Science and Technology news... :: View topic

cyril · Guest

pochas@chartermi.net (pochas), notre ami(e) à tous, qu>on aime
tellement qu>on ne l'échangerait pas contre un carton de Lussac-St
Emilion 1990 (deux cartons, je dis pas), a écrit :

[quote]Now Tom, do the "stupids" really think the $300 billion spent on the war
bought them an oil supply?

Or are self - deluded Europeans completely oblivious to the realities that
motivate US policies?
[/quote]
Of course oil is not the only reason.

But it would be stupid to believe that Washington sent troops to Iraq
for purely humanitarian reasons - it would be stupid to believe that
Paris and Berlin opposed it by pure pacifism as well.

--
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
Aldous Huxley

Don Lancaster · Guest

Don Lancaster wrote:
[quote]
Tom Simonds wrote:

I think all we have to do is stop the massive U.S. govt. subsidies of petroleum.

There are NO U.S. govt subsidies of petroleum.
Petroleum is a major income source for the U.S. govt.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462

Please visit my GURU>s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
[/quote]
Any payments the US Govt makes to the oil industry are pocket change
incentives very similar to green stamps or frequent flyer miles.

See http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462

Please visit my GURU>s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Tom Simonds · Guest

[quote]Or are self - deluded Europeans completely oblivious to the realities that
motivate US policies?

The anti-Americanism so obvious in this thread is a product of the effort to
assemble the European Union from a group of otherwise healthy
democracies.
[/quote]
An interview with Noam Chomsky by ZMagazine:

Z: - What are the goals of the American existence in the Iraq and Middle
East?

Noam: - The primary goal, uncontroversially, is to control the immense energy
reserves of the Persian Gulf region, Iraq included. That has been a
prime concern of the Western industrial powers since the time when Iraq
was created by the British, to ensure that Iraqi oil reserves would be
in British hands and the newly-created state of Iraq would be barred
from free access to the Gulf. At that time the US was not a leading
actor in world affairs. But after World War II, the US was by far the
dominant world power, and control of Middle East energy reserves became
a leading foreign policy goal, as it had been for its predecessors. In
the 1940s, US planners recognized that (in their words) Gulf energy
resources are "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the
greatest material prizes in world history." Naturally, they intended to
control it -- though for many years they did not make much use of it
themselves, and in the future, according to US intelligence, the US
itself will rely on more stable Atlantic Basin resources (West Africa
and the Western hemisphere).

Nevertheless, it remains a very high priority to control the Gulf
resources, which are expected to provide 2/3 of world energy needs for
some time to come. Quite apart from yielding "profits beyond the dreams
of avarice," as one leading history of the oil industry puts the matter,
the region still remains "a stupendous source of strategic power," a
lever of world control. Control over Gulf energy reserves provides "veto
power" over the actions of rivals, as the leading planner George Kennan
pointed out half a century ago.

Europe and Asia understand very well, and have long been seeking
independent access to energy resources. Much of the jockeying for power
in the Middle East and Central Asia has to do with these issues. The
populations of the region are regarded as incidental, as long as they
are passive and obedient. Few know this as well as the Kurds, at least
if they remember their own history.

US planners surely intend to establish a client state in Iraq, with
democratic forms if that is possible, if only for propaganda purposes.
But Iraq is to be what the British, when they ran the region, called an
"Arab facade," with British power in the background if the country seeks
too much independence. That is a familiar part of the history of the
region for the past century.

It is also the way the US has run it>s own domains in the Western
hemisphere for a century. There is no indication whatsoever of any
miraculous change. The US occupying forces have imposed on Iraq an
economic program that no sovereign country would ever accept: it
virtually guarantees that the Iraqi economy will be taken over by
Western (mostly US) multinational corporations and banks. It is a policy
that has been disastrous for the countries on which it has been imposed;
in fact, such policies are a prime reason for the current sharp
difference between today>s wealthy countries and their former colonies.

