New Mars Forums

I thought horses we not native to the americas.

The problem with Ethonol, (same with Hydrogen, and bio-fuels) is that you must spend more energy to create the fuel than you can phisically extract from it during consuption. 

The law of entropy and all that.

Biofuels are great and all and will extend the life of our fossil fuels, but they are not a solution by themselves.

To conver completely to bio-fuels, we would need another source of cheap, abundant energy.

It could mean the end of western civilization, if we dont get off our arses.

US Agriculture is based on Oil.
Our suburban culture.
Our Wal Mart Economies.
Online Shopping.
Our Military.

If the price of Oil rises to $200 a barrel, we will need to tear down suburbs and replace them with farms.  We will need smaller farms with less machinery and more human labor. The cost of shipping food 1000s of miles will be more than the total cost of producing it.

Suburbs themselves will be economicly unfiesable in their current state.

The whole american process of turning Oil into Corn into Coca-Cola and Taco-Bell will be over.

No less than our way of life depends entirely on cheap and everflowing Oil.

In the years where Oil Production hit it's peak, a popular uprising in Saudi Arabia could break the economy of nations.

Doom and Gloom, Doom and Gloom i say!

We really have absolutely no choice whatsoever but to engage in a Apollo style project to bring america into a Nuke-Hydrogen economy.

The time between the peak and the terminal decline of Oil is predicted to be between 10 - 25 years.

That may not be enough time to switch our entire infrastructure.

The rate at which market pressures will force OIL to rise once we hit the peak, compared to our absolute and total dependace on cheap oil would make one worry that natural market pressure will not move us into a transition fast enough.

Depends on how you look at it, but if your asking which one puts more radiation into the air and water while operating exactly as it should be, then coal beats Nuke power hands down.

Dont follow how this leads to your conclusion.

Lets just admit that that Democracy Domino theory is unproven, uncertian, and shaky grounds for basing premptive war.

In my opinion, apocolyptic churches do not depend on the impending demise on the plant, just on the fear of an impending demise.

Chrisitanity is an apocolyptic chuch, and has been for very close to it's entire lifespan.

This is my argument that by itself potentially, possibly, mayby fueling the desires of many in other Arab countries for a free Republic does not justify 800 dead Americans, 9-20 dead Iraqis, 100+ Billion, and a fractured diplomatic world.

The cost does not balance with the benefit.

I would also argue that the effect of a free arab republic on it's neighbors dissenters is much less than certian.  So given this scenerio alone as justification, the cost is massive but the result is uncertian.

I believe that this is yet another grab-bag smoke screen rationale.  We seem to be grabbing on to one rationale until it is proven erronius or misguided, and then we put up another one.  In the shuffle, shifting from one rationale to the next, we get the sense of reason, purpose, and nobility.

If, by terrorist support, you mean support for Palistine, I will disagree with you on the how we define the Palistinians.

If by Terrorist Support you imply some sort of link to Al-Quida or 9/11 (pre-gw2), I would like to see what your proof of such a connection is.  The Bush administration cannot seem to find any.

THIS is a real reason. 

Nobondy will mess with Israel. Period.  We can roll tanks on any nation in the middle east now in less than 24 hours.

Our bases in Saudi Arabia became an enourmous liability to the Saud royal family, and were one of Osama Bin Ladens origional two reason for targetting America.

If every cent from every barrel of Iraqi oil, working at full capacity, were sent to US coffers, it would take about 12 years to pay off just the first $87 Billion.

Iraqi oil itself does not justify the cost.

If you take into account the oil of Saudi Arabia, though, we are talking serious force on the ground to ensure the stability of the flow of Oil.

Ever flowing oil is an essential requirement for the survival of western civilization, in the near term at the very least.

Saudi Arabia is currently unstable, to say the least.

your missing my point. 

What will the neighbors of Iraq see that will move them to envy and wish to emulate?  Iraq has a long row to hoe before any of the appreant benefits of a market economy will begin to show,  hobbled by the unregulated monopolization of essential servces by foreign private industries.  Pre-Invasion levels of industry, unemployment, healthcare, and education are goals yet to be met. 

