PeterDavid.net

Peter, old friend, we have a reason for being in Iraq, as told to me by Frank, an Army Reservist who works with a construction battalion.

We're there to protect the oil. Bush is supposed to be building fourteen new permanent bases in Iraq just to safeguard our oil wells.

Never mind that the wells are on foreign soil. They're our wells. Shrub has said so. Carlyle has paid for them with the blood of American troops, so they're our wells, and screw the Iraqis. What would they do with all that money, anyway? Rebuild their country? Yeah, right. Can't have that.

The US has done this repeatedly throughout the twentieth century. We'll prop up any pissant banana republic on the planet if it's in our economic interest, and as soon as they're not happy with us, we'll topple them and stick another dictator who likes us in power. This country stopped being a true democracy sometime around 1800. Sometime around 1900 it became a corporate autocracy.

And now it's a damned big banana republic.

Miles

I hate to disagree, Peter, but I don't think the Iraqis can fend for themselves against the psychos among them who've decided Iraq is going to be the new Northern Ireland. What I'd like to see is our president--maybe a NEW president with a brain?--go out to the rest of the world admitting that our government made a horrible decision and then beg for help to get Iraq back into some kind of shape. Maybe that won't work but at least it might keep a little bit of peace.

I say good riddance to Saddam, may he rot in Hell, but it's sad that things were actually better when he was in power. There were reasons, albeit bad ones, that our former governments put and kept him in power. If only we can finally learn to stop meddling in other countries...

Iraquis were not killing each other with Saddam but neither before him. Not so much because of Saddam's brutal regime keeping shia and kurds down, but because sunni wahabism/salafism was out of the question in a country were sunni lived reasonably well.

During the war Saddam accepted sunni "volunteers" from all over the sunni world that introduced wahabist extremism in Iraq, and the misery that followed the war made local sunni embrace this radical version of their faith, wich includes the extermination of shia as "worse than infidels, heretics". Shia on their part defended themselves forming militias, not trusting american forces to help them, and with good reasons.

So wahabism, spread from Saudi Arabia with the help of the USA to fight laicist socialism in the arab world enters Iraq thanks to your War, introducing the country to a kind of religious extremism they had not seen before... but the awnser is "let them cope wit it".

Man, the USA is responsible for the well beign of innocent iraqui civilians, since you wanted to play big Daddy who knows whats best and messed things up. You can either make it work or admit you messed up bad and flee, but the "this was all messed up for starters, its not our fault" message is deeply hypocritical. Also, worrying more for the well beign of volunteer troops than for the innocent victims of the conflict just because the troops happen to be from your country is just the kind of attitude that makes the world stink. Any innocent foreighn civilian should be worth to you AT LEAST the same as any american trooper.

Agree with B

We need to ask the world for help. It won't kill us and the freaking elections are on tuesday so the parties won't bicker if its after tuesday.

In my second year of high school I had a friend from Yugoslavia. In my third year of high school he became my friend from Serbia.

The Soviet Union held Yugoslavia together for 70 years. 70 years! And it still fell apart when the Soviet Union fell.

Iraq will fall apart when we leave. There's no way around that. The only question is, do we let 3,000 Americans die and then pull out or do we let 10,000 Americans die and then pull out?

I don't think you can be more out of power than being dead.

He'll just be revived in a future issue, and you know it.

Soviets had little to do with Yugoslavia; they were a socialist country but not a Warsaw pact one. In fact it was one of the main "non Aligned Countries" and kept a fluent trade with western Europe. It is a zone when you cant go to the bathroom without stepping on some frontier or the other. Tito kept it united by sheer charisma but there were 6 distinct national sentiments inside Yugoslavia. That had to blow.

Iraqis on the other hand, although also ethnically diverse (Caldeans, arabs and kurds) doesnt have the same nationalistic problem. Caldeans are scarce and have become over the centuries sort of an urban professional class on their own, much like jews were in europe; although distictive, they arent attached to a soil but rather to the whole country of Iraq. Kurds have a national project but are political savy enough to understand that unless Turkey allows it, it is only a dream.

The two main groups in iraq are simply one and the same but with different religion. They speak the same language, (unlike Serbs and croatians, who speak the same language but with enough differences to tell one apart from the other), dress the same, eat the same...they have different religions but they both feel part of the same country. They just differ on who should rule it. They cant fall apart, because unlike Belgrade, Bagdag isnt so much a sunni city as a Shia one. A sunni Iraqui doesnt feel Basrah less its own because its mainly a shia city. If you want to compare Iraq to Yugoslavia do it, but only to one part of yugoslavia that is pertinent as an example here: Bosnia. Have you seen Bosnia map these days?

El hombre, you're right about the details, but but those details aren't the problem. The problem is the memory of hatred.

Speaking the same language or not, people can hate for *generations*. A different religion is not a small thing to these people. They're going to keep hating each other, and American troops standing around with guns isn't going to stop that. Even if our troops are walking around Iraq with guns for the next 70 years, these people aren't going to stop hating each other.

Bosnia three distinct republics are closing ties more and more each year since the war ended. There are hate mongers who use that to get in power but after a while people try to live as peacefully and prosper as possible, and those hatemongers lose their influence bit by bit.

Iraq civil war is not one about creating independent new nations, like Yugoslavia or american civil wars were, but about who and how should rule the country, like Spanish or English civil wars were. And you cant believe the kind of hate there was in Spain, and it still resurface from time to time (these days we have a media group hinting a new civil war would come handy to get rid of the "commies"). But since we all live together, the hate is set aside to keep on living. Foreseeing the wrong scenario in Iraq basing it on the wrong comparisons is dangerous.

I echo the "good riddance" comment above.

Regarding the "former ally" angle that gets repeatedly raised about Iraq, while there's no doubt it's embarrassing and awkward in hindsight, such switcharoos have also been a historical fact of life of not only U.S. leaders, but world leaders in general.

A good example in the U.S.'s case is our World War II relationship with Russia. They were our allies during that war even though we knew Lenin and Stalin ruthlessly murdered millions with relentless and brutal purges following their revolution. We also knew they had slave labor camps, their elections were a mockery of the democratic process, that they hated us and our way of life, and that there was a good chance we would have to eventually fight them in a war -- yet we sided with them out of convenience to get rid of what was perceived as a greater problem: The Axis powers.

The parallels with Iraq are obvious.

The moral of the story? Any alliance of convenience may, at the very least, end up staining your own hands, and at the very worst, come back and bite you in the butt with an even bigger problem in the future. In the case of our alliance with Russia during World War II, it not only stained our hands dealing with a government that was more murderous than the Nazis, it almost destroyed our country as we know it. For, when Russia quickly became a nuclear power after WW II and built up a nuclear weapons arsenal, our support for them nearly came back several times to bite us in the form of a full-blown thermonuclear war.

This kind of a discussion always cracks me up a little bit.

We must make it clear the reckless acts have consequences, or those acts will increase. We must reduce Iraq’s ability to strike out at its neighbors and we must increase America’s ability to contain Iraq over the long run.

It’s very humorous in the sense the dialog can be framed by laying the entirety of the current situation at the feet of Junior.

I also find it odd to be in the position of defending the actions of Junior which I believe are entirely suspect to begin with.

The Pentagon initially indicated Baghdad targets were included, but later corrected that report. Sites in and around Al Kut, Al Iskandariyah, An Nasiriyah and Tallil were targeted, military officials said. Witnesses told Reuters that anti-aircraft fire was launched for a period from some positions in Baghdad.

“The strike is over ... Every missile has been launched,” said a Pentagon official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

But the Pentagon refused to rule out “the possibility of follow-on strikes” against the same or other targets.

Out of Iraq? Sounds good to me. We’ve only been there for 15 plus years.

See, I imagine it was okay when the US and Britain were enforcing the no-fly zone and lobbing bombs or cruise missiles into the country?

The “No-Fly Zone War” pitted the air and naval forces of the United States and the United Kingdom (also referred to as “Great Britain”), against the air defenses of Iraq. This conflict proved to be largely ignored by the media and the public in both the U.S. and in the U.K., though it impacted the military and the citizens of Iraq on an almost weekly basis, especially since the intense “Desert Fox” bombing campaign of 1998.

Maybe we should go back to that?

Cruise missiles lobbed in at a million dollars a pop makes much more sense as a tool of foreign policy, don’t you think?

I can’t imagine the Iraqis are happy today with the state their country is in. Factional violence between Shiite and Sunni has been stunning to say the least and it’s horrible thing to watch.

The question though is how to effectively use our might in the region. Certainly a withdrawal of troops would be a welcome event, something both the American public and the Iraqis themselves would be happy to see.

Abandoning a nation though may be somewhat akin to compounding a mistake. Whether or not you want to believe the sectarian violence will continue, we are at least obligated as a nation to help those people as much as possible.

Is there oil there?

Yes. Of course.

Does it drive our foreign policy?

Obviously it does, much the same way many Americans making a decision to park their asses behind the wheels of Hummers, Navigators and all other manner of SUVs do.

You want to make this a discussion about oil? Are you ready for $5.00 a gallon gas? How about higher prices for your food (if fuel prices go up it affects the price for transporting goods), for the things you buy to increase (plastic is after all a petroleum based product)? How much are you willing to spend to heat your home? Our country has a big fossil fuel-based jones and it transcends party affiliation.

Don’t get confused, I would also like to see troops withdraw from Iraq, the sooner the better. Writing the country off as a big banana republic does a disservice to the people who are over there now trying to do good work.

As far as things being worse off now, somehow I think the Kurds in the Northern part of the country would greatly disagree with you.

For the first time in their long history, Kurds are wielding significant political power, successfully negotiating for control over their own military forces and authority over new oil discoveries in their own terrain. Under the federated Iraq being called for by the international community, they would have powers of autonomy that match—or even exceed—what they now enjoy.

