"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglo…@org.trash> wrote in message
news:4638def8.163077062@news.giganews.com
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:26:39 -0600, in a place far, far away, Art Deco
> <e…@caballista.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>> I guess I don’t need to point this out, Brad, but your sanity is
>> seriously in doubt.
> There is zero doubt about it. He is very ill. Please killfile him,
> and stop encouraging him by replying to him. Stop feeding the troll.
You’re talking to an auker, Rand, and auk will stop for no one.
<groups trimmed, ssp added>
–
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant,
as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there
are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:03:45 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
<spu…@databasix.com> wrote:
>You’re talking to an auker, Rand, and auk will stop for no one.
He seems to prefer to debate them. I’m not sure why…
Dale
Of course, it’ll be the military that ends up building
the space infrastructure needed to save the future.
It just dawned on me, the ideal solution is always
found in the union of opposite extremes.
So I decided to google the system specific opposite
extremes ..solar powered space weapons…and up
came this article.
Up came the path to our future salvation.
"…but said that if the concept is successful, it could be a
potential "game changer" for energy use."
I TOLD YOU!
"Hornitschek, who has been exploring the concept of space-based
solar power in his spare time, recently briefed the NSSO on the
concept of space-based solar power, and stimulated interest in
conducting a formal study"
I TOLD YOU!…to have faith in the better idea, with the internet
today it’ll ‘find a way’ to get around.
"The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet the
desires both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on foreign
energy sources, as well as liberals who are looking for an environmentally
friendly source of energy, Kueter said."
I TOLD YOU! …it’s a better idea due to the universal support
this idea should generate.
"Mankins said a large constellation could demonstrate a significant
launch opportunity to industry, and could provide the stimulus needed
for industry to bring reusable launch concepts to fruition."
I’m not saying it again, but oh hell…I TOLD YOU THIS TOO <g>
…that SSP is the path to the best possible future.
s
On Apr 29, 6:55 pm, "Jonathan" <w…@bellsouth.net> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Of course, it’ll be the military that ends up building
> the space infrastructure needed to save the future.
> It just dawned on me, the ideal solution is always
> found in the union of opposite extremes.
> So I decided to google the system specific opposite
> extremes ..solar powered space weapons…and up
> came this article.
> Up came the path to our future salvation.
> "…but said that if the concept is successful, it could be a
> potential "game changer" for energy use."
> I TOLD YOU!
> "Hornitschek, who has been exploring the concept of space-based
> solar power in his spare time, recently briefed the NSSO on the
> concept of space-based solar power, and stimulated interest in
> conducting a formal study"
> I TOLD YOU!…to have faith in the better idea, with the internet
> today it’ll ‘find a way’ to get around.
> "The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet the
> desires both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on foreign
> energy sources, as well as liberals who are looking for an environmentally
> friendly source of energy, Kueter said."
> I TOLD YOU! …it’s a better idea due to the universal support
> this idea should generate.
> "Mankins said a large constellation could demonstrate a significant
> launch opportunity to industry, and could provide the stimulus needed
> for industry to bring reusable launch concepts to fruition."
> I’m not saying it again, but oh hell…I TOLD YOU THIS TOO <g>
> …that SSP is the path to the best possible future.
> s
I laughed over this one:
""The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet
the
desires both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on foreign
energy sources, as well as liberals who are looking for an
environmentally
friendly source of energy, Kueter said."
Hah! As if there were no liberals seeking greater energy
independence, and no conservatives interested in more environmentally
friendly sources of energy.
As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
Since SPS is probably uninteresting (and somewhat overkill) if used
solely for improving military logistics responsiveness, any such
system would probably find interesting civilian uses in applications
where the needs are similar: where you’d like to quickly lay down some
infrastructure that requires electricity. Little as some people might
like it, prospecting for, and extracting, fossil fuels in remote areas
might be one of thos application areas — companies using SPS instead
of burning fossil fuels for these activities might even be eligible
for carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol. Perhaps even certain
marine applications are possible, if you can put rectennas on pontoons
(or could rectennas even be slightly below the ocean surface, if the
microwave frequencies are right?)
