Our Mission in Iraq by dreamtrove

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Our Mission in Iraq

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Saturday, February 18, 2006 10:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3479
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:09 PM

Merchant Marine,

1. the opposing CIA intelligence report said that Saddam had destroyed the WMDs during the 90s to avoid being discovered. If true, this would explain his initial hostility and growing acceptance of the idea. It's important also to realize that mid east leaders plan a

brink game. They assume if they cave, that more demands will immediately follow. They do this because it is what they have come to expect. It's like the christian group Jill Carroll was captured from, after the Iraqis released five women, the terrorists didn't release

Carroll, but instead went and captured four more of her people and made more demands. I imagine as a mideast leader this only has to happen to you once ro twice before you learn not to budge at all.

2. Don't get me started on the OIL for FOOD program. Argh. I remember when I first heard about the idea. WTF? Let me get this straight. We're going to blockage their food, then the UN will allow them to have food if the give up their oil. Isn't that just a mugging?

Only wwe don't give it to them. we give it to their evil despot. I was astounded that an 'investigation' into the 'corruption' was needed. It was an inherently corrupt idea.

3. I had forgotten about that. But the French role in Rwanda was dispicable.

4. I would quibble about Kosovo et al. Milosevic was evil, and needed to be removed, but there were a lot of little things that annoy me about it. I don't know if you remember Larry Craig's angle on Clinton, who violated an arms embargo to allow Iran to funnel arms

to suspected Al Qaeda on the muslim side because Clinton wouldn't a different territorial outcome. Later there were allegations that involved more Halliburton pipeline contracts, I don't know if that for the reason. Basically, overall, Yugoslavia was an obvious least

death intervention, but it should have been done sooner and stronger. Like with Iraq there was a least death argument towards the end, but it didn't follow. There was still a lot of death after we were done bombing, a lot of Al Qaeda types coming in, it was not what

the people on the ground wanted. I talked to two Kosovars both of whom thought that the US troops stationed in the eastern mediterranean should have been deployed to Yugoslavia, and probably as early as '93-'94.

I have a friend who was on the UN diplomatic corps for Bosnia. In door to door warfare, one city had become completely populated, every last person was dead or fled. The next city down, it was just starting. So they took all the muslims from the next city, and moved them to the dead city. They then surrounded the city with tanks while they set it up. He told me, once it was set up, they sent the tanks away. He was appalled. The following night, Serb raiders came through and excecuted the entire population, they were totally defenseless and got slaughtered.

I guess my basic feeling is the UN is a disaster. They are way too timid, they get at everything half cocked. No, they go 1/4 cocked, or possibly 1/10.
The problem is I don't like war, excessive needless war, and I really don't like Clinton war, and Bush/Cheney war is pretty close to Clinton war. Our leaders say "oh the combat value of the footsoldier is negligable compared to air cover."

What people don't get about boots on the ground is: They are needed to restore law and order. If you just bomb something into oblivion, you create chaos. If you never repair that chaos, you still have that chaos. You can't fight the soldierless war and expect to have an orderly result. In Kuwait we had boots on the ground and we got an orderly result. In Iraq we really don't, and we have chaos. I'm not stomping for the democrat troop boost because I think they just want it so they can invade Iran. But this is no way to win a war.

5. Perot would have made a great president, but he didn't want the job. He flirted with being out so that he could force Clinton to adopt his fiscal plan. I'm not guessing here, I worked for the Perot people. It went like this.

1. He basically said to Clinton "Me being in means you win, so do this budget thing for me, and I'm in."
2. Clinton said "No. I'm going to do my big democrat spending because that's what I want to do, and I don't need you to win."
3. Perot said "Fine, guess what, I quit."
4. The polls very clearly showed over the next few months that actually, Bush was going to win.
5. Clinton called Perot back and said, I'm sorry, I'll do the budget thing, just come back into the race.
6. Perot said "I'm in again."
7. Clinton won and did the Perot budget thing.
8. Perot offered to run again in '96 if Clinton would do more drastic budget slashing, and a cabinet mix up.
9. Clinton made the deal and did what Perot said.

Perot didn't like Bush Sr. personally. They had worked together under Reagan, Perot was a contractor, and he and Bush really didn't get along.

That said, there was a tremendous effort in the late 90s to cut out third party candidates. The republicans were afraid that an endless line of Perots would keep them out of office forever, and the democrats knew they had run out of Perots and were more worried about Naders. So they made a deal to replace the non-partisan election boards with bi-partisan ones, there was a shakeup, and the end result was the third parties got screwed. Honestly, I don't see it as a problem, I think third parties have been splitters more often than anything else, and you can get an outside in on a major party ticket.