Simple solutions are great in a simple world but, unfortunately the world is a very complex place. If you can offer a true solution other than just removing American troops from Iraq, I’m all ears but to abandon the country outright is a non starter in any discussion.

"Foreseeing the wrong scenario in Iraq basing it on the wrong comparisons is dangerous."

I don't believe I'm making the wrong comparisons.

We've got a situation where a government is being maintained by the outside influence of a much bigger nation. That outside influence is not a stabilizing force, it's actually a source of anger for the country (which is reasonable, we literally invaded them). Given that, the hatred that is predominant in the country has something to focus on and feed off of. We've seen that as the violence has continued throughout our occupation of Iraq, and Al Qaeda has gained a foothold it didn't have before the occupation.

Keeping a military force in Iraq is not stabilizing the country at all. It will fall if we pull out tomorrow, and it will fall if we pull out 100 years from now. We can talk all day about how other countries have stabilized, but we've already seen that it isn't happening in Iraq.

Right now, the current "stay the course" strategy is betting that I'm wrong, that staying some undetermined amount of time will lead to a stabilized Iraq. Unfortunately, they're betting in American lives.

Making the news rounds: War simulations were performed in 1999 demonstrating a post-invasion Iraq would need at least 400,000 troops, and still court substantial risk of civil war meltdown. US and coalition forces invaded with 250,000, and didn't exceed 200,000 post-invasion.

Yessir, that Chimpy McHitlerburton sure is some kind of scumbag.

Also in recent news - between 4 & 8% (depending on report) of U.S. weapons sent to Iraq are missing.

Isn't it great that under this administration we not only created an insurgency, but that the administrations commitment to mismanagement is arming the insurgents.

Sorry, hit post before the above was done.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=missing+weapons+in+iraq

And before some bush apologist says 4% isn't so much, 4% is equal to about 14,000 weapons.

That outside influence is not a stabilizing force, it's actually a source of anger for the country (which is reasonable, we literally invaded them).

But that argues that our pulling out will actually calm things down. I wish that were the case but I doubt it.

Still, what are the choices? We ain't sending over another 100,000 or more soldiers. Even if it eans the contry descends into chaos, I don't think there's enough people who care to do what would need to be done to even have a chance of success (with no guarantee of such).

Then again, the Kurds have done a great job of keeping their part of teh country safe and secure. Can that be replicated? Or is their situation unique to the region?

It's hard to have any optimism at this point.

Very well said, Peter.

Our job is done. Sooner or later, we're going to have to acknowledge that it's up to the Iraqis. I opt for sooner. There's nothing undignified or wrongheaded about cutting and running. The administration has tried to characterize that notion as dirty and stupid...you know, just like they've done with the word "liberal." I find it funny that phrases they don't want to deal with, such as "death" or "slaughter," becomes "collateral damage" or "acceptable losses." But "cut and run" doesn't get embellished into something acceptable. Me, I have no trouble with it at all. It's not "cut and run." Call it "strategic withdrawal." Call it "organized troop relocation." Call it whatever you want that will save lives.

On The Daily Show recently a clip was shown of Bush making a card game analogy, or trying to, with him saying something like "if you have the same cards as the other guy..."

I have a way to describe cutting and running: "folding when you have a losing hand." Or how about "leaving the table when it's clear that the game is rigged against you."

Maybe Bush has never folded in a poker game. Maybe he considers that a sign of weakness. Maybe, since he has always had more money to throw into the pot and never faced the prospect of losing everything, he has been in poker games where he just kept on losing hand after hand after hand and mindlessly kept on betting, confident that a royal flush was right around the corner.

Dubya, real life doesn't work like that. And the chips you're throwing away are the lives of human beings, not money (although you're losing an awful lot of that, too). There are times when you have to acknowledge that it's a lost cause and quit before things get even uglier.

It's the difference between losing a couple hundred bucks and losing every penny you have.

I also will not cry when this murderous SOB is dispatched, but I will forever be sickened by the fact that the murderous thugs who propped him up, and supplied him with the very weapons and chemicals for which he has been convicted of using, will never face any judge to answer for the part they played in supporting his crimes.

The only reason I'd rather not see him executed anytime soon is that he would be invaluable witness for such trials -- but of course, for that very reason, he must die, because he *does* have answers to questions that the Misadministration do *not* want people to even ask.

Wildcat

But that argues that our pulling out will actually calm things down. I wish that were the case but I doubt it.

Except, I don't think anybody really believes that if we should leave, things will calm down.

So, since it doesn't really matter if we pull out now, or we do it later, the situation remains the same. So why not leave sooner?

Or is their situation unique to the region?

Probably unique.

They are their own people compared to the Shiites and Sunnis. Plus, ever since the first Gulf War, they've had our protection (at least with the No Fly Zone).

The Shiites have Iranian backing, and they have the country's resources. They don't need to bother the Kurds (who would probably be willing allies against the Sunnis anyways), and they don't want the Sunnis.

Saddam Hussein, whose gun is a trophy in the Oval Office (am I the only one creeped out by that?)...

I wonder where Saddam's treasured letter of friendship from Ronald Reagan is now?

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 5, 2006 07:45 PM

So, since it doesn't really matter if we pull out now, or we do it later, the situation remains the same. So why not leave sooner?

Because a withdrawal from Iraq anytime soon would likely make things a whole lot worse. Our presence in that nation isn't the only thing setting off the violence. With Saddam no longer keeping control of Iraq with his iron fist, Iraqis now have the opportunity to act on age-old ethnic hatreds; hence the eruption of factional fighting in Iraq.

Iraqi military and security forces are still largely "not quite ready for prime time." Our forces have not been entirely effective in keeping security, but I'll warrant that they're far more effective than the Iraqi military would be if it were on its own right now.

Consider this scenario: the U.S. withdraws, the current Iraqi government falls, and the Shi'a take control of the country and form an alliance with Iran. That could substantially change the balance of power in the region and would be very, very dangerous for us.

It was stupid of us to invade Iraq, and our toppling of Saddam is what brought us to this point. Unfortunately, a rapid withdrawal from that nation won't change what we've done, and would likely create an even more dangerous situation.

Admittedly, even if we "stay the course," we may do little more than forestall the inevitable. At this point, however, I believe we have little choice but to at least try to stabilize Iraq. The dangers inherent in doing otherwise are too substantial for us to be able to pull a Pontius Pilate. Moreover, we owe the Iraqi citizens a good faith effort to clean up the mess we've made.

I would have to agree that pulling out would make things an instant diaster. Staying will also make it a disaster. In short, there are no good options now.

Way to go, George.

Consider this scenario

Maybe it's just me, but at this point I'm convinced this will be the same scenario tomorrow as it will be next year, and 10 years from now.

Is there any reason to believe that the situation will be better 12-18 months from now than it was in the last 12-18 months? That the Iraqis will be any more prepared to govern themselves? That their police and military will quit killing each other?

It doesn't matter when we leave, Iraq will fall into chaos.

"The only question is, do we let 3,000 Americans die and then pull out or do we let 10,000 Americans die and then pull out?"

You all are obviously good friends of Peter David. You support his writing by buying his books and comics and watching his TV shows, etc.

What if his writing started to SUCK? Would you, having spent $3000 bucks on his stuff, drop him from your life now, or would you continue to spend $$$ on his work, hoping that his work would get better?

What if his writing started to SUCK? Would you, having spent $3000 bucks on his stuff, drop him from your life now, or would you continue to spend $$$ on his work, hoping that his work would get better?

If his writing started to suck I would stop buying it, but I would nevertheless respect his intelligence. I mean, I don't care for very much Sting has done since his days with The Police, but he cares about the environment and so do I, so I salute him for that.

You all are obviously good friends of Peter David.

And you're obviously not putting a lot of thought into your postings.

Folks around here respect someone who can disagree and put together a cogent dissent, instead of just regurgitating mindless ad hominems.

Try harder; it'll be more enjoyable all around.

"What if his writing started to SUCK? Would you, having spent $3000 bucks on his stuff, drop him from your life now, or would you continue to spend $$$ on his work, hoping that his work would get better?"

Well, that's a weak analogy to use here. Lots of people on this thread have talked about liking lots of people that slowly fell off their must buy lists as their quality of work declined. Some of us have walked away from the newer works of old favorites without even looking back. If his work took a long term nosedive, PAD would be the same (sorry, PAD).

It's also poorly thought out in that a few dollars here and there in no way equals lives lost. PAD writes a bad book and I'm out five bucks. Twenty minutes of my (after tax) work day is down the drain. Big deal. I can partially recover the money by trading the book in as part of a buy at a used bookstore and going in for a couple of hours of overtime at work.

A soldier dies in Iraq. His or her family, loved ones and friends have lost a major part of their lives. A child may grow up never really knowing one of its parents. There are no easy fixes for that. There are no easy analogies for that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, as to the thread topic itself....

I've made no secret of my dislike for Bush or for his foolish venture into Iraq. I've pointed out more then a few times that I feel that the people in the White House are running this thing in the most inept manner possible. That being said, we can't just up and leave.

We went into another country that was not attacking us, was not threatening to attack us and was in no way a threat to us. And then we broke it. Now, well, we're obligated to buy it. Maybe in more meanings then one.

We can never "stabilize" that country in the manner that Saddam did. But we are now responsible for what has been done and what will happen due to our actions. We can not fix the unfixable. However, we must do whatever we can to help Iraq stand up enough to fend off total and uncontrollable chaos. Or at the very least we have to try to give it a fighting chance to do so. To just walk away and let it all go to hell would be irresponsible as well as immoral.

President Chimp put us in a bad spot. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Unfortunately, the road to damnation will be bloody and painful. It's just a matter now of choosing when the blood will be spilt.

God help us all. Especially the troops. They're going to be screwed either way.