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
In article <1177927302.104055.316…@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Michael Turner <l…@gol.com> wrote:
> As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
> eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
> for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
their natural resources, and have a lot more economic pressure we can
apply when necessary, at least to countries that import our energy.
That’s a much stabler and stronger situation than we’re in now, even
though this sort of strength isn’t military in nature.
A good long-term plan would be to produce (and somehow monopolize on)
these SPS farms, and get the rest of the world addicted to our cheap
energy streaming down from space. Maybe we can even give away the first
hit free… ;)
Cheers,
– Joe
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:08:53 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout <j…@strout.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>In article <1177927302.104055.316…@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Michael Turner <l…@gol.com> wrote:
>> As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
>> eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
>> for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
>Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
>a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
>simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
>their natural resources,
Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven’t
been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:08:53 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
> Strout <j…@strout.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>> In article <1177927302.104055.316…@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Michael Turner <l…@gol.com> wrote:
>>> As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
>>> eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
>>> for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
>> Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
>> a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
>> simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
>> their natural resources,
> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven’t
> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
Don’t worry, Rand, the redneck hillbillies and Christian evangelical
fundamentalists are still on your side, so you’re still good to go.
–
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
"Michael Turner" <l…@gol.com> wrote in message
news:1177927302.104055.316360@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com…
> I laughed over this one:
> ""The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet
> the
> desires both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on foreign
> energy sources, as well as liberals who are looking for an
> environmentally
> friendly source of energy, Kueter said."
> Hah! As if there were no liberals seeking greater energy
> independence, and no conservatives interested in more environmentally
> friendly sources of energy.
So …both sides of the aisle like …both reasons for studying SSP.
Not just one or the other? That conclusion only strengthens
the reasoning.
> As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
> eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
> for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
> Since SPS is probably uninteresting (and somewhat overkill) if used
> solely for improving military logistics responsiveness,
One of the most vulnerable aspects of our society to
terrorists is an electrical grid. Having an independent
source difficult for a terrorist to attack might be
a large advantage.
In this paper they explore that aspect in detail.
The New Viability of Space Solar Power: Global
Mobilization for a Common Human Endeavor
Synopsis
"While space solar power has not been economically
viable in the past, new technologies make this
renewable energy source a promising countermeasure
to terrorist sabotage of U.S. and global energy grids.
This paper will also discuss the potential diplomatic
advantage that investment in space solar power
might have for U.S. relations with countries
in the developing world."
http://www.homeplanetdefense.org/Space%20Solar%20Power1.pdf
> any such
> system would probably find interesting civilian uses in applications
> where the needs are similar: where you’d like to quickly lay down some
> infrastructure that requires electricity.
Like in Iraq? Or in space? It seems any large scale use of space
requires an energy infrastructure. But we have to have a reason to
build that infrastructure. Going to the moon doesn’t give
us one. The world energy situation does. Besides
any make-work program like the Vision is hard
to justify suge huge expenditures. SSP isn’t make-work
since it has huge potential returns for everybody.
Early commercial aviation needed the US mail to
get things rolling. I think SSP can play that very
same role for space exploitation.
Space exploration is for robots.
Exploitation is for manned missions.
At least, that’s the way it should be imo.
> Little as some people might
> like it, prospecting for, and extracting, fossil fuels in remote areas
> might be one of thos application areas — companies using SPS instead
> of burning fossil fuels for these activities might even be eligible
> for carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol. Perhaps even certain
> marine applications are possible, if you can put rectennas on pontoons
> (or could rectennas even be slightly below the ocean surface, if the
> microwave frequencies are right?)
Just extropolate computer technology into the future a bit.
Once we have the constellation of SSP satellites, in
whatever form they may take, it should be conceivable
to power individual cars and such from space. Pay your
bill, or like cable tv now, the car just shuts off~
God only knows what our best and brightest might invent
if given a long term research committment. Like that
hundred billion over twenty years for the moon?