6. Nafta and all of those similar things are part of the great compound democracy. This is a one-world govt. plan, and it was drawn up by Max Shachtman in the 70s. If you trace the roots of PNAC and the neocons they all lead back to a handful of little socialist groups, with Shachtman, Leo Strauss, Mike Harrington, Irving Kristol, and a bunch of people like that, intellectuals. These guys dreamt up utopian societies which they would then pass on to aspiring politicians and power mongers like wolfowitz, perle, cheney and rumsfeld. I've gotten into a few shoe throwing matches here on this forum by calling them lefties, but whatever they are, they aren't traditional conservatives. Anyway, they have this grand one world govt. vision. I think that this would be a disaster, it would create a bunch of nuclear superpowers struggling for total dominance, and oppressing their own people to a genocidal degree at the same time, and would likely lead to world war III. The main problem with these ideas, this think tank concocted global strategy concept, is that it's ideogogy, if that's a word. No one actually tried or tested any of these ideas, they don't evolve through the course of experience, they are the concoction of people who think they are much smarter than the rest of us, and also incidentally, much smarter than they actually are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:08 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
P.S. I'm a real republican. Not like my state's senior Senator Specter, who is a democrat in republican's clothing (except when it's convenient to be pretend to be otherwise).

How sure are you?

Arlen Spector is one of the most republican republicans on the Senate, IMHO. If you study the history of the republican party, and it's largely unchanging position for 200 years from J.Q. Adams to George Bush Sr., you'll find that these guys have a lot in common with Mr. Spector.

Objectively, I think the most republican member of congress is either Dick Lugar or John Warner. That's most in line with traditional republican values, not to say I most often agree with them, though I often do. I would say the one I most often agree with is Larry Craig, or possibly Chuck Hagel. Lincoln Chafee is solidly to the left of me, but still a good republican.

Bush is a republican in name only. His policies more closely match the historic platform of the democratic party, which is not surprising because he's really Clinton.

Quote:
This is where you lose me. I see them as diametrically opposed... both personally and politically (politically, both socially & economically). Could you clarify (not for the point of argument, but I'm curious as to how you've arrived at this view)?

Okay. Are you a Buffy fan? If so then this should mean something: Ben is Glory.

Yes. It will take some doing, and it took me a long time to arrive here, and now I'm convinced of it, but can I make it a convincing argument? I'm not sure. I'll try to start here. I've posted a lot of this stuff before. I'll try to be as succinct as possible:

1. Bush is, to a large extent, Cheney. Cheney makes almost all the policy decisions of Bush. Bush himself is nowhere near skilled enough to actually govern, I think this goes without saying.

2. Cheney was extremely influential in the Clinton admin. Clinton merged Halliburton with the military, and gave extensive contracts to Cheney, who was it's CEO. There are even accusations, made by republicans on the Senate floor, that Clinton set policy, and even gave orders to subvert policy, in order to secure contracts for Cheney.

3. So, for starters, both Admins have at least a strong policy influence coming from the same man.

4. Many of the other players are the same. I fyou look at the constituent members of the think tanks making up policy, they date back to 70s democratic groups, and some were in clubs with the Clintons and key Clinton supporters in the Senate

5. The Clinton/Bush transition had the lowest number of position changes in the so called "shake up" of any in recent memory.

6. Bush's domestic policy has been based on heavy federal spending on things like healthcare, and Bush's healthcare proposal which he just made in his state of the union address was *actually written by Hillary Clinton*, as in, I kid you not. This kind of federal management policy differs only in revenue source, Bush's borrow-and-spend is just like the old democrat tax-and-spend, and is going to pay for the same things as tax-and-spend was intended to.

7. Bush has the same allies as Clinton, rather than the traditional US allies, he garners most of his support form communist china and the institution of the EU.

8. Bush's military plan is the same one Clinton was following: Small, low boot number combat, particularly with a mid-east focus, and set to establish a MidEast Union, by taking our Afgh. Iraq, Iran, and Syria. This has been the plan in thes circles for a while. Bush often quotes Clinton to make it look like his agenda is bipartisan. It's not, it's a social democrat agenda, which Bush is following.

9. Bush has not only threatened to veto a number of Republican House and Senate bills, an unheard of thing for a sitting Republican president. The last time there was a president who opposed his own party this much it was John Tyler, who got kicked out of Whig party for it, as a sitting Whig president. Ironically, the opposition to Bush policies in the House and Senate comes strongly from republicans, and in particular, the same ones who opposed Clinton. While this doesn't prove they're the same person, it does indicate they're not diametrically opposed.

10. Bush gets along great with the former president Clinton and his wife, and frequently sends them on diplomatic missions, but refuses to send more traditional republicans. He is so fond of the Clintons that he recently asked our republican senate nominee Jeanine Pirro to step down because he did not want anyone to oppose Hillary Clinton, gag, my senator. He actually said as much.

Now, here's some things an actual republican might do, if in office:

1. Instead of Cheney and the PNAC, the former social democrats, they might surround themselves with not only traditional republicans, but also people from the private sector, this is very common for republican administrations.

2. Introduce a lot of