If you mean a religiously tolerant, socially liberal government, the cards are already stacked against such a government.  It took the murderous hand of Saddam and the might of the US military to keep iraq from falling into a Shite based thocracy led by clerics.  It is the nature and culture of modern Arabs to gravitate towards an islam based religion, and those that desire religious and social freedom in Iraq have quite a battle on their hands.

Arab Cultural Identity and Islam are currenty tied together.  It will take much to seperate the two, perhaps generations. 

I find it implausable that simply forcing Iraq into a representative republic will do, by itself, any more to change the culture and mindset of Arabs in the near term.

The effects of the future government of iraq on it's arab neighbors are far from known.

I would prefer a destitute and moraless society with individual freedoms, over a wealthy one without.

Luckily individual freedom has historicly led to wealthy,productive societies.

I can see how, if it works, an Iraq with personal freedom can in the long run lead to a wealthy productive society.

What I fail to see is how an Iraq with personal liberties directly translates into a whole middle east full of warm fuzzies.

Iraq was, hands down, without a doubt, the most economicly progressive state in the Arab middle east.  Look it up if you like.

Saddam had a chritian and a woman on his cabinet.

Public displays of religion were suppressed, but no religions were favored by the state.

Women as of today have a much more deminished role in society than they had just 3 years ago.

Iraq has free public health care, and has had it for decades.

In bagdhad you can recieve education all they way to college.

even during the Sanctions, all the way up to GW2, baghdhad had lower unemployment than NYC currently has.

Now is that an apperent contrast with the heavy handed dictatorship of Saddam?  Yes.  But then Saddam never saw himself as an Evil Overlord, but rather a man who did what was nessicary to keep in power.  He thought he was a fair man.  It would not be the first tyrant with apperantly conflicting motivations.

sure.

As I understand you and your previous posts, the Iraq War is justified because a Democratic Iraq will both encourage and scare other middle eastern nations into becoming western styled democracies, making the world a safer place for us to consume oil.

I believe you also still believe that WMD did or still exists.

Correct me if I am wrong.

I will not touch WMD, but this 'new' rationale for the war intrigues me.

What you and now the Bush administration are now touting is some sort of Domino Theory.  Is there any sort of precidence for the belief that implanting a democracy forcefully in a hostile area of theocracies and monarchies has changed a region for the better?

Do you think it is a solid assumption that a Democratic, Capitalistic Iraq will somehow change the politics and attitude of the reason?

Do you think the architects of this plan have shown a good track record in understanding and manipulating the 'hearts and minds' of Iraq.  Do you think that the architects of this plan have peace and stability in the middle east as their primary objective, or are their motivations split?

The pentagon, had it's plan been realized unobstructed, would have made Akmhed Chalibi the President of Iraq.  Given the latest information about Chalibi, what kind of disaster do you think we luckily escaped?  Do you think this is an example of the wisdom the architects of the Democracy Domino theory hold?

I think, and I think you know as well, that the beneficial and benign platitudes those pro-war place on this conflict are just thin veils for the actual motivation.

If the history your reading does not include the 'Seer Stones' the 'Salamander Letter' or the Masonic origins of the Temple Rites, your not getting the good stuff.

Also, there is an interesting story about Brigham Young. After Joseph Smith was shot, he made a speech to the Mormon population.  It was said that he glowed radiant and took on the "Countenence and Likeness of Joseph Smith."  This was the evidence for the followers that he was the rightful Heir of the title of 'Prophet' of the mormon people.

Mormons were fastidious journel keepers, and historians have poured over the many journals kept by the followes of Brigham Young.

In the later accounts in Utah, many people who attended the speech recalled their experience in Missouri and the speech of Brigham Young.  the radiance and the apperant morph into Joseph Smith.

But these same people never mention this experience on the actual day of the speech.

It's  interesting in that it is a recorded example of how myths and stories of mericles are formed.