More moon rocks or SSP? In an honest debate
SSP would win going away. It’s a concept that
could win the funding, the moon has yet to do
that. I bet the Pentagon could take just a small
portion of NRO slush money and fund the whole
damn SSP program.
I mean, just think of the geopolitical implications
of having the US go from a country slowly being
strangled by the oil cartels that mostly hate us.
And to a US that in a few decades will OWN the
world energy market through SSP.
If the world simply believes we are changing our
future so dramatically, it’ll have effects right away
long before any SSP program is up and running.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> -michael turner
> http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglo…@org.trash> wrote in message
news:46391b06.178451629@news.giganews.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:08:53 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
> Strout <j…@strout.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
> >In article <1177927302.104055.316…@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Michael Turner <l…@gol.com> wrote:
> >> As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
> >> eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
> >> for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
> >Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
> >a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
> >simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
> >their natural resources,
> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven’t
> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
I think Iraq was mostly about the world oil market. Keeping people
like Saddam from controlling it, and with it the world economy.
Keeping the world oil market secure and free is a completely
legitimate reason for invading Iraq. So it’s about oil, but
not stealing it, keeping it available for everyone.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:09:02 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" <wr…@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglo…@org.trash> wrote in message
>news:46391b06.178451629@news.giganews.com…
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:08:53 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
>> Strout <j…@strout.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
>> way as to indicate that:
>> >In article <1177927302.104055.316…@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Michael Turner <l…@gol.com> wrote:
>> >> As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
>> >> eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
>> >> for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
>> >Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
>> >a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
>> >simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
>> >their natural resources,
>> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven’t
>> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
>I think Iraq was mostly about the world oil market. Keeping people
>like Saddam from controlling it, and with it the world economy.
>Keeping the world oil market secure and free is a completely
>legitimate reason for invading Iraq. So it’s about oil, but
>not stealing it, keeping it available for everyone.
That was a minor factor, but if it were the only one, we would also
have invaded Venezuela, Iran, Nigera, Saudi Arabia, Norway, the UK,
etc.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt…
Sorry, but you get a fifty-dollar consolation prize.
But not from me.
Rand Simberg wrote:
> Sorry, but you get a fifty-dollar consolation prize.
> But not from me.
No, but some of your fascist friends :
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/~pdeh/rand_perry.JPG
So, for a consolation prize, we get to look at your shitface.
Now we know who to spit on.
–
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
Joe Strout <j…@strout.net> wrote:
:In article <1177927302.104055.316…@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
: Michael Turner <l…@gol.com> wrote:
:
:> As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
:> eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
:> for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
:
:Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
:a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
:simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
:their natural resources,
No. If we were prone to such things, lots of cheap energy would give
us MORE incentive to invade places for raw materials.
:A good long-term plan would be to produce (and somehow monopolize on)
:these SPS farms, and get the rest of the world addicted to our cheap
:energy streaming down from space. Maybe we can even give away the first
:hit free… ;)
The problem is that SPS energy is *NOT* particularly cheap. If it was
space would already be full of SPS generating and transmitting
stations.
–
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
– Charles Pinckney
On Apr 30, 6:17 pm, simberg.interglo…@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:09:02 -0400, in a place far, far away,
> "Jonathan" <w…@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
> >"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglo…@org.trash> wrote in message
> >news:46391b06.178451629@news.giganews.com…
> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:08:53 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
> >> Strout <j…@strout.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> >> way as to indicate that:
> >> >In article <1177927302.104055.316…@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > Michael Turner <l…@gol.com> wrote:
> >> >> As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
> >> >> eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
> >> >> for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
> >> >Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
> >> >a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
> >> >simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
> >> >their natural resources,
> >> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven’t
> >> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
> >I think Iraq was mostly about the world oil market. Keeping people
> >like Saddam from controlling it, and with it the world economy.