What if his writing started to SUCK? Would you, having spent $3000 bucks on his stuff, drop him from your life now, or would you continue to spend $$$ on his work, hoping that his work would get better?

At any rate, it's not a good analogy. Let's say the stories in X-Factor got boring, or stupid, and it wasn't worth the price of the issues any more. I'd stop buying the title. But if I was told several months later about a kickass story that took place after I stopped reading, I could always get the back issues.

Deciding whether or not to buy a writer's work is nothing at all like deciding whether to continue a war. If you buy a comic book every month, you'll only wind up wasting $5 or so at a time. If I spent my money on a novel that turned out to be disappointing, I'd only be out 10-15 bucks. If you decide to keep on fighting a war, the stakes are obvious MUCH higher.

Heh, I see Jerry C. said it before I did. Great minds and all that...

While its obvious that US military presence in Iraq is doing little in the way of stabilizing the country, it is no less true that a withdrawal would ignite a widespread conflictwith the result of many innocents dying and suffering. Not entering into how much of a mistake is for you to go to iraq in the first place, the fact is the US has a responsability towards the people of Iraq. Does this mean you have to "stay the course"? fuck, no. The course is obviously wrong since things have been getting worse and worse in the last years. But that doesnt mean you have the right to call it a day and quit. Not even if your boys are dying.

To put it bluntly, soldiers signed in to willingly risk their life, civilians just got caught in the middle. As terrible as the loss of any life is, to put your soldier's over that of innocent civilians just because they are foreigners is wrong from every point of view.

International efforts can only work if its leadership is not British-American, but neither the European Union nor the Arab league is prepared to do the job. I see this as another chance for the Chinese to step into the role of super-power they demand. They are though on islamic extremism while having really good press among developing countries for beign a much needed counterweight to the US economics. They are increasingly providing troops to UN missions (Lebanon of late) and this would be the kind of military power projection that is expected from a world class potency.

Bad-analogies-r-us

You crash your car on a house. You go through its wall, well into its kitchen and finally stop when you hit a structural pivot. Your car is deeply inserted withing the house, making life in it miserable, hard and messy. Kitchen is unusable, the plumbing and electricity is gone. And your car is damaged too, of course.

You can pull the car off the house, but since you damaged the pivot, the whole house would crumble into rubble. But you would have your car back.

You can also let the car stay while some structural support is built that keeps the house standing when you finally remove the car, but that will take a long time and during that time you cant use the car. Also, all that work comes out of your pocket since...hey, it is you who crashed the car.

Bush obviously decided to let the car stay and pretend life is good in a house with no kitchen, plumbing and electricity.

So, since it doesn't really matter if we pull out now, or we do it later, the situation remains the same. So why not leave sooner?

I'm a firm believer in the idea that things can always get worse, so I can't sutomatically assume that it will make no difference if we leave or stay.

Back to something someone else mentioned earlier--why do the Turks have the final say over how the Kurds do? They did nothing to help topple Saddam. The Kurds have in every way behaved as a people who deserve the right of self determination. Why should they be denied this over Turkish paranoia?

I would also argue that it could be good for Turkey to have an independent Kurdisatn on its border. Maybe some of the Turkish Kurds would go there instead of fighting a civil war to carve out their own country. But regardless, I don't see it as something they should have much say over.

We made the mess.

As I CONSTANTLY tell my 5 year old, make a mess, you have to clean it up.

I wish it was that simple, but once religion comes in, it never is. It's hard to reason with someone who wants to kill you just because you believe something SLIGHTLY different than they do.

B: I say good riddance to Saddam, may he rot in Hell, but it's sad that things were actually better when he was in power.
Luigi Novi: I'll bet those who found themselves inside one of his torture chambers or one of his sons' rape rooms might beg to differ.

Jason M. Bryant: The only question is, do we let 3,000 Americans die and then pull out or do we let 10,000 Americans die and then pull out?

Ben Bradley: You all are obviously good friends of Peter David. You support his writing by buying his books and comics and watching his TV shows, etc. What if his writing started to SUCK? Would you, having spent $3000 bucks on his stuff, drop him from your life now, or would you continue to spend $$$ on his work, hoping that his work would get better?
Luigi Novi: It varies. I used to express skepticism at times during his storylines, thinking that "Oh, I'm not going to like this", one example being when he merged the Hulks, or made Mar-Vell seemingly permanently crazed, etc. But I stuck around, and often he proved me wrong. On the other hand, I often have stopped buying his stuff. I stopped buying Aquaman when I lost interest in the storyline, I stopped buying Hulk sometime during the "Heroes Reborn" storyline (though I later came back to it), I eventually stopped buying Supergirlbecause, IIRC, limited monthly comics money (though now I hope to go back and find all the back issues).

In any event, I'm not sure how this is a pertinent analogy to Jason Bryant's question. What's going on in Iraq invovles the foreign policy of the most powerful nation on Earth, our views on how to combat terrorism, the lives of our soldiers, the lives of foreign civilians, and possibly the lives of our own citizens, not to mention billions of dollars are money. Those are not the same stakes invovled in my decision to buy the next issue of Fallen Angel or the next New Frontier novel.

Back to something someone else mentioned earlier--why do the Turks have the final say over how the Kurds do? They did nothing to help topple Saddam. The Kurds have in every way behaved as a people who deserve the right of self determination. Why should they be denied this over Turkish paranoia?

Because majority of kurdish areas lie on Turkish territory. Wikipedia map. As you can see, Kurdistan lies about 50% in Turkey, 20% in Iraq and Iran and 10% in Syria.

If Kurdistan would try to become independent, it would be ripping up areas from other countries, not from one or two but from four. If kurd-areas in Turkey would like to join, civil war would probaply ensure.

You can probaply blame Brits for dividing the countries badly hundred years ago, but too late to cry now..

1Peter, I agree that Bush having Hussein's gun as a trophey in the oval office is tasteless, but not as bad as the plaster death mask of Dillinger J. Edgar Hoover had outside his office in the old FBI building.
I'd like to add something to Miles' comment about the oil: We're not there so much to GET the oil as to KEEP anyone else fromt getting it out. A long time ago it was decided that to keep the price of oil high, Iraq should produce below average. One thing that pissed off Bin Laudin was that in the 90's the Saudi's pumped more oil and drove prices down to thank the American's for protecting them from Iraq. Because of this the Saudi royals were late in paying Bin Laudin for work his company did.
Peter's right to say, the job is done: America is more hated, the price of oil is near $70 a barrel, there are no more troops in Saudi Arabia, and our forces are in a place were they can be more easily killed by Al-Qadia. Unfortunatly these were the goals of Bin Laudin. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of giving this bastard what he wants.

"I would also argue that it could be good for Turkey to have an independent Kurdisatn on its border. Maybe some of the Turkish Kurds would go there instead of fighting a civil war to carve out their own country. But regardless, I don't see it as something they should have much say over."

See, one of the "problems" when talking about these kind of things with americans (and here I am assuming you are) is that you often forget that in most parts of the world people have very strong feelings for the land. The whole national idiosincracy holds as much importance to the soil than to language, religion or women clothing (such an important issue on that part of the world...no joking). For Turkish kurds leaving their land would be a defeat. If they did would be probably to return some time later with weapons, and those abandoned lands would be a casus belli between Turkey and that hypotetical new nation, as Cachemir is for India&Pakistan. People have strong ties to the land.

Also, as to how good the kurds "behave" in comparison with others in Iraq... back when the first Gulf War ended and the no-fly zones were enforced, Kurds and Shia revolted in the knowledge that without air support they had a chance to drive Saddam forces away. Kurds did it and had ten years of factual independence that allowed them to build a state within the state. When the US dismantled Iraq goverment infrastructure, the Kurds had an independent one running that kept everything working.

Shia on the other hand, found that their no-fly zone was temporally cancelled due to pressures from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait; they wouldnt tolerate for heretic shia to have any kind of power or autonomy, also some in the pentagon feared they would integrate into Iran. So their rebellion was brutally crushed, thousands died and political repression got much harder. They, of course, dont trust american to protect them anymore.

Still, they had some kind of underground infraestructure going on, and when Saddam regime finally dissapeared they relied upon that to keep things working. But since that underground had ties with Iran, coallition forces actiely pursued it and tried to dismantle it. While Kurds could keep their autonomy Shia would have to wait until a constitution was written, elections held... and any attempt to "build" something in the meantime was labeled insurgency or "Iran meddling with Iraq internal issues".

If Kurdistan would try to become independent, it would be ripping up areas from other countries, not from one or two but from four.

I'm not suggesting that every place with Kurd become Kurdistan, just the Northern part of what was Iraq.

Turkey seems to feel that any attempt by Kurds anywhere to improve their lot is a threat. If so it's one of their own making.

"I'm not suggesting that every place with Kurd become Kurdistan, just the Northern part of what was Iraq.

Turkey seems to feel that any attempt by Kurds anywhere to improve their lot is a threat. If so it's one of their own making."

Problem is Kurdistan IS every place where Kurds live and for Kurds, to create a Kurdistan that is less than that is to admit that those lands in Turkey, Iran and Syria arent really theirs. And, again, casus belli with every neighbouring country.

Not mentioning that in Iraqi "kurdistan" there are other groups that dont want to stop beign part of Iraq...oh wait, american solution for that uh? "Pack your things and leave, after all there is still plenty of "Iraq for you to live on, no matter where your family did for centuries"

Gosh Mr. Brady, I never thought of it that way. Thanks for making it all so crystal clear! Who knew the guy who created Young Justice could distill national interests, foreign policy, and foreign societies into such wisdom?

Thanks bunches!

Bill Mulligan
Turkey seems to feel that any attempt by Kurds anywhere to improve their lot is a threat.

Bill, it's not that simple. If the Iraqi Kurds became an independent country, the Kurdish Turks would demand independence as well. Possibly to be part of the Iraqi Kurds nation, but also possibly their own.