There is, of course, always a domestic sector that enriches itself by
collaborating in running the "facade." So far, the oil industry has been
excluded from foreign takeover, because that would be too blatant. But
it is likely to follow, when attention turns elsewhere. Furthermore,
Washington has already announced that it intends to impose a "status of
forces agreement" that will grant the US the right to maintain military
forces in Iraq and, crucially, military bases, the first stable US
military bases right at the heart of the world>s major energy reserves.

Pete Lynn · Guest

"Tom Simonds" <tsimonds@theworld.com> wrote in message
news:bt4su8$67o$1@pcls4.std.com...

An interview with Noam Chomsky by ZMagazine:

Z: - What are the goals of the American existence in the Iraq and Middle
East?

Noam: - The primary goal, uncontroversially, is to control the immense
energy
reserves of the Persian Gulf region, Iraq included. That has been a
prime concern of the Western industrial powers since the time when Iraq
was created by the British, to ensure that Iraqi oil reserves would be
in British hands and the newly-created state of Iraq would be barred
from free access to the Gulf. At that time the US was not a leading
actor in world affairs. But after World War II, the US was by far the
dominant world power, and control of Middle East energy reserves became
a leading foreign policy goal, as it had been for its predecessors. In
the 1940s, US planners recognized that (in their words) Gulf energy
resources are "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the
greatest material prizes in world history." Naturally, they intended to
control it -- though for many years they did not make much use of it
themselves, and in the future, according to US intelligence, the US
itself will rely on more stable Atlantic Basin resources (West Africa
and the Western hemisphere).

Nevertheless, it remains a very high priority to control the Gulf
resources, which are expected to provide 2/3 of world energy needs for
some time to come. Quite apart from yielding "profits beyond the dreams
of avarice," as one leading history of the oil industry puts the matter,
the region still remains "a stupendous source of strategic power," a
lever of world control. Control over Gulf energy reserves provides "veto
power" over the actions of rivals, as the leading planner George Kennan
pointed out half a century ago.

Europe and Asia understand very well, and have long been seeking
independent access to energy resources. Much of the jockeying for power
in the Middle East and Central Asia has to do with these issues. The
populations of the region are regarded as incidental, as long as they
are passive and obedient. Few know this as well as the Kurds, at least
if they remember their own history.

US planners surely intend to establish a client state in Iraq, with
democratic forms if that is possible, if only for propaganda purposes.
But Iraq is to be what the British, when they ran the region, called an
"Arab facade," with British power in the background if the country seeks
too much independence. That is a familiar part of the history of the
region for the past century.

It is also the way the US has run it>s own domains in the Western
hemisphere for a century. There is no indication whatsoever of any
miraculous change. The US occupying forces have imposed on Iraq an
economic program that no sovereign country would ever accept: it
virtually guarantees that the Iraqi economy will be taken over by
Western (mostly US) multinational corporations and banks. It is a policy
that has been disastrous for the countries on which it has been imposed;
in fact, such policies are a prime reason for the current sharp
difference between today>s wealthy countries and their former colonies.

There is, of course, always a domestic sector that enriches itself by
collaborating in running the "facade." So far, the oil industry has been
excluded from foreign takeover, because that would be too blatant. But
it is likely to follow, when attention turns elsewhere. Furthermore,
Washington has already announced that it intends to impose a "status of
forces agreement" that will grant the US the right to maintain military
forces in Iraq and, crucially, military bases, the first stable US
military bases right at the heart of the world>s major energy reserves.

In the mid nineties, after my engineering degrees I spent a year
studying cognitive science, and the like, to recover my humanity. I
remember at the time thinking that Noam was old hat, though everyone
still seemed to worship him for past achievements. Since then he has
gone on to comment on any number of fields where his academic arrogance
come incompetence has completely got the better of him. He assumes that
some expertise in one field has made him an expert at everything, the
guy really is a moron. He has no grasp of how the real world actually
works and will forever come home hungry in his attempts to understand
it, (it is inherently beyond him), unfortunately many of the sheep still
listen to him. Intellectually, he can not help but define and describe
the world in black in white. He attempts to define the world in his own
overly simplified image, (he is not smart enough to permit complexity),
he is neither an empiricist nor a true scientist.