> >Keeping the world oil market secure and free is a completely
> >legitimate reason for invading Iraq. So it’s about oil, but
> >not stealing it, keeping it available for everyone.
> That was a minor factor, but if it were the only one, we would also
> have invaded Venezuela, Iran, Nigera, Saudi Arabia, Norway, the UK,
> etc.
> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt…
> Sorry, but you get a fifty-dollar consolation prize.
> But not from me.- Hide quoted text –
> – Show quoted text –
I’m not so sure that oil was a "minor factor" in invading Iraq, Rand.
Look a couple moves ahead in the geopolitical game: 9/11 was perhaps a
shot over the bow informing the U.S. (and the world) that Saudi Arabia
might be the next major arena of Islamist Revolution (the last major
instance being Iran). Would Americans pump gas into their cars if
they knew some of it might come from a nation whose government
sympathized with, and harbored, 9-11 co-conspirators? I think
Americans would feel queasy and violated even importing goods from
countries that freely consumed Al Qaeda Arabia oil! If so, what are
the implications of a global oil market that has suddenly become too
politicized to be free? Saudi Arabia is still the #1 nation in the
world in petroleum reserves; even if the reserves accounting is
seriously off, the whole peninsula is likely to fall to Islamist
revolution if Saudi Arabia goes, and that would make it *definitely*
the #1 reserves nation on Earth.
With Arabian peninsula oil suddenly coming to be seen as political
poison, you start looking closely at other major reserves. Because
otherwise you’re looking at severe oil shock prices, and the political
repercussions from extended stagflation. Well, Iraq is #2 (maybe #3
after Canada and its tar sands).
Say what you want about Ba’athism, it was a fairly powerful
secularizing force in Iraqi society, making it a much less problematic
nation to invade. Also, unlike Saudi Arabia, Iraq does not host major
Sunni holy cities like Mecca and Medina.
And let’s face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn’t* they invade
Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
The more realpolitik types among them probably regard an extended low-
intensity conflict in Iraq as a way to save Saudi Arabia from Islamic
revolution (intervening militarily on the Peninsula being almost
certainly a non-starter — we don’t yet have credible Global Jihad
against America, but U.S. troops occupying Mecca and Medina and
vetting muslim pilgrims would certainly make one, overnight.) Such a
conflict and the passions it stirs up in other oil-exporting nations
helps keeps world oil markets jittery, which keeps oil prices
artificially high, which helps arrest the long decline in per capita
income in Saudi Arabia. That decline probably represented the
greatest single factor favoring Islamic Revolution in the Land of
Mecca and Medina. After all, revolutions happen not because the poor
and wretched masses rise up, but because relatively comfortable masses
tangibly feel themselves falling.
If there was any such calculation by this administration, well … I’m
reminded of a saying attributed to Hitler: "War is like throwing open
a door onto a darkened room." The secularization of Iraq under
Ba’athism was widespread, but clearly only skin-deep. Iraq is still
one of the most consanguinous nations in the world, and ranks among
the lowest in the world in measures of generalized social trust. In
troubled times, family, clan and tribal ties come to the fore. So
does religion and its consolations. Absent any reliable central
stabilizing authority (even a rather murderous central authority like
Saddam’s), the prevailing attitude toward resolving most conflicts
will tend to be "Kill ‘em all and let Allah sort ‘em out". Iraq hosts
the major holy sites of Shi’ism, a sect with a history of civil war
with Sunni Islam. That civil war seems to be reviving (one of the few
elements of this tragedy in which I am willing to say that Al Qaeda
has played a part, if you could call Zarqawi truly "Al Qaeda".) What
seems to be greater secularization in Kurdistan is really just good
ol’ racialist nationalism: these days, a non-Kurdish Iraqi actually
needs a passport to legally enter Kurdistan, and its Arabs are second-
class citizens.