Turkey doesn't want that.

And when is the last time you saw a country willing giving up territory in this part of the world?

Its a very similar situation as Chechnya: the rest of the Soviet countries broke away, and now Chechnya wants the same. Soviets don't want to let them break away.

Only, the Kurds cover a lot more ground than the Chechnyans do.

Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 09:03 AM

Problem is Kurdistan IS every place where Kurds live and for Kurds, to create a Kurdistan that is less than that is to admit that those lands in Turkey, Iran and Syria arent really theirs. And, again, casus belli with every neighbouring country.

Actually, Iraqi Kurds have been lobbying for independence because they've been treated like shit by the rest of Iraq. They believe that having their own homeland would would improve their lot in this world.

Unfortunately, our government has decided that in order to appease Turkey, we will discourage Iraqi Kurds from doing that.

Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 09:03 AM

Not mentioning that in Iraqi "kurdistan" there are other groups that dont want to stop beign part of Iraq...oh wait, american solution for that uh? "Pack your things and leave, after all there is still plenty of "Iraq for you to live on, no matter where your family did for centuries"

The United States did not create the problem of people being displaced from their homelands. Throughout human history, borders have been altered as the result of armed conflicts, creating refugees who were forced to settle in places other than their homelands.

By the way, why is it OK for Kurds to live under Iraqi rule, but not OK for non-Kurds to live under Kurdish rule?

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 6, 2006 09:43 AM

Bill, it's not that simple. If the Iraqi Kurds became an independent country, the Kurdish Turks would demand independence as well. Possibly to be part of the Iraqi Kurds nation, but also possibly their own.

Turkey doesn't want that.

You know, it's interesting to me that today it is de rigeur to condemn U.S. imperialism but it is perfectly OK for other nations to deny people self-determination.

I'm not saying that Turkey is wrong, per se. If latinos in this country wanted to form their own independent nation-state in a portion of California, for example, I highly doubt our government would accede to their wishes.

That said, it seems that other countries get a free pass such things whereas the United States is roundly condemned.

Lem:
"Gosh Mr. Brady, I never thought of it that way. Thanks for making it all so crystal clear! Who knew the guy who created Young Justice could distill national interests, foreign policy, and foreign societies into such wisdom?"

You need to learn to differentiate between the words on the screen and the little voice in your head as to whom you are commenting.

Gosh Mr. Brady, I never thought of it that way. Thanks for making it all so crystal clear!

I know, it just makes you want to run out and vote Republican, doesn't it?

"I know, it just makes you want to run out and vote Republican, doesn't it?"

In your case, 'Hope Springs Eternal' Mr. Ries

Hmmm. Did you realize that to an Asian, your last name would be spelled "Lies"?

"The United States did not create the problem of people being displaced from their homelands. Throughout human history, borders have been altered as the result of armed conflicts, creating refugees who were forced to settle in places other than their homelands. "

I didnt say that is a problem created by the US, just expressed my frustration when speaking with americans (and now I am generalizing, of course), as their take on ethnic/border disputes its allways the same "so what? move some other place", i.e; "there is a lot of arab countries palestinians can go, no need to cling to that little piece of dust". Again on this thread someone suggested Turkey should welcome a Kurdish independent state 'cause their own kurds would migrate there, and I just pointed the naivette of that theory.

"By the way, why is it OK for Kurds to live under Iraqi rule, but not OK for non-Kurds to live under Kurdish rule?"

I never expressed an oppinion against the existence of Kurdistan, I just pointed out the facts that make such occurence difficult. Personally I think a Kurd state, lead by kurdish main political force, the Kurdistan Worker's Party, would be at least interesting to behold and probably a good influence in the area. But I highly doubt the USA would allow a socialist state against the interests of their closest ally in the area. Not to mention they are still considered a terorist organization by both USA and EU.

Just another fact I checked... less than 10% of Kurds in Turkey vote for nationalists parties, the rest vote for mainstream parties.

Hmmm. Did you realize that to an Asian, your last name would be spelled "Lies"?

Wow. A personal attack AND a racial slur, in one tidy package. How economical of you....

Did you realize that to an Asian, your last name would be spelled "Lies"?

Except, it's German.

Or does that just make me a Nazi?

I can never tell with trolls like you.

Well, that would explain why you insist on denying genocide, Craig....

"You broke it, you buy it" only goes so far. When the shop owners continue to break what you're trying to buy, I think your obligation to pay for what you've broken goes away.

No one likes to lose. But PAD summarized the mission pretty well: eliminate the chance that Iraq might provide WMDs to terrorist groups that want to target the US. Saddam was supposed to be the lynchpin of that scheme. We've not found WMDs, and Saddam is about to permanently check out of the terrorist web. It sounds like mission accomplished to me.

And it's becomingly increasingly apparant that continued US presence isn't helping. Iraq's going to have to defend itself. We can't continue to occupy Iraq...what good will it do the US to fight against the terrorist if we bankrupt ourselves in the process? Maybe, if the US government changes it's approach, and actually increases taxes to the point where we can sustain a military occupation of Iraq while running a surplus, we can afford to stay. But that's not likely to be the case. Both in terms of human life and money, the US cannot afford to maintain a protracted military presence in Iraq.

This isnt a shop where you broke something. Its a private house, you werent invited and you still havent payed what you broke.

The part when you state that it is not in your interest to stay in Iraq is clear. PAD stated it clear enough in the post too. I just think you shouldnt stop trying, at least until Iraq living conditions are that of before the War. So maybe keeping that military forces isnt the best choice? ok, try something else, but to simply say "We had enough of this, we quit" is to deny the USA have a responsability towards the people of Iraq. Yes, even those who hate you.

So... Here's two options: Leave and let them kill themselves or, stay and watch americans trying to hold on as they get killed by the people they were supposed to protect. As someone mentioned, the reason to go to war wasn't democracy, but oil. Now, its done and Bush will leave the situation to the next president to sort it out because he knows there's not good solution there.

Save americans and leaving Iraq to Iran. Because, Iran is forcing the conflict inside the Iraq. They want another Teocracy and the Iraqi oil. That will make things worse for americans in the future. Not one country financing terrorists, but two.

Stay and watch americans die without knowing if democracy will actually work there, but, avoiding Iran's grasp over it, and for better or worse, creating a balance point in the Middle East.

I know it sounds harsh to rationalize lives like that. But, I thought about the situation and there's the choices. Unless I'm missing something.

I wouldn't like to make that choice. The easy way out could be disastrous in the future and the tough decision to stay will make the current human losses look like child's play.

Again, I stand ready to be flamed. *Catches the antifire equipmente*

=)

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at November 6, 2006 12:05 PM

"You broke it, you buy it" only goes so far. When the shop owners continue to break what you're trying to buy, I think your obligation to pay for what you've broken goes away.

The problem with your argument is that you're trying to extend an analogy that isn't very apt to begin with. A better analogy would be to liken Iraq to a forest fire. We started it, and just because we've not had success putting it out doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to continue trying.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at November 6, 2006 12:05 PM

No one likes to lose. But PAD summarized the mission pretty well: eliminate the chance that Iraq might provide WMDs to terrorist groups that want to target the US. Saddam was supposed to be the lynchpin of that scheme. We've not found WMDs, and Saddam is about to permanently check out of the terrorist web. It sounds like mission accomplished to me.

The elimination of Saddam Hussein does not eliminate the threat of Iraq becoming a source of WMDs that could be used against the U.S. or its allies. If a Shi'a government takes over Iraq and forms an alliance with Iran, for example, the latter country could add the former's resources to its efforts to go nuclear. Very, very bad juju if something like that happens.

Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 11:36 AM

I didnt say that is a problem created by the US, just expressed my frustration when speaking with americans (and now I am generalizing, of course),

Actually, you are overgeneralizing. It's interesting that we are often referred to as "ugly Americans" because of our supposed propensity for being culturally insensitive. And yet it's perfectly OK for other nations to stereotype us.

Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 11:36 AM

as their take on ethnic/border disputes its allways the same "so what? move some other place", i.e; "there is a lot of arab countries palestinians can go, no need to cling to that little piece of dust".

That's a complete oversimplification of the Palestinian situation. You've omitted the fact that the Israelis aren't going anywhere, and that's all there is to it. If the Palestinians insist on fighting to the death to return to the days before Israel became a state once again --something that cannot happen -- there's nothing anyone anywhere can do to help them.

The U.S. has for many years pushed for a peace plan that includes Palestinian self-rule and an eventual Palestinian state. The Palestinian culture is not a "piece of dirt" but a concept created by bonds of commonality created throughout the centuries. The Palestinian culture could return itself to the pursuit of advancing itself, rather than existing in a state of perpetual arrested development, if only they would consider the fact that a piece of dirt does not a people make.

Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 11:36 AM

Again on this thread someone suggested Turkey should welcome a Kurdish independent state 'cause their own kurds would migrate there, and I just pointed the naivette of that theory.

It's only naive if you misstate it as you did above. Bill Mulligan suggested that some Kurds might migrate to a Kurdish independent state, and thus such a state might act as a safety valve against the threat of Turkish Kurds waging a civil war within Turkey.

Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 11:36 AM

I never expressed an oppinion against the existence of Kurdistan, I just pointed out the facts that make such occurence difficult. Personally I think a Kurd state, lead by kurdish main political force, the Kurdistan Worker's Party, would be at least interesting to behold and probably a good influence in the area.

You can't have it both ways. On the one hand, you've said that a Kurdish state would place many non-Kurds under a government they don't like, and criticized the U.S. for consistently offering a ham-handed solution to such problems (which, as I've already pointed out, is a grossly oversimplified way of characterizing U.S. foreign policy over the decades). On the other hand, you say a Kurdish state might be a good thing, but the U.S. is among those standing in the way. Well, which is it?

Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 11:36 AM

Just another fact I checked... less than 10% of Kurds in Turkey vote for nationalists parties, the rest vote for mainstream parties.

Which lends credence to Bill Mulligan's argument that a Kurdish state might draw some of the nationalistic Kurds out of Turkey, thus helping Turkey as well as an independent Kurdistan.

Bill Myers answered all the Kurdistan points as well as I could.

I don't want to pick on the Turks--they have done a mostly good job of being Muslim and secular, to a degree I'd like to see others achieve. They are good people--you could do far worse than put your life in the hands of strangers in Turkey.

But while I appreciate Bill's comparison to the What If of having Latinos declare parts of the USA a new country, a better analogy would be us demanding that Quebec never secede from Canada because we're afraid all of those kids who took high school French would insist on taking North Dakota as well....ok, also not a great analogy. Never mind.

Well, that would explain why you insist on denying genocide, Craig....

WTF...Mike has an acolyte???

Well, that would explain why you insist on denying genocide, Craig....

WTF...Mike has an acolyte???

OMFG, no! That was an attempt to be funny (apprently a failed attempt...), Bill. I suppose I should have included some kind of smiley or something... *grins sheepishly and slinks away*

> Turkey doesn't want that.

Oh, are we talking those loons who when a natural disaster had hundreds, if not thousands of their citizens in emergency wards, refused shipments of blood from outside because they didn't want to have vile Greek blood in the veins of decent Turkish nationals?

Those Turks?

>>Hmmm. Did you realize that to an Asian, your last name would be spelled "Lies"?
>Wow. A personal attack AND a racial slur, in one tidy package. How economical of you....

Patrick - Don't forget the part about his being ignorant to boot, because Japanese - who qualify as Asians, last time I checked - all 128 million of them, WOULD pronounce it correctly because they DO have "ri" in their syllabic alphabets. Though they'd be more likely to use the "ra" sound in conjunction with the "i" which they'd pronounce fairly close to the original.

>"Pack your things and leave, after all there is still plenty of "Iraq for you to live on, no matter where your family did for centuries"

Trouble with that being, unless you're an ideologically/racially/socially homogeneous people - and the last such I believe lived in Japan until the Meiji Restoration in 1854 - you're going to have SOMEBODY unhappy. Either those who want their own country and aren't getting it, or, if they do, those who didn't want to break away from the motherland in the first place. And who, after probably dozens, if not hundreds, of generations living there has the better claim? If you can answer that, call up Solomon. He's looking for a replacement.

OMFG, no! That was an attempt to be funny (apprently a failed attempt...), Bill. I suppose I should have included some kind of smiley or something... *grins sheepishly and slinks away*

Slink back, friend, I'M the one who should be ashamed. There's nobody here who should be more careful about not reading things at literal face value than me. Glass houses and all...

Slink back, friend, I'M the one who should be ashamed.

I dunno. I thought it was funny, and I was the target of the joke. :)

No, no, I agree, it WAS funny, I was justtoo dopey to get it. My bad.

I say we blame this misunderstanding on Mickey and Sparky.

Bill, even if it's a forest fire that we set, you don't fight it to the death. You throw what you can at it, try to manage it, and keep people from harm, while trying to protect property. But you also try to not kill yourself in the process. What good does it do to fight a fire if the entire village population dies in the process? At some point, you let the fire rage away, and move in to rebuild after it's destroyed everything...while you still have people left.

It's the same in Iraq. Does the USA have a responsibility there? Absolutely. But so do the Iraqi people. And from where we get spoonfed our news over here, it looks like there's plenty of Iraqis that are more than happy to engage in a civil war. And that the conditions that made a civil war possible are not an American creation, but the remnants of a situation that Hussein controlled, but did not remove. America, and more importantly, the Federal Government, has a primary responsibility to protect Americans and American interests. The action in Iraq is not making American interests safer...if you believe the reports, it's making us less safe...and it's ballooning an already huge debt carried by this country. It's harsh, cold, and probably unfair to Iraqis caught in the middle of the civil war going on, but America no longer is serving anyone's best interests. We need to hand over control of the country to the current government as quickly as we can.

As for future threats...we have to deal with them as they come about or we discover them, just like anyone else. Jumping at shadows and being willing to see every sand dune and cargo truck as a WMD is what got us into this situation in the first place.

"You can't have it both ways"

1- I think Iraqui Kurds wont secede because Turks and the USA doesnt want that. One theing they can get (and are getting actually) is a wide degree of autonomy. I say this not because I dont want kurds to secede, but because its how I see the situation. And I said it because someone mentioned it as a likely scenario.

2- I think a laicist, socialist Kurd state could be a good thing for the region on the long term. But I am neither seeing that happen soon nor I would activelly support the idea, because short and midterm it would mean war.

Maybe my english isn't that good, but please note that I never said I had a solution for the whole issues, only pointed out the flaws (both political and ethical) I saw in solutions other exposed here. Solomon can keep his job 'cause neither me nor any of those writing here is worthy of such ilustrious seat.

And you can save the rap about palestinians, I only used that phrase because its a statement I have read and heard way too many times. And yes, mostly from americans. And thats not attacking your country, its just stating the obvious: american idiosicracy isnt as attached to the land as we "old worlders", and many americans "dont see whats the big deal is" when they propose the migration of whole groups of people.

"Which lends credence to Bill Mulligan's argument that a Kurdish state might draw some of the nationalistic Kurds out of Turkey, thus helping Turkey as well as an independent Kurdistan."

Actually it only gives credence to the argument that turkey's Kurdist nationalist movements kill people to create a Kurd state most Kurds dont want. And instead of moving to other places where they have more backing (PKK has around 50% support in Iraq) they still keep fighting in Turkey. So no, I dont think they would leave Turkey if Iraqui Kurds secede. If only, they would only use such a state as base for future operations.

"Oh, are we talking those loons who when a natural disaster had hundreds, if not thousands of their citizens in emergency wards, refused shipments of blood from outside because they didn't want to have vile Greek blood in the veins of decent Turkish nationals?"

Yes, those Turks. Greek and Turks have the kind of bad blood you usually only see in fantasy novels. And it goes both sides, Greeks are equally intolerant of the turks. But such attitude is not so uncommon. I think the USA refused both fuel donations from Venezuela and medical relief temas from Cuba when Katrina wasted New Orleans. It was a cheap political gesture on their part but I am sure Cuban expertise in these kind of emergencies (theyve been present in almost every latinoamerican disaster for the last decade or two) would have been noticed in N.Orleans.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at November 6, 2006 03:42 PM

Bill, even if it's a forest fire that we set, you don't fight it to the death. You throw what you can at it, try to manage it, and keep people from harm, while trying to protect property. But you also try to not kill yourself in the process. What good does it do to fight a fire if the entire village population dies in the process? At some point, you let the fire rage away, and move in to rebuild after it's destroyed everything...while you still have people left.

I think you're extending the analogy too far. I was merely using it to drive home the point that the situation in Iraq is not like breaking an item at a store. That's a discrete occurence with short-lived ramifications. I used the forest fire analogy merely to illustrate that the problems we created in Iraq are still ongoing and are having long-term ramifications.

While I agree with Bill Mulligan that it's difficult to feel optimistic about Iraq at the moment, I believe it is in our national interests to continue trying to stabilize that nation.

It's funny, because when we first invaded Iraq pundits all over the place were trying to tell us that only hysterics saw parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. The situations are too different, they told us. Now those selfsame pundits are drawing the parallels, and they're failing to see one crucial difference: Vietnam was never of strategic importance. Iraq is.

I never thought we should've invaded Iraq in the first place. Iraq was never a key player in the war on terror -- until we invaded. The choice to invade was an incredibly stupid one. Now that we're there, however, pulling out anytime soon would be equally stupid.

Very ironic.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at November 6, 2006 03:42 PM

As for future threats...we have to deal with them as they come about or we discover them, just like anyone else. Jumping at shadows and being willing to see every sand dune and cargo truck as a WMD is what got us into this situation in the first place.

The mythical WMDs were indeed a shadow. The threat of a radicalized Iraq, and a shift in the region's balance of power to favor Iran, are not shadows but very real threats.

And the problem with taking a reactive posture towards terrorism is that you end up with tragedies like 9/11. The choice between being reactive or making dumb mistakes as the Bush administration has done is a false dilemma.

For example, had the FBI, CIA, and other federal agencies been less bureaucratic and territorial, we might have been able to put the puzzle pieces together and prevent 9/11 from ever happening. That wouldn't have required the Patriot Act or wiretapping or any of that crap. It merely would have required federal security agencies to view national security as being more important than their turf battles.

Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 03:49 PM

And you can save the rap about palestinians,

Perhaps I can, but I won't. Remember, you brought that into the debate, not I.

Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 03:49 PM

I only used that phrase because its a statement I have read and heard way too many times. And yes, mostly from americans. And thats not attacking your country, its just stating the obvious: american idiosicracy isnt as attached to the land as we "old worlders", and many americans "dont see whats the big deal is" when they propose the migration of whole groups of people.

I believe it was the British who initially had the idea for re-creating the state of Israel. Britain is of the "Old World," no?

Moreover, have you looked at historical maps of Europe? Borders have changed, people have been displaced -- and yet people somehow manage to adapt.

Throughout history, people have always been dissatisfied with their borders, and wars have been fought over territory since the dawn of civilization. This idea that "Americans simply don't understand" omits the fact that people have been displaced as a "solution" to various problems for millennia.

I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm just saying it's true.

Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 03:49 PM

Actually it only gives credence to the argument that turkey's Kurdist nationalist movements kill people to create a Kurd state most Kurds dont want. And instead of moving to other places where they have more backing (PKK has around 50% support in Iraq) they still keep fighting in Turkey. So no, I dont think they would leave Turkey if Iraqui Kurds secede. If only, they would only use such a state as base for future operations.