There is an old saying, ironically one fundamental to cognitive science.
"If the world was so simple that we could understand it, then we would
be so simple that we could not." Noam has actively simplified the world
until he could understand it, and in so doing, can not. Succumbing to
this fallacy is not uncommon among academics, institutionalized in an
ideal world as they are, protected from reality. In truth, academia
tends to select for such simplified intellects, who can be very well
suited to ideal world specialization. Indeed, such people can be highly
useful in such roles, (think idiot savants), but it is very important
not to confused their specialized talent for general competence, for
their benefit and everyone else>s.

Ignorance is where you do not know something, stupidity is where you do
not know you are ignorant. Noam Chomsky is stupid.

Pete.

Dan Bloomquist · Guest

Pete Lynn wrote:
[quote]
In the mid nineties, after my engineering degrees I spent a year
studying cognitive science, and the like, to recover my humanity. I
remember at the time thinking that Noam was old hat, though everyone
still seemed to worship him for past achievements. Since then he has
gone on to comment on any number of fields where his academic arrogance
come incompetence has completely got the better of him. He assumes that
some expertise in one field has made him an expert at everything, the
guy really is a moron. He has no grasp of how the real world actually
works and will forever come home hungry in his attempts to understand
it, (it is inherently beyond him), unfortunately many of the sheep still
listen to him. Intellectually, he can not help but define and describe
the world in black in white. He attempts to define the world in his own
overly simplified image, (he is not smart enough to permit complexity),
he is neither an empiricist nor a true scientist.

There is an old saying, ironically one fundamental to cognitive science.
"If the world was so simple that we could understand it, then we would
be so simple that we could not." Noam has actively simplified the world
until he could understand it, and in so doing, can not. Succumbing to
this fallacy is not uncommon among academics, institutionalized in an
ideal world as they are, protected from reality. In truth, academia
tends to select for such simplified intellects, who can be very well
suited to ideal world specialization. Indeed, such people can be highly
useful in such roles, (think idiot savants), but it is very important
not to confused their specialized talent for general competence, for
their benefit and everyone else>s.

Ignorance is where you do not know something, stupidity is where you do
not know you are ignorant. Noam Chomsky is stupid.

Pete.

[/quote]
I have no interest in the political argument here other than to read.

But you earned a big grin. You seem to have learned in cognitive science
to base your argument on bashing the credibility old Norm instead of
addressing the issue.

And I like the, "If the world was so simple that we could understand it,
then we would be so simple that we could not."

As if to say, you were told you can>t understand the world therefor Norm
can>t understand. Hmmm... Always believe everything you are told?

(Grin!!!!!)

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
dbAtLakewebDotCom

Dan Bloomquist · Guest

Dan Bloomquist wrote:
[quote]
Apparently the Wind Industry still can>t stand on its own

Scroll on down to:

Wind Industry, Environmentalists Split on Energy Bill

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=31-Dec-2003&prgId=3

Best, Dan.

[/quote]
I>m not sure how many folks listened to the clip. But here is what I get
out of it. Yes, congress can be stupid. They fund trash burning along
with renewable energy.

But even if it can be said they were throwing money at wind, it is a
technology that is changing rapidly and has a potential of standing on
its own in just a few more years. Last I read, big turbines are going in
at 85 cents a nameplate watt. That is pretty cool.

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
dbAtLakewebDotCom

Duke McMullan N5GAX · Guest

"Dan Bloomquist" <lakeweb@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3FF6362E.3020907@citlink.net...

[quote]I>m not sure how many folks listened to the clip. But here is what I get
out of it. Yes, congress can be stupid. They fund trash burning along
with renewable energy.

But even if it can be said they were throwing money at wind, it is a
technology that is changing rapidly and has a potential of standing on
its own in just a few more years. Last I read, big turbines are going in
at 85 cents a nameplate watt. That is pretty cool.
[/quote]

There>s something to be said for distributing your eggs among several
baskets.

"Green" energy may work out. My skepticism has an effect on the
workability of G.E. that is indistinguishable from zero. Skepticism on the
part of the funders (Congress, in this case), however, can have profound
effects. If no one is paid to do the research and engineering, it>s likely
that no one figures out how the job can be done.