It doesn’t look good. I wish it looked better. I sincerely hope
David Petraeus succeeds. I find the sentiment of leaving Iraqis to
sort it out among themselves because it’s really their responsibility
now to be morally baseless, if only because about half of Iraq is
under 20 years old. But even Petraeus (reportedly) quotes his odds of
success at only 25%. American voters may doom any such effort anyway
— George Washington had it right when he said that a war can’t be
sustained on an ideal alone, it requires national-interest
motivations. We may end up having to retreat to Kurdistan (which has
a national-interest case: it’s quite stable, quite friendly to us, and
has reserves of oil that could feed America’s addiction for five years
or so (if we had to rely upon it alone, which we don’t.) Jeane
Kirkpatrick had it right when she said that dictatorship is often the
only thing holding a society together. And I guess smart dictators
make *sure* that’s the case — that they will be perceived as evil,
perhaps, but still a lesser evil than their sudden absence. People
who will die for you even if they hate you are stronger than Kevlar,
and lots of Iraqi Saddam-haters died preserving Saddam’s state,
including Kurds fighting other Kurds, and Iraqi Shi’ites fighting
Iranian Shi’ites. And truer words were never spoken by George W. Bush
when he said that tolerating and even fostering dictatorships among
our oil suppliers was one of the worst foreign policy decisons ever
made. Although in his case, that standout truth is conspicuous
against a backdrop of being very economical with the truth, whenever
he wasn’t embellishing it.
Anyway, it’s not as simple as "We invaded Iraq for its oil." But I
think there’s a grain or two of truth to the idea, understood in a
broader context. Obviously, there is no reason to move against the
U.K. or Norway as oil suppliers — they can be counted upon to play
ball. But Venezuela, Iran, Nigera, Saudi Arabia? They all present
their own problems. Nigeria resembles Iraq culturally in some
interesting ways — very high consanguinity, latent internal
nationalism based on tribal affinity and/or religion (with the north
hosting a large and growing muslim population), a skin-deep layer of
secularization over a not very modernized and highly artificial
"nation" with a very corrupt democracy (when it’s not be run by
juntas). Venezuela’s claim to be a democracy is increasingly tenuous
under Chavez, and it’s steadily becoming for South America what Saudi
Arabia is to the world. Iran? Enough said. Saudi Arabia? See
above. If Saudi Arabia becomes Al Qaeda Arabia (in all but name
perhaps), increased dependence on other problematic suppliers may make
them bigger problems, as the Petrostate Syndrome deepens for them —
and they’ll either be uninvadable for all practical purposes, like
Saudi Arabia and Iran, or become potential targets for invasion on
flimsy, trumped-up pretexts. Who knows? In 2015, we may find
ourselves arguing about whether Cuba, which hosted Marxist terrorists
that flew planes into building in Miami in 2011 after post-Fidel state
failure, is really doing as well as portrayed with its U.S.-installed
government; and we might see voters increasingly in favor of a move to
get the hell out of Venezuela, where things seem far less likely to
stabilize — especially in view of how South American states have come
to hate us. Stranger things have happened. Stranger things *are*
happening.
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
Turner <l…@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>> >I think Iraq was mostly about the world oil market. Keeping people
>> >like Saddam from controlling it, and with it the world economy.
>> >Keeping the world oil market secure and free is a completely
>> >legitimate reason for invading Iraq. So it’s about oil, but
>> >not stealing it, keeping it available for everyone.
>> That was a minor factor, but if it were the only one, we would also
>> have invaded Venezuela, Iran, Nigera, Saudi Arabia, Norway, the UK,
>> etc.
>> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt…
>> Sorry, but you get a fifty-dollar consolation prize.
>> But not from me.- Hide quoted text –
>> – Show quoted text –
>I’m not so sure that oil was a "minor factor" in invading Iraq, Rand.
All right, it was a significant factor. The point is, it was hardly
the only one, or even necessarily the biggest one (other than keep it
from Saddam.
