Printable View
http://www.chronogram.com/issue/2006/02/news/index.php
The guy is certainly a pessimist, but it's not like he doesn't have good reason to be. I'm actually pretty depressed about the near future after reading this. He touches on Iraq, Iran, and Palestine.
Yes, I share your pessimism about the near future of the Middle East. What a mess. :no: :embarassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by solypsist
Quote:
They just don't get it. It's not going to happen. We're not going to make a democracy in Iraq unless we stayed there a hundred years and we trained 100,000 Americans in Arabic every year to go over there and completely dismantle their society. If that's the way people want to spend their money. Who is paying for the war? The taxes haven't been raised. We're borrowing money. The supplemental budget for Iraq is a hundred billion dollars.
LT: Do we just pull out tomorrow? What now?
RB: I think people ought to start telling the truth, I think the president should get up and say, "All right, we're going to be in this for the next 50 years. The people who were supposed to retire at 60 now get to retire at 75." And then watch. And let the American people decide. I just don't think anyone in Washington can tell the truth.
LT: Regarding the Iraqi people, do you think the troops should leave tomorrow?
RB: Probably, and let it happen. Let the divisions occur.
LT: Then what do you think would happen?
RB: There'd be a civil war.
LT: With how many different factions? I have heard that there are 20 different militias or brigades.
RB: It would make Somalia look civilized.
Quote:
LT: You're painting a total end-time scenario in terms of we're damned if we do or if we don't at this point.
RB: I was in Iran last spring and talked to one of the ayatollahs there. He said, "These people are wolves, are pitiless wolves"—this is the Sunni he's referring to—"and as soon as we get an opportunity we're going to go in and slaughter them." He said this on camera to me, an American, ex-CIA on top of it. There's a great article by Chris Dickey [in Newsweek] about [how] the Iranians all want nuclear bombs. All of them: liberals, pro-American, everybody thinks Iran should have one. What bothers me is, the people in Washington, in the think tanks, really don't know what is going on and are making policy.
Quote:
RB: We don't attack the mosques in Saudi Arabia where these people are being recruited. We don't even want to know. They're the people who are killing us now. Not Zawahiri. Zawahiri is not in charge of Qaeda. And Qaeda is just an idea. Going after him we're seeking retribution as opposed to stopping future attacks, which are coming out of Saudi Arabia.
LT: You raise a lot of questions about the US relationship with Saudi Arabia, that the US is locked in a "harmony of interests" that set the stage for 9/11. Give some evaluation of Saudi Arabia, the US's interests, and why were there 15 Saudis on the planes. Why were Saudi families whisked out of the US? Why do we have this connective tissue?
I like the part where he compares Israel to a Klu Klux Klan colony being placed in Detriot. :rolleyes:
Quote:
It's sort of like if you took a Ku Klux Klan colony and placed it in Detroit and you paid for it.
I tend to share this attitude, but he put it better than I've been able to. I think in order to appreciate something like democracy the driving force has to come from within. Otherwise it runs out of steam pretty soon.Quote:
RB: I think they have to do it on their own, at their own pace. I don't recall anybody arriving in the United States forcing democracy on Americans, or the British, or anybody else. It's a very racist attitude to think that it has to be done from outside.
Ajax
...I wholeheartedly agree with him, and for that, I am very depressed.
Hmmm...yes i see your point. it's misguided. putting the kkk (a group hostile to blacks) in a black neighborhood is different than putting israel (who aren't anti-arab) in an arabic geography.
But i think what he was trying to get across was made, despite itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Best analysis of the situation I've read in ages. Don't know if the situation is quite as bad as Baer thinks it is, but you can't fault the man for intelligence and vision.
I really do wish the politicians would level with us about what we've gotten into. It's a big, ugly, long-term situation, and the American people would do better by knowing the facts. It's not as though Americans can't make sacrifices --we can, and we will, if the case is explained to us, and the cause if sensible. I hold the Republicans in slightly more disgust about this, since as the party in total power, the responsibility for governing is theirs.
But I don't hold any fantasies that the Dems would do better.
Thank goodness for guys like Baer who can call it like they see it.
Considering recent wars such as Vietnam in a smaller country and America finally pulled out. America was not keen to get into WW1 or WW2 for that matter. Sure, things have changed, and perhaps Americans are now keen to go into the lion's den for eternity.
IMO spending say 10% of the money to be spent on troops on methods to find alternate fuels / economy of oil would be money better spent.
I'd love it if America in 5 years time said "yeah, the middle east is still a mess, but look at our new solar panels, hybrid cars and biofuel cash crops!! Get your energy from the USA - who needs the Middle East?"
Impossible? 5 years, definitely. There was an article from the BBC that stated America's energy needs could be met by solar and wind from Texas and 2 other states (I admit they'd be covered by panels and windmills to achieve that), but surely a far more widespread smattering of the things could be possible with capital? Biofuel - look at Brazil.
In essence there is already the tech to drastically reduce the need for oil. We've spent long enough with our economies based on some really dangerous areas, and with far less money than occupation America could genuinely show the world the way forward.