Of course, funding the projects is no guarantee of success. There are no
guarantees of success, which is too bad, but . . . .

So, Congress funds a LOT of different energy schemes. The better-looking
ones can find private funding, also. In any event, whatever works, the
politicos can say "We supported that!" with perfect, if incomplete,
truthfulness.

Ignoring my cynicism, funding multiple projects is a good idea when you
aren>t sure which one will work, and you know you will need one that does.
If you come up with a winner, people will (mostly) ignore the losers that
you supported, too.

d
--
When you dream in color, it>s a pigment of your imagination.
Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429rl(fe) (505)255-4642 mtmduke@qwest.net

Pete Lynn · Guest

"Dan Bloomquist" <lakeweb@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3FF6351B.1060303@citlink.net...
[quote]
I have no interest in the political argument here other than to
read.
[/quote]
Nor I, hence my response. :-) I could have tried to account for the ten
thousand other factors he has ignored and all the gross assumptions he
has made, but realistically, it would be a waste of time. Most on to it
people know that the world is just not that black and white.

[quote]But you earned a big grin. You seem to have learned in cognitive
science to base your argument on bashing the credibility old
Norm instead of addressing the issue.
[/quote]
Actually in true cognitive science fashion I was addressing the issue,
not what he believes, but why he believes it, (in such a context, belief
is inherently false, and hence to believe is to be wrong as there is no
absolute truth). Did I mention I also studied a little philosophy. :-)

[quote]And I like the, "If the world was so simple that we could
understand it, then we would be so simple that we could not."

As if to say, you were told you can>t understand the world
therefor Norm can>t understand. Hmmm... Always believe
everything you are told?
[/quote]
Why would I believe anything?

It is sort of an extension of Godel>s theorem, though a simpler
contextual proof is that in order to fully understand yourself you would
have to have a complete model of yourself, within yourself, which you
could then fully analyze, in which case you would have to be larger than
yourself, which is a little difficult...

[quote](Grin!!!!!)

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
dbAtLakewebDotCom

[/quote]
When I was younger, I attempted to explain to my sister why some
political situation was not black, as she believed. Six months later
the same discussion came up again in which she now took the white side
of the argument, so to speak. In my youthful stupidity I again tried to
explain to her why the white side of the argument was not correct
either, at which point, recalling the earlier argument, she called me a
liar and stormed out. I no longer argue religion, only why people
believe in it, and the black and white fallacy is, to all intents and
purposes, religion, hence my position above.

But I accept your point. :-)
Pete.

Kimmo Klemola · Guest

pochas wrote:
[quote]In article <3FF54A5C.7060609@lut.fi>, Kimmo Klemola <kklemola@lut.fi> wrote:

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Apparently the Wind Industry still can>t stand on its own

Scroll on down to:

Wind Industry, Environmentalists Split on Energy Bill

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=31-Dec-2003&prgId=3

Best, Dan.

If you compare almost any energy source with fossil energy, it seems to
be uneconomical and wrong choice. This is because of great work done
hundreds of millions of years ago. However, we need to have many sources
of energy, the more so in longer perspective. I think it is good to have
heavier taxes for fossil fuels and subsidies for etc wind. Fossil fuels
are just too easy and cheap. Let>s save some of them to the generations
to come.

What you mean, "we" Kimmo Sabe? (ancient American Indian expression)
[/quote]
Once in US I was asked If I have had any "Kimmo therapy".

Actually "we" here and now don>t need to have too many sources of energy
other than fossil. But if "we" think of our children and grandchildren,
the situation is different.

Kimmo

No One · Guest

[quote]Z: - What are the goals of the American existence in the Iraq and Middle
East?

Noam: - The primary goal, uncontroversially, is to control the immense
energy
reserves of the Persian Gulf region, Iraq included. That has been a
[/quote]
Then why haven>t we staged a popular uprising in SA? Also why in the world
did we let the Shah fall in Iran? Why haven>t we just taken over the oil in
the western hemisphere (Mexico and Venezuela have quite a bit)

[quote]greatest material prizes in world history." Naturally, they intended to
control it -- though for many years they did not make much use of it
[/quote]
The US (and all first world countries), oil and the middle east are
interdependent. Or parasitic depending on your POV.