>Say what you want about Ba’athism, it was a fairly powerful
>secularizing force in Iraqi society, making it a much less problematic
>nation to invade. Also, unlike Saudi Arabia, Iraq does not host major
>Sunni holy cities like Mecca and Medina.
>And let’s face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
>people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
>Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
>who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
>pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn’t* they invade
>Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
>of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
sanctions.
simberg.interglo…@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
:Turner <l…@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
:way as to indicate that:
:>
:>And let’s face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
:>people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
:>Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
:>who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
:>pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn’t* they invade
:>Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
:>of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
:
:Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
:sanctions.
More importantly, because we did not and do not need the oil. Look at
where the US gets its oil.
If it was ‘all about oil’ we would have invaded Canada; we get more
oil from them than from anywhere else, it’s a lot closer, and the
women are probably friendlier.
If it was ‘all about oil’ we would have simply left Saddam in power
and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
wouldn’t matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
OPEC).
It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
‘aggressive madman in the room with a gun’.
As for ‘active regime change’, I believe CLINTON was calling for that
long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
–
"Some people get lost in thought because it’s such unfamiliar
territory."
–G. Behn
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:21:30 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>> Sorry, but you get a fifty-dollar consolation prize.
>> But not from me.
>No, but some of your fascist friends :
>http://www.samizdata.net/blog/~pdeh/rand_perry.JPG
Which one is Rand?
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>So, for a consolation prize, we get to look at your shitface.
>Now we know who to spit on.
Christopher wrote:
>>> Sorry, but you get a fifty-dollar consolation prize.
>>> But not from me.
>> No, but some of your fascist friends :
>> http://www.samizdata.net/blog/~pdeh/rand_perry.JPG
> Which one is Rand?
I have no idea, I don’t get invited to those kinds of parties.
–
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
On May 1, 5:09 am, simberg.interglo…@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
> Turner <l…@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
> >> >I think Iraq was mostly about the world oil market. Keeping people
> >> >like Saddam from controlling it, and with it the world economy.
> >> >Keeping the world oil market secure and free is a completely
> >> >legitimate reason for invading Iraq. So it’s about oil, but
> >> >not stealing it, keeping it available for everyone.
> >> That was a minor factor, but if it were the only one, we would also
> >> have invaded Venezuela, Iran, Nigera, Saudi Arabia, Norway, the UK,
> >> etc.
> >> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt…
> >> Sorry, but you get a fifty-dollar consolation prize.
> >> But not from me.- Hide quoted text –
> >> – Show quoted text –
> >I’m not so sure that oil was a "minor factor" in invading Iraq, Rand.
> All right, it was a significant factor. The point is, it was hardly
> the only one, or even necessarily the biggest one (other than keep it
> from Saddam.
> >Say what you want about Ba’athism, it was a fairly powerful
> >secularizing force in Iraqi society, making it a much less problematic
> >nation to invade. Also, unlike Saudi Arabia, Iraq does not host major
> >Sunni holy cities like Mecca and Medina.
> >And let’s face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
> >people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
> >Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
> >who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
> >pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn’t* they invade
> >Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
> >of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
> Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
> sanctions.- Hide quoted text –
> – Show quoted text –
As if it were all about markets, rather than geopolitics. An
extraordinarily simplistic view.
The sanctions were all about punishing an entire society for the
transgressions of its leadership. Well, look how well that worked
with Germany after WW I. Lifting the sanctions on Iraq without some
sort of political liberalization and peaceful regional integraton
would have infused the Ba’athist regime with money and arms at a bad
time, while a general sense among Iraqis of having been victimized in
defeat could still be played upon politically. That’s the kind of
thing Hitlers feed upon (and as bad as Saddam was, he wasn’t quite
Hitler at any point.).