The fact that they've not emigrated to Iraq right now proves nothing. There would have been no reason for a sane Kurd to go to Iraq under Saddam's regime -- his policy was to grind the Kurdish people under his boot heel. Now that Saddam is gone, the Kurds in Iraq have comparative security and relative autonomy, but that could change in a hurry. Iraq is a bloody mess right now! So the fact that Turkish Kurds aren't moving there in no way proves that they might not be willing to move to a new Kurdistan under better circumstances.

I say we blame this misunderstanding on Mickey...

Bill Myers, you've invited yourself to discuss my sex-life as an ongoing topic and persistently refer to me when I'm absent.

I don't know anything about your girlfriend, but I'm pretty sure she's entitled to a relationship with someone who's actually attracted to what she has to offer.

When she discovers you have a secret life obsessing over me, whatever happiness she can derive from your relationship will be revealed as a lie, and she will realize too late that she's wasted the best years of her life with some kind of closeted cretin.

Posted by: Mike at November 6, 2006 04:35 PM

Bill Myers, you've invited yourself to discuss my sex-life as an ongoing topic...

Yes, and it was a very, very short discussion.

...very, very short...

Uh, yeah, Bill Myers, and very young, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. You obviously need the contrast for your own arousal.

In the immortal words of Lennie Small: "I just wanted to pet her, George, but she wouldn't stop screaming."

Sad to say, but as much as it would be nice to bring the troops home now, due to the dishonesty and incompetence of the Bush League, to leave now would leave a bigger mess than now exists.

In Canada, the same debate rages about the mission in Afghanistan. Same problem. To pull out now makes a bad situation worse.

Up here, we get the same rhetoric you folks get. "If you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops."

It's a warm, steaming crock, either side of the border. The best way to support the troops is to not waste their lives on political pissing matches.

Personally, I'd love to hear anyone explain how "Stay the course" can be called anything other than a desperate plea by a desperate administration to be allowed to continue doing...nothing good, anyway.

''Hello, This is JOE PISCOPO, I'm from New Jersey and I'm a Democrat but I'm voring for Tom Kean Jr. for US Senate''

Really, I'm not making this up! I got this call today.

I'm from Jersey. Are you from Jersey? What Exit?

Vietnam was never of strategic importance. Iraq is.

Vietnam was of strategic importance, but in a different way than Iraq.

Vietnam was all about stopping Communism, and the strong belief, at the time, that Communism would continue to spread if we didn't fight it.

Well, things didn't get as bad as our government thought, but we still continued to fight this fight through the 80's (where we armed bin Laden to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan).

Oh, and it has finally happened.

Bush has come full circle with one of the reasons that many say is the reason why we went to Iraq in the first place:

Oil.

While here in Colorado yesterday:

"PRESIDENT BUSH: You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources. And then you can imagine them saying, "We're gonna pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up, unless you do the following."

"PRESIDENT BUSH: You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources. And then you can imagine them saying, "We're gonna pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up, unless you do the following."

Hey Chucky,

Guess you must be one of those guys who has a car that runs on Vegetable Oil, right, Mr. High-And-Mighty, I'm oh-so-superior-to-everyone-else?

OUR ECONOMY RUNS ON OIL, STUPID.

I don't like it either, by unlike you, I DON'T live in the fucking MARVEL UNIVERSE..."With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" doesn't put FOOD on my table, moron.

I have a job.

I have to get to that job.

I need GAS to fuel my car to GET TO that job.

The cheaper the GAS, the more FOOD I can put on my table.

What part of that quantum equation don't you get?

And if you actually USED that WAY-BACK machine of a brain you have Mr. Peabody, you'd realize that YOU NEED CHEAP GAS TOO!!!

Jesus H. Christ! So we're fighting for gas! We're fighting to keep our way of life so that our society doesn't fall into Chaos!

What the hell did you think the machines of our society on, the Crimson Bands of Cytorrak??? I don't think so!

Last line should read:

"What the hell did you think the machines of our society RUN on, the Crimson Bands of Cytorrak??? I don't think so!"

Sorry. When I get really righeteously cheesed off, I type fast.

Sorry. When I get really righeteously cheesed off, I type fast.

It doesn't seem to take much to get you "righteously cheesed off", jizzbag, and you're obviously typing a lot faster than you're thinking.

Fine, we get it, you're really scared and you're shitting yourself at the thought of what would happen if you couldn't afford to fill up your gas tank or heat your house or whatever. So, in your hysteria, you're turning into a world-class douche and taking it out on us because we see things differently.

Fine, let's assume that being the bad guys and invading a country without provocation was worth it because it ensured that we wouldn't run out of oil anytime soon, if that is indeed what you believe. What's gonna happen when THAT oil supply runs out? Do we conquer Saudi Arabia? And then what? Venezuela? Yes, we'd be the world's darlings, and of course we could get away with it because nobody else in the world has any nuclear weapons or armed forces they could use against us if we got out of line. Oh silly me, I forgot, the rest of the world DOES have those things, and Russia or China or the European Union or somebody else could easily vaporize an American city with the touch of a button if we tried anything as evil as that. Bummer.

If lack of fuel is a problem, then the first priority of western civilization should be finding an alternative to fossil fuels. Don't go about it half-assed, devote every available scientific mind to it. Use every spare dollar to fund the research. Taking oil that doesn't belong to us is not a long-term solution.

Oh, and no, lots of machines don't run on the Crimson Bands of Cytorrak OR oil. They run on electricity, which can be generated in any number of ways.

originally posted by Peter David: I find it funny that phrases they don't want to deal with, such as "death" or "slaughter," becomes "collateral damage" or "acceptable losses." But "cut and run" doesn't get embellished into something acceptable. Me, I have no trouble with it at all. It's not "cut and run." Call it "strategic withdrawal." Call it "organized troop relocation." Call it whatever you want that will save lives.

I recall a funny Western movie from about 40 years ago (which, I think, was the basis for the TV series F-Troop). The movie begins with a US army troop, losing badly to the Indians, becoming totally disorganized. I forget the exact sequence of events leading up to it, but all of a sudden all the soldiers are making a mad scramble to get away from the battle.

In the aftermath, there is a court-martial. One of the men on trial testifies: I didn't think we were retreating. I thought we were advancing to the rear.

"Advance to the Rear" was the title of the movie. I can easily imagine Bush borrowing that phrase when the time comes.

>YOU NEED CHEAP GAS TOO!!!
Jesus H. Christ! So we're fighting for gas! We're fighting to keep our way of life so that our society doesn't fall into Chaos!

Over THIRTY YEARS AGO, we had this little contretemps which came to be known as the first 'energy crisis'. The Arabs turned off the taps and we found out we were screwed. Governments (US and Canadian alike) swore up and down they'd do what it took for us not to be held hostage at the pumps again.

So, did they immediately corral the best chemists, engineers, physicists and throw money at them telling them "solve this, and solve it now" as they had for the Project Mahnattan?

No, they just started digging more holes.

Given that, whenever someone sneezes in Whereveritsland, the price of the stuff shoots through the roof, we can see how successful Shrub and previous presidents' strategy has been. As in not at all. Iraq is just one more part in this failed philosophy.

originally posted by Mauricio: "Here's two options: Leave and let them kill themselves or, stay and watch americans trying to hold on as they get killed by the people they were supposed to protect..."

Here's a third option:

(a) Announce that the US will be withdrawing its troops over the next year.

(b) Announce that all the money we are currently spending on a military presence will instead be put toward rebuilding Iraq and making it a country where people can live their lives in reasonable comfort and safety. (That includes money we are spending on no-bid contracts with military-industrial-complex contractors, even for things with ostensibly non-military aims.)

(c) Instead of hiring Halliburton or similar companies to do this rebuilding work, give the money to groups which opposed the war in the first place, groups which argued against the invasion and believed there was a better way to deal with the problems.

These groups, if they are willing to do so, would receive funding from the US government to send volunteers into Iraq to work on restoring water, electricity, and other utilities, rebuilding schools, staffing hospitals, and doing whatever else they think would be helpful make Iraq livable.

It would be dangerous work, especially if these groups are as wrong in their ideas about Iraq as the Bush administration was in theirs. That makes it a good chance for such groups to show whether they are simply people who hate American and love to complain (as some vocal proponents of the war like to claim) or whether they are in reality people who are sincere in their criticisms of the war and who are willing to risk their own lives in support of what they believe.

I believe there are anti-war groups which would be willing to take up such a challenge. Some of the groups I have in mind are:

American Friends Service Committee (www.afsc.org)
Christian Peacemakers Teams (www.cpt.org/)
Fellowship of Reconcilation (www.forusa.org/)
Veterans for Peace (www.veteransforpeace.org/)

We are currently spending billions of dollars on Iraq. If the aim is to make Iraq a better place, wouldn't it make more sense spending that money on things that help them live rather than things that help them die?

We "need" gas about as much as we need another Bruce Willis/Ben Affleck end of the world flick. We've been trained to believe that the only fuel around is fossil fuel. As soon as anyone starts doing work to replace fossil fuels with any alternative, OPEC gets their collective snot together and drops prices to the ridiculous level, two steps below "you gotta be kidding me!"

The training took. The theoretical technology has existed for 100 years. Gasoline as a fuel was obsolete 50 years ago, but everyone thought the geological party would never end.

Then Exxon and their bastard corporate siblings refined the arts of Lobbying and feel good B.S. spin to levels unheard of outside Goebbels' diseased brain.

Bio diesel. Not only good for Mothe Earth, also good for American and Canadian farmers.

Hydrogen. Clean, just a little Hindenburg for me.

Electric.

Or, horrors, ride a bike, take a bus when practical, walk.

We don't "need" gas, we're addicted to the crap.