~:smoking:
Well, it's pretty frickin' obvious that we need a Manhattan Project-style effort to get alternate energy up and running. I'm talking about a major push, like the space race. America can go balls-out to develop a new technology when it wants to, and it's clear that we should.
But Clinton was a man without vision, so it wasn't going to happen on his watch. And Bush is an oilman through and through, so we can't expect much from him either. As Iv'e said before, Americans can make great efforts and sacrifices, if someone would just ask us to do so. Our energy situation is a technology problem, and a failure of leadership.
Who knows -- perhaps the next President will actually have some balls and ask more of the American people than our last two Presidents have. Maybe we'll finally get a real push for fusion/solar/wind/tidal harness/geothermal. Something's gotta give. We can't go on funding our worst enemies indefinitely.
That's sound like a mere dream, but if the US were to develop a new kind of energy rather than new sci-fi weapons, it would probably put an end to many anti-american rants in western Europe.
Oh, please. No great scientific advances have happened because the government tried to control market forces. Any money the government invests in trying to find alternate energy will probably be wasted. Look at the subsidies to US automakers to make a hybrid; yet they were beat by Toyota.
Private innovation is a much more powerful force, and one that doesn't require taxpayer's money.
Government designers are not bound by the real world of profits and praticality. It's like designing a car on Jupiter for use on Earth.
Mr. Baer's analysis is interesting. I'm not surprised by the armchair analyst attitude he speaks off. Why go to the 'stans if you can get the same money sitting behind a desk? I'm not sure I agree with his pessimism on Iraq. He makes good points about oblivious politicians and overreliance on satellites over human intel.
Crazed Rabbit
Oh, please. No great scientific advances have happened because the government tried to control market forces. Any money the government invests in trying to find alternate energy will probably be wasted. Look at the subsidies to US automakers to make a hybrid; yet they were beat by Toyota.
Rabbit , are you not aware that Toyotas hybrid development was very heavily subsidised by their government , as was Hondas .
Private innovation is a much more powerful force, and one that doesn't require taxpayer's money.
Following Japans "private innovation free market " success , South Korea has descided to follow their example and increase the subsidies to its own auto industry .
On a sort of related theme , Toyota have branched out into the roof garden business , to avail of the Japanese government subsidies for their new environmental building regulations .
Government subsidies and tax incentives are bad for innovation and development ....yeah right:no:
I've severe doubts of the ability of the US system to actually get the money it invests into the location it should actually end up in. But... how sure are you Toyota didn't get gov't subsidies ? Just wonderin'...
Anyway, massive governement expenditure on "prestige projects" gave us nuclear power, space flight, and all the innumerable spin-offs like computer industry and God knows what else. Just a little reminder.
Somewhat perhaps. But then the anti-America crowd would moan about America not sharing their newly developed technology with the rest of the world for free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
And continue to blaim the poverty in large parts of the world on Washington as they go, for no other reason than that America is rich, the others are poor, and that America therefore through some devilish plot must have bereft them of their share of the wealth. And that's only the European anti-American crowd. I think that outside the west, the distinction between American and European is not that sharply made - reason for me to be quite happy with whatever sci-fi weapons America can come up with.
Anti-Americanism is for losers anyway. Winners like the Japanese sell them fuel efficient cars, France and Europe should work on getting some more contracts for nuclear power plants, teach them how to be less reliable for their energy on the petty dictators of the world.
Better yet, team up in Manhattan-style projects.
But... how sure are you Toyota didn't get gov't subsidies ? Just wonderin'...
Hehehe.....perhaps he didn't type in Toyotas government subsidies into his search function~;)
Curio: Saturday's newspaper had a bit on PGA Peugeot Citroën's diesel-hybrid commuter car project. Just remebered.
Rabbit, there's a place for the market and there's a place for the government. The free market didn't build the atom bomb. The free market didn't build the space prorgam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I am *not* suggesting that we should continue with our wasteful patchwork of pork subsidies to manufacturers who couldn't give a damn about the overall welfare of our nation. Rather, I was suggesting that a full-scale mobilisation would be useful to get us out of the energy trap we're in. Something along the lines of locking up several hundred of our best minds in Nevada and giving them a deadline. It worked before.
And as others have pointed out, both Honda and Toyota received massive subsidies to achieve their hybrids. But it isn't as though hybrids are the answer anyway -- they're nothing but a stop-gap measure with considerable downsides of their own.
It is possible to believe in the free market *and* the possibility of governmental good.
AFAIK the main issue with the hybrids is the cost, which is currently way above standard engines. The Peugeot Citroën folks interviewed in the article said they were aiming to getting a consumer-affordable model out by 2010, but...
Still, at least they work on the existing distribution network. Once people finally get around to replacing gasoline with hydrogen fuel cells or something that'll also require a distribution logistics overhaul, and that is going to be a pain and a half.
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Real change, not just slapping toxic battery packs into cars at taxpayer expense.
[edit]
Teh link was broken. Fixxored.
California is already building Hydrogen Fuel Pumps... and there will be about 150 in service by 2010. Which is still severly small compared to Gasoline Pumps, which number in the 10 thousands probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Well, you gotta start from somewhere.