And the post-9/11 implications are pretty crucial. Lifting the
sanctions would have increased the supply of oil, reducing the price,
further eating into per capita incomes in nations like Saudi Arabia
where many are predisposed to the sort of political gospel that Al
Qaeda was preaching. Possible upshot: we’d have the world’s largest
reserves of oil controlled by a government sympathetic to Al Qaeda,
and the *second* largest reserves of oil controlled by a Ba’athist
government not much less hostile to the U.S. And, of course, you have
to consider the risks to world oil supply from their mutual hatred of
each other, not their hatred of us — Al Qaeda regards Ba’athists as
dangerous apostates, and Iraqis are hardly ignorant of the role that
Saudi Arabia played in the first Gulf War. Throw Iran into the
dangerous mix (Shi’ites, and therefore apostates to Al Qaeda as well),
and the picture hardly gets any better, does it?
It’s not about what the market price for oil would be tomorrow, with a
source of oil reestablished. It’s also about the possible
geopolitical destabilizing effects from who wins and who loses in that
scenario, over periods of decades. Do people in the Bush
administration think about these things? It would be irresponsible of
them to *not* being paying people to think full-time about these
things.
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
On May 1, 5:58 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc…@earthlink.net> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> simberg.interglo…@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
> :On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
> :Turner <l…@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> :way as to indicate that:
> :>
> :>And let’s face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
> :>people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
> :>Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
> :>who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
> :>pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn’t* they invade
> :>Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
> :>of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
> :
> :Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
> :sanctions.
> More importantly, because we did not and do not need the oil. Look at
> where the US gets its oil.
It’s not all about where it gets its oil today. It’s also where it’s
going to get its oil in 10 years, in 20 years.
> If it was ‘all about oil’ we would have invaded Canada; we get more
> oil from them than from anywhere else, it’s a lot closer, and the
> women are probably friendlier.
Canadian tar sands aren’t profitable until oil goes over about $20-25/
bbl, a relatively recent situation.
> If it was ‘all about oil’ we would have simply left Saddam in power
> and gotten the sanctions listed.
I didn’t say it was "all about oil", I merely objected when Rand said
it was a minor factor.
> Since oil is pretty fungible, it
> wouldn’t matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
> increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
> OPEC).
Somehow, even though I didn’t say it was "all about oil", you seem to
have concluded I believe something I never said: that it was all about
*cheap* oil. Actually, from the point of view of stabilizing Arab
societies where Al Qaeda might hold more popular appeal than the
sitting government, the *optimal* price of oil might have been quite a
lot higher than the lowest theoretical prices. Declining per capita
incomes among those who have become used to comfort are a big
ingredient in any recipe for revolution. And Saudi Arabia was one of
those countries. As Prince Bandar might have put it to Dubya at some
point: "You can pay me now or you can pay THEM later." (Not to
mention that higher prices/bbl tend to mean higher profits for oil
majors.)
> It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
> ‘aggressive madman in the room with a gun’.
Yeah, except he didn’t have a gun, and probably wasn’t even a madman.
> As for ‘active regime change’, I believe CLINTON was calling for that
> long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
As did most of Congress. What didn’t happen, however, was an
invasion. (Well, no *US* invasion, anway. When Ahmed Chalabi, with
American money, tried to send in an invasion force, what happened was
an object lesson in why invading Iraq might not be a terribly good
idea: Saddam-hating Kurds and Saddam’s Republican Guard worked
*together* against it.)
> "Some people get lost in thought because it’s such unfamiliar
> territory."
And some people, on some issues, avoid thought almost entirely because
of their sorry record of getting lost in it.
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
On 1 May 2007 20:20:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael Turner
<l…@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:
>(Not to
>mention that higher prices/bbl tend to mean higher profits for oil
>majors.)
There’s no intrinsic reason that this would be the case.
On 1 May 2007 20:03:58 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael Turner
<l…@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:
>> >And let’s face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
>> >people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
>> >Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
>> >who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
>> >pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn’t* they invade
>> >Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
>> >of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
>> Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
>> sanctions.- Hide quoted text –
>> – Show quoted text –
>As if it were all about markets, rather than geopolitics. An
>extraordinarily simplistic view.
Exactly. So it wasn’t about giving the majors access to the oil. It
was about taking away Saddam’s access from the oil.