"If lack of fuel is a problem, then the first priority of western civilization should be finding an alternative to fossil fuels. Don't go about it half-assed, devote every available scientific mind to it. Use every spare dollar to fund the research. Taking oil that doesn't belong to us is not a long-term solution"

I never said I wasn't for that.

But what are we going to do while these fledgling alternatives are being developed?

Yeah, take the money that we're wasting on other projects that are hoplessly dead-end and put it toward alternate energy source research.

Projects like EMBRYONIC STEM CELL research, for example. KEEP ADULT Stem Cell research, as its a hell of a lot more promising on all accounts, INCLUDING Parkinson's (Ooooo...bet that's got MJF shaking in his boots...pardon the pun....)

Manny:
"We don't "need" gas, we're addicted to the crap."

You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?

See, bitching doesn't actually SOLVE anything. Neither does pushing the responsibility on "Society."

You want change? Its gotta start with YOU.

If you can't do that, then STFU..........

When she discovers you have a secret life obsessing over me

Wow, Bill. MIke just called you "obsessive". Being called Obsessive by Mike is like being called stupid by...uh, Mike.

In the immortal words of Lennie Small

I can't wait until your 10th grade teacher assigns you Moby Dick or Catcher in the Rye, just so we can get some variety.

"If you can't do that, then STFU.........."

Practice what you preach.

PAD

Ben Bradley, Arab scholars have discovered that jojoba oil, which requires very little technology to press, also requires minimal processing to turn into diesel fuel. Ethanol from sugar has been consistently been cheaper than gasoline, and provides 75% of the auto fuel in Brazil. Fuels can also be made from organisms as omnipresent as algea.

In the meantime, you can trade in your car and buy a Prius, so you can do a week's commute to work on a single tank of gas. Now you can buy another big mac everyday. Now you have no more problems. Congratulation.

Wow, Bill. MIke just called you "obsessive". Being called Obsessive by Mike is like being called stupid by...uh, Mike.

Bill Myers, it took all of your friends 14 hours to post that reply. Pitiful.

If only you could cite an exchange to back up the observations in your fantasy world.

Mike, allow me to clear this up for you:

It reminds me a little of the Captain Underpants thread, where someone who will remain nameless(but we all know who it is) was taking every post as being directed RIGHT AT HIM.

See, Sean originally posted that remark, which was directed at you.

HUH? WAS THAT A CRACK AT ME? HUH? WAS IT?

And I want my blue sock back, you bastard.

:-)

That was a reply from me to Sean. I was pretending to believe that his remark was directed at me. Then I referenced a joke about a blue sock from a prior thread.

Eeeesh! Calm down, Bill! I was actually talking someone else who was reacting just like you did now actually at everything YOU said.

And as long as I hold the sock, I AM IN CONTROL!

Or rather, THE CLOTHESPIN ON MY NOSE IS IN CONTROL!

The above is a reply from Sean to me. Sean is making it clear he is referring to you, even though he isn't naming you.

Yes, you are obsesses with me, and now I'm wondering if who you mean by "girlfriend" is really some hostage you are keeping in your basement.

I know your pretense that you are some kind of decent person was shattered when you were caught sheltering racism. Fortunately for me, I can simply continue to cite what you've said to make my point.

Oh, my point with the jojoba oil is that it jojoba trees can be raised in parched desert-regions. The majority of the earth can be used to grow fuels.

Mike, you almost--almost!--made a point worth commenting on. Then your personality had to go and ruin it. Oh well.

Bill Myers, it took all of your friends 14 hours to post that reply. Pitiful.

Sorry Mike, my internet is down.Blame Charter Cable for the 14 hours you spent waiting for someone to reply to you. Must've been a tough night.

I know your pretense that you are some kind of decent person was shattered when you were caught sheltering racism. Fortunately for me, I can simply continue to cite what you've said to make my point.

And every time you do you look like a nut. So keep on doing it. Dance, little doggy,dance.

Ben, fledgling alternatives? Wind power, solar power, hydropower...all three of these, with proper investment, could totally replace every coal burning power plant in the country. They aren't fledgling alternatives, we just don't have any decent incentive to invest in them. Because the owners of those power plants are just fine making their money off of the rest of us.

As for a dependance on Middle Eastern oil...it's imposed on us. Once again, because the few companies that own the refineries and gas stations don't want to lose their cash flow. America could eliminate it's dependancy on Middle Eastern crude in less than 5 years with the proper investment in renewable energy sources, and converting any need for an oil lubricant to natural sources like corn and other vegatable oils.

Unfortunately, I don't have $30 gabillion to do that myself, and I don't run the country or any of the corporations that might have the ability to make that kind of investment. Guess I'll just go STFup now.

"Fortunately for me, I can simply continue to cite what you've said to make my point."

And he so he will, Bill. He'll repost every word of every exchange over and over and over again in some strange and obsessive attempt to relive whatever limited contacts he has had with you. It would almost be flattering to you if it wasn't beginning to rise to the level of some spurned but still infatuated High School girl who won't get it through her head that there is no "there" there and that there never will be. And that's how he comes off at best. He comes off as a Glenn Close wanna be at worst.

Mad Mikey, seek professional therapy. For all your various issues, please, just seek help.

> buy a Prius, so you can do a week's commute to work on a single tank of gas.

Here's a better idea: move closer to work. Or petition to work out of home. The technology exists in many cases. Several people in my department do so. And I'm close enough I can drive to work in fifteen minutes in the morning (not much traffic at 05:30 - although also no buses) and not much more back in the afternoon. A tankful in my 14-year-old Mazda 323 lasts me almost three weeks. (Two income household with the couple each working in opposite ends of the city? Can't help you there...)

> Wind power, solar power, hydropower...all three of these, with proper investment, could totally replace every coal burning power plant in the country.

Studies here have shown wind power can't realistically replace more than about 30% - at best - because it is unreliable and you need other sources to take up the slack when the wind dies down, which it is wont to do. Solaw power ties up huge amounts of land which then can't be used for living on or growing food. That leaves hydro which is getting pretty much maxed out.

You left out nuclear.

Lots of people don't care for it, but it may realistically be the only viable, large-scale choice in the long run, barring an unforessen, entirely new technology, or some breakthrough in fusion research.

"Studies here have shown wind power can't realistically replace more than about 30% - at best - because it is unreliable and you need other sources to take up the slack when the wind dies down, which it is wont to do. Solaw power ties up huge amounts of land which then can't be used for living on or growing food. That leaves hydro which is getting pretty much maxed out."

True, not one of those sources will replace fossil fuels...but all three, together with geothermal power, will. Large scale solar plants won't work, but equipping buildings with solar generating cells would greatly reduce the draw they put on the grid. Also, changing the way we build...more green, less steel...reduces the need to power cooling and heating systems.

Nuclear is an option, and a modern nuclear power plant would be able to incorporate all the safety lessons we've learned from past incidents. If people can get over the Three Mile Island and Cherynoble fears...very real and justified fears, but our safety technology has progressed so far in the past 30 years.

Either way, it all comes down to investment. What are the Big Oil companies doing with all those profits? Issuing dividends? That's extremely short sighted. The energy consumer of the US, if not the world, is poised to demand an alternative to fossil fuel produced electricty and power. The smart company would start now to invest in a way to provide that.

Many countries are giving a new chance to "nucular" plants. As frantic as some people get when you mention the "N" word, it seems its far more reliable, clean and geopolitically safe than other sources. And thats a bitter candy to swallow for some like me, who grew up hearing nuclear power was the gate to hell, but lately it seems like a sensible option imho.

So a fallout can create an ecological disaster? Sure, every year there is some tanker spilling oil on some coast and ruining life there for decades. And I put more trust in a nuclear engineer than in a greek drunkard captain.

Other pros for Nuclear:

-you dont have to buy it from Saudi Arabia

-goverments can strictly control its prizes

-no greenhouse emissions

-you dont have to buy it from Vladimir Putin

-You dont have to buy it from Saudi Arabia...yes, again.

Our future energy needs are not going to be met by any single source, but a combination of strategies:

Wind - Starwolf noted that it will probably not amount to more that 30% of our energy needs, but that's still 30% taken from other sources. The biggest stumbling blocks for wind power actually aren't the intermittant nature of it, but the NIMBY factor and concerns over threats to migratory birds.

Biomass: This inclues biodiesel, alcohol, and methane derived from anaerobic digestion of wastes. These will replace some of our current oil consumption. So long as we generate wastes, we'll have the raw materials to make these fuels. It's simply a matter of putting the resources into the developing the technology.

Synthetic fuels: We have tons of coal still in the US. The problem is simply that it's the dirtiest fuel around. We've known how to make synthetic fuels from coal for nearly 100 years. The stumbling block has always been the cost. Now that we're over Hubbard's peak, the price of oil will rise again, making these fuels more attractive.

Solar: While it's true that large scale solar operations take up large amounts of land, smaller scale units on the rooftops of houses can serve as a supplement. Similar strategies involving putting windmills on the tops of skyscrapers have also been proposed. Also, the areas of the country that are best suited for building a solar power plant, ie Death Valley, arent' really suited for agriculture anyway. Plus, one possible strategy would be to use solar power in SoCal to convert sea water into hydrogen.

Hydrogen: It's clean and abundant, if we can use solar power to extra it from water. The drawbacks are the costs of electrolosis and compression. While it is highly explosive, so is natural gas and we've been using it for heating and cooking for over 100 years.

Nuclear: The advantages are no air pollution. The disadvantages are that we still don't have a permananet repository for the waste and it turns out that it's more expensive than coal. New developments in advanced light water reactors might offset the cost problem, but the public support isn't there. I grew up 30 miles from Three Mile Island abd lived through the accident. Trust me, no one is ever going to build another nuclear power plant in central PA again.

Hydro: Starwolf is right, this is maxed out in the US, but there are a few variations that will see more investment in the coming years, such as tidal power.

