have become feasible had more public allocated for the research into these areas?-
Considering the large amounts of money (and human lives) being spent to keep the Middle East oil fields safe, why don't we require the petroleum industry to rely on finding "venture capitalists" to provide for the security of the supplies?

Paisano, do you remember the surge in the 70's in research into solar and wind power, and the great leap by Detroit of making much more fuel-efficient cars?That was in response to the oil embargo.Once the embargo ended, all federal money that had previously gone into these research areas dried up, and now we have ridiculous gas mileage on these huge SUV's.Bush could impose better gas mileage requirements (that the technology exists for now), and the public has said in polls that they would be willing to pay more for better gas mileage, but he hasn't.Why is that? Could it be that he has too many friends in the oil business along with himself?

Now you're reading from the Sierra Club playbook verbatim. Where's the critical thinking ?Solar and wind are not going to provide more than 5% of the energy required in an industrial economy for the forseeable future. That's just physics and the industrial infrastructure required to build the collectors.What's needed is an emphasis on safer fission, plus fusion research, technologies for increased efficiency in electrical power generation and transmission (e.g superconductivity), carbon sequestration, coal to gases and coal to liquids technologies. Most of which the "evil" energy and automotive industries are putting their own money into, because they actually have promise.As to Detroit in the 1970s, I remember the Vega, Pinto, and Pacer, and the Big 3 getting clobbered by Japanese competition.This example of capitalism in action, not Carter's inane government initiaitves, forced Detroit to build better products or die. No. It is because Green central planning is a political non-starter in the United States Of America.Clinton tried, as one of his first acts in office, to introduce a BTU tax. It went over like a lead balloon in the then-Democrat cnotrolled Congerss. That, and Hillarycare, are key reasons the Congress was no longer Democrat controlled after 1994.To his credit, Clinton learned his lesson and governed from a more centrist position afterward.Anyway this thread's probably far enough off the OP to let go. It's been fun.

I thought you liked Bush? When you divorce the invasion of Iraq in your mind from the war on terror and put it in proper perspective as a unfounded preemptive strike against a sovereign nation in violation of international law and treaties that the US has signed, the remaining conclusion is that it is the action of a bully.Some 3,050 people died on 911, in Iraq the picture is not so clear, but some estimates have been made. As of 20 October 2003 these are estimated by one source as Another source, Al Jazeera, says it is closer to 37,000 civilians at that time:
playThat’s from March to October, 8 months of fighting up to a date 10 months ago. It would be safe to say that the number today should be at least as many have died since those reports. Let’s say 26,000 Iraqis have died since the start of this war.Add to that the nearly 1000 US soldiers, the other coalition forces deaths and the unknown number of mercenaries (contractors) that have died and you have a horrid death toll without even addressing the issue of destroyed infrastructure critical to daily life and the much higher numbers of severely wounded, and you have an effect that is currently 9 times as devastating as the destruction of the towers.Stuff happens in war you may say, but the fact remains: there is no more justification for invading Iraq than there was for driving those planes into the world trade towers.europe complained that bush was using bully tactics. hmmmm.this is certainly not "talk softly but carry a big stick" ...and excusing rational behavior as impractical in world politics is irrational.more civilized behavior is necessarily more rationally than ideologically based. insist on it.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Sorry, I just came from one of the other political threads and jumped in with both feet here.the topic is what is POSITIVE about chooseing Bush or Kerry.Let's make a deal on this topic that the war on terror is not on the table for discussion, that it will be pursued regardless and that the pentagon will likely have more to say on what is done in the war theaters than either candidate.WITHOUT the war(s), then, what is a reason to vote for Bush or Kerry?See if this changes things?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

All of which is simply your (IMO misinformed) opinion.I consider the fact that the cease-fire conditions of 1991 that were still in effect under the relevant UN resolutions, had repeatedly been violated by the Hussein regime, and also the WMD-related UN resolutions, to be full and complete justification for military intervention under relevant international law.Therefore... is a non sequitur.

quote:

---

I consider the fact that the cease-fire conditions of 1991 that were still in effect under the relevant UN resolutions, had repeatedly been violated by the Hussein regime, and also the WMD-related UN resolutions, to be full and complete justification for military intervention under relevant international law.

---

So we went to war simply because we could? No discussion about whether there were other avenues to force compliance, or whether the violations would have significant effects on security, but just that we could do it, so we did?

wow spin cycle on high there.In other words the invasion of Iraq no longer has anything to do with the war on terrorism.Glad we cleared that up. Gosh, better get all those old coalition forces to help enforce it. Powell knows who they are, right?and btw -- that is divorcing it from the "war" on terror ... point stands. thanks.meanwhile the inspections were working as Iraq was incapable of attacking anyone ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Iraq Body Count attempts to count the civilian death toll in Iraq and only includes a death if its corroborated independently by 2 approved news agencies - so its likely to be a conservative number.Current estimate is between 11,700 and 13,700 civilians.PE