<snip>
In article <q77d33d6fajnku6hfatri1v6o0e29pu…@4ax.com>,
Fred J. McCall <fmcc…@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The problem is that SPS energy is *NOT* particularly cheap. If it was
>space would already be full of SPS generating and transmitting
>stations.
Not exactly: the problem is that the *first* powersat is not particularly
cheap. The 50th could be the cheapest energy source around, depending on
what assumptions you make — analyses claiming that powersat energy is
excessively expensive tend to make stupid assumptions like launching all
materials from Earth.
The central difficulty with powersats is not that they are obviously
uneconomical, but that they do not scale down well, which means that (at
least with current technology) a very large up-front investment is needed
to test their viability.
—
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he…@spsystems.net
In article <o1ee3314iglivpv5lnmmtbs1pikrnj8…@4ax.com>,
Fred J. McCall <fmcc…@earthlink.net> wrote:
>If it was ‘all about oil’ we would have invaded Canada; we get more
>oil from them than from anywhere else, it’s a lot closer, and the
>women are probably friendlier.
Maybe you were just afraid to, after what happened the last couple of
times that was tried.
(For any newcomer who doesn’t know what I’m alluding to: the US has twice
)
invaded Canada with the intention of conquering it, in 1775 and 1812, and
both attempts were complete disasters, humiliating total defeats. Each
time the balance of forces favored the invaders, but unpreparedness, inept
leadership, and overconfidence swung the outcome the other way. The
balance of forces has gotten even more lopsided since 1812, but whether
US preparedness and leadership have improved is less clear.
—
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he…@spsystems.net
On Wed, 2 May 2007 14:29:03 GMT, in a place far, far away,
he…@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>In article <o1ee3314iglivpv5lnmmtbs1pikrnj8…@4ax.com>,
>Fred J. McCall <fmcc…@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>If it was ‘all about oil’ we would have invaded Canada; we get more
>>oil from them than from anywhere else, it’s a lot closer, and the
>>women are probably friendlier.
>Maybe you were just afraid to, after what happened the last couple of
>times that was tried.
>(For any newcomer who doesn’t know what I’m alluding to: the US has twice
)
>invaded Canada with the intention of conquering it, in 1775 and 1812, and
>both attempts were complete disasters, humiliating total defeats. Each
>time the balance of forces favored the invaders, but unpreparedness, inept
>leadership, and overconfidence swung the outcome the other way. The
>balance of forces has gotten even more lopsided since 1812, but whether
>US preparedness and leadership have improved is less clear.
Apparently not, based on Iraq, but we’d probably win anyway. I
somehow don’t see Canadians as being very dedicated suicide bombers.
Actually, if we really wanted to conquer a close country for oil,
Venezuela seems like a more likely candidate. And with not only
friendly, but extremely beautiful women.
By the way, Henry, do you have a link to your previous debunking of
Heinlein’s "bombard the earth from the moon" notion from TMIAHM? I
was googling for it and couldn’t come up with anything. The subject
came up on my blog.
On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:47:55 GMT, in a place far, far away,
simberg.interglo…@org.trash (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Actually, if we really wanted to conquer a close country for oil,
>Venezuela seems like a more likely candidate. And with not only
>friendly, but extremely beautiful women.
Not, of course, to disparage in any way the pulchritudinous qualities
of the lasses of the Great White North.
On May 2, 4:37 am, simberg.interglo…@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
> On 1 May 2007 20:20:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael Turner
> <l…@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
> to indicate that:
> >(Not to
> >mention that higher prices/bbl tend to mean higher profits for oil
> >majors.)
> There’s no intrinsic reason that this would be the case.
By which you mean to say that it’s not true, or that it’s not a
reliable guide to future prices? If you think it’s not true, it can
only mean you’re not paying attention. If you think that tendency has
no intrinsic predictive power, I’ll listen to someone with a PhD in
economics with specialization in oil markets before I’ll listen to
you.
-michael turner