If the US finds a new fuel source the middle east will become nothing more
than the new Africa where little insignificant potentates fight other little
insignificant potentates while the people starve.

If the oil in the middle east 'goes dry' for what ever reason the same thing
applies but the US (and the rest of the world) will fall into the worlds
worst econ down turn in history.

IOW, its in the best interest of all parties to keep the oil flowing. Look
at what just happened. OPEC just raised the price of oil not because of a
lack of supply nor increase of demand but because at the former price they
were not making enough money to support the life style they are accustom to.

[quote]Nevertheless, it remains a very high priority to control the Gulf
[/quote]
Ah. . .could you tell me just how we "control the Gulf"? If we "control the
Gulf" then why isn>t oil selling for $10/barrel?

[quote]US planners surely intend to establish a client state in Iraq, with
democratic forms if that is possible, if only for propaganda purposes.
[/quote]
To use an old American phrase; Well duh!! What do you expect for the US to
set up a government that would be hostile to the US? But really, if you
read your history you will see how foolish the "client state" statement is.
The two biggest examples of this are the governments we set up in Japan and
Germany after WWII. They are such good 'client states' that neither of them
supported the US in the resumption of hostilities with Iraq. Then there>s
Grenada and Haiti (which we didn>t use military force but can be used).
They are not as good examples because of their size and relative
unimportance in the world.

[quote]It is also the way the US has run it>s own domains in the Western
hemisphere for a century. There is no indication whatsoever of any
[/quote]
Which ones are those and WHY!! What in the world is there in most of the
rest of the western hemisphere other then in North America that the US would
want? The use of military and political power to ensure the free flow of
bananas and mangoes? There is some oil in Mexico and Venezuela but I don>t
see any US troops in either of those.

[quote]miraculous change. The US occupying forces have imposed on Iraq an
economic program that no sovereign country would ever accept: it
[/quote]
As on now, sure. What do you expect? The country has been ravaged by years
of war and years under an egomaniacal dictator. It has almost on enconomy
therefore one must be placed upon them.

[quote]virtually guarantees that the Iraqi economy will be taken over by
Western (mostly US) multinational corporations and banks. It is a policy
that has been disastrous for the countries on which it has been imposed;
[/quote]
Really? You need to point this out to Japan and Germany. We are using the
same basic enco plan in Iraq. Get a government up and running. Pump money
into the country as it rebuilds. Use local people to provide labor and
local companies (where they exist) to provide materials. Get the education
system up and running ASAP because an educated populace makes for a strong
economy in the long term.

[quote]in fact, such policies are a prime reason for the current sharp
difference between today>s wealthy countries and their former colonies.
[/quote]
You are confusing the US with Europe. If you want to use former colonies of
the US then you need to look at the Philippines. A former Spanish colonies
we received after the Spanish-American war. Today they are a free country
and have been so for what 50+ years with a good, if not thriving, economy.
This is because we set up a government and slowly allowed (with a little
bump caused by WWII) it to grow. When it reached the point we felt it
could work alone we let it.

Now let>s look at European example in Africa. They tossed a government
together in the months before they were to pull out. Then they said 'So
long and good luck. We>re out of here!' In a matter of a few years (months
and days in some cases) the country falls into civil war and never recovers.
Millions of people die but what the heck we gave them their country back as
soon as possible didn>t we?

[quote]it is likely to follow, when attention turns elsewhere. Furthermore,
Washington has already announced that it intends to impose a "status of
forces agreement" that will grant the US the right to maintain military
[/quote]
Here>s another "Well duh!" Seeing as the entire area in unstable and
currently the center of the terrorism against the West this in just common
sense.

[quote]forces in Iraq and, crucially, military bases, the first stable US
military bases right at the heart of the world>s major energy reserves.
[/quote]
Hum. . .I guess the military units and large amount of military equipment we
have in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait don>t count. Remember why Osama is PO>ed at
SA? Its because they are allowing US military bases on SA soil.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Energy - Hydrogen Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2