Geothermal: Well, if Bush ever does achieve his goal of drilling in ANWR, you can count on a geothermal plant being built over Old Faithful.

It would almost be flattering to you if it wasn't beginning to rise to the level of some spurned but still infatuated High School girl who won't get it through her head that there is no "there" there and that there never will be. And that's how he comes off at best. He comes off as a Glenn Close wanna be at worst.

Bill Myers lobbed insults at me in this thread first, and I've responded. The orc-chitter I cited from the Pronoun Trouble thread demonstrated Bill Myer's obsession with me. The Principal Poopy pants thread? You and Bill addressed me before I addressed you or him. The Fantasy Press Conference? Bill again.

Bill's "very, very short" comment? That was Bill undressing me for your circle jerk. You accusing me of starting this when it's plainly observable the obsession is yours? Hey, if you need fantasies of me for your pleasure, enjoy.

Projects like EMBRYONIC STEM CELL research, for example. KEEP ADULT Stem Cell research, as its a hell of a lot more promising on all accounts, INCLUDING Parkinson's (Ooooo...bet that's got MJF shaking in his boots...pardon the pun....)

Ben, this is a lie, pure and simple.

How can you possibly call adult cell stems more promising when you're obstructing research into embryonic cell research? It's a circular argument and it's mind-numbingly stupid.

It just shows that you're not thinking, you're not doing any research on your own and you're just regurgitating talking points from some other mind.

>Wind - Starwolf noted that it will probably not amount to more that 30% of our energy needs, but that's still 30% taken from other sources.

Uh, that's "at best". Figure more on about 15%.

>solar operations ... smaller scale units on the rooftops of houses can serve as a supplement

Provided it doesn't snow and cover the receptors. And that doesn't work very well at night when people are home cooking food, using the air conditioner, watching that big screen tv, either.

Actually, our best bet to solve the problem lies in one word in the previous paragraph:

People.

As in, let's encourage fewer births and see a reduction in the population. Fewer people, less demand, problems (lots of them) solved.

Yes, this causes economic problems. Important ones. But they'll happen anyway when we run out of some essential or other because of too many people. Better solve it now under controlled conditions than in the train wreck we're eventually going to run into. ie pay me now, or pay me [lots more] later.

Roger Tang:
"Ben, this is a lie, pure and simple.

How can you possibly call adult cell stems more promising when you're obstructing research into embryonic cell research? It's a circular argument and it's mind-numbingly stupid.

It just shows that you're not thinking, you're not doing any research on your own and you're just regurgitating talking points from some other mind."

Um, Here:

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

and HERE:

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/news/opinion/15861260.htm

and Here:

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=11947

I could go on, but you'd just be claiming I'm lying again.

Michael J Fox was the one that wasn't thinking.
Apparently, you aren't either.

Actually, our best bet to solve the problem lies in one word in the previous paragraph:

People.

As in, let's encourage fewer births and see a reduction in the population. Fewer people, less demand, problems (lots of them) solved.

Unfortunately, that's one answer that is just about guaranteed to raise more of an uproar than just about anything else.

Sadly, we're already at a place where many highly intelligent couples who see the problems with overpopulation are not reproducing, while many less intelligent, "be fruitful and multiply" types keep pumping out babies and more than taking up the slack.

Never ceases to dismay me, you need a license to drive a car of even get married, but you can spawn all you want with no restrictions.

-Rex Hondo-

Home solar cells do work. They are expensive but can mean a lot of energy saving on the long term. Here, were the prize of energy is higher than in your country, A Home installation pays itself in 10 years, 5 if its in a condo/apartment building. Actually, every new house in most parts of spain is now required by law to have such installation.

There is a new town close to Malmö, in Sweden, that buys electricity from the grid on winter but sell its surplus during Summer, and they are close to deficit zero on that matter. They combine solar installations with energy efficient houses. That is, by the way, a factor that had not been mentioned before; good termal isolation and natural air circuits make for healthier housing and save a lot both in heating and AC.

And the fun part is that its not even expensive, it only takes the house designer to spend some more time thinking before sending he plans.

>solar operations ... smaller scale units on the rooftops of houses can serve as a supplement

Provided it doesn't snow and cover the receptors. And that doesn't work very well at night when people are home cooking food, using the air conditioner, watching that big screen tv, either.

Umm, you do know what the word "supplement" means, right? As in, "in addition to others"? Did you miss the point where I said that there will not be any single source of energy meeting all of our needs?

Yes, they do work better in certain climates and in certains times of day and certain times of the year, but they can be used as a backup for heating and electricity in homes to shave some dollars off their monthly bills.

As for the issue of not using it at night: Peak energy demand is during the daylight hours. Other energy sources can be used for cooking after dark. Plus, there are a number of ways in which heated water or other materials can be used to store solar energy for use doring off peak hours.

"Provided it doesn't snow and cover the receptors. And that doesn't work very well at night when people are home cooking food, using the air conditioner, watching that big screen tv, either."

Not to mention that battery units can store up any unused energy during the day.

Add to all this is that as use of these alternative energy sources are developed, the effeciency of the technology will get better.

Posted by Ben Bradley

Manny:
"We don't "need" gas, we're addicted to the crap."

A) Please lose the attitude, you're starting to sound like Rush Limbaugh.

B) I do what I can. I admit to driving a P/U truck, however when leased, my wife and I lived in a rural area where 4WD was a necessity 5 months out of the year.

C) I vote heavily on enironmental issues. When our local version of the Shrub stated in the last election that he would withdraw Canada from the Kyoto Accord, I and my wife voted and campaigned against him.

D) Part of individual effort is debunking the efforts of the neo-cons to present global warming as "unproven". The other part is education of the self and others.

E) Unfortunately, I don't control where of what my employer chooses to put in the semi's we drive. However, since my company recently was taken over by a larger outfit, some ideas I put into my employers head are now being acted upon.

F) In the transport business, our equipment generally runs cleaner and is better maintained than your personal vehicle. This is both regulatory as well as basic good business sense. Fuel is the single biggest expense in the transport business. Well maintained equipment is efficient equipment.

Additionally, the transport business has been transitioning to bio diesel well ahead of the pack. However, certain technical issues make universal use difficult.(Ask me about them if you're interested.

G) On the personal side, my wife and I use flourescent bulbs in our home, and have started our families switching over. Our V8 beast parks as much as possible now that we live in the 'burbs with public transit available. My wife's pregnancy makes walking and bussing sometimes impractical, but we try.

What are you doing?

D) Part of individual effort is debunking the efforts of the neo-cons to present global warming as "unproven". The other part is education of the self and others.

Sorry for the change of subject, but it ain't just the neocons. South Park has done two or three episodes not-so-subtly implying that global warming is a myth ("Manbearpig", "Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow"...possibly also "Smug Alert") and that anybody who worries about it is retarded.

Oh yeah, and in "Krazy Kripples" they also portrayed Christopher Reeve as a guy who sucked the blood out of fully-grown babies in order to get their stem cells. That was when I stopped watching.

There's also Michael Crichton.

South Park targets everybody and anybody.

If you can't remember that when watching the show, well, you probably shouldn't be watching it. :)

Actually, the point of the "Smug Alert" episode of South Park was that driving hybrid vehicles is a good thing and should be encouraged -- but it's a problem when people get smug about it.

If anything, Parker and Stone are more liberatarian than liberal or conservative in their viewpoints. If they believe in any political absolute it's that there should be no limits as what can be satirized or talked about. Beyond that, it's hard to pin down where they stand. For example, in the boy scouts episode, the message that they implied seemed to be that the Boy Scouts should drop their ban on gays, but people shouldn't have the right to sue them in order to force the issue.

"Manbearpig" seemed to me more of a satire on Gore's persona than his actual position on global warming. Same thing with the Day After Tomorrow where they took shots about both sides in the Katrina debates for caring more about who was to blame than solving the problem. There were some underlying jabs at the global warming debate, but then they turn around and say that hybrid vehicles are a good thing. Just don't be a dick about driving one.

"Oh yeah, and in "Krazy Kripples" they also portrayed Christopher Reeve as a guy who sucked the blood out of fully-grown babies in order to get their stem cells. That was when I stopped watching."

I think the point of that was to make fun of the people who object to stem cell research by making their objection look ridiculous

"And that doesn't work very well at night when people are home cooking food, using the air conditioner, watching that big screen tv, either."

Spoken like someone who doesn't know how the system is designed to work. You ever gone into a Lowes store or other like retailer? Seen those solar powered lawn lights? What, you think that they light up the yard in the middle of the day?

:p

Solar cells would power some things in the day, but they would also charge large sets of rechargeable batteries. Those would help to power the home at night. Also, you can set the system up so that the cells only power certain things that would get more daytime use by choosing set items in the home to be wired to the lines from the cells.

There are lots of other things can help as well.

Everybody seems to know that we have light bulbs on the market now that will burn a brightly as a 100 watt bulb while only using about 25-30 watts. Well, we are also getting LED bulbs onto the market that are as bright as a 60 to 100 watt bulb and only use around 3 to 5 watts. granted, because they are not in mass production they are running around $25.00 to $30.00 a bulb. Yeah, that's steep. The upside to that price tag is that the bulbs have a life span of 15 plus years.

My plan hs been to replace one bulb per month. Add up what you spend on bulbs in that time period. You'll more then break even on the per bulb price, you'll slowly save a bit more money on the old power bill and the if more people start buying more bulbs, the price goes down on the damned things.

In line water heaters are great as well. They flash heat the water when you need it rather then heating the water all day. Again, drops the total amount of power needed to run your home and saves resources and $$$.

Going to buy or build a new home or upgrade the one you have? Geothermal heating is a great method of heating and cooling a building. Saves money and saves power.

Building a new home also allows you to look at some of the more green designs that take into account natural heating and cooling on a structure caused by the sun's location in the sky. It blew my mind how much that can be factored into a design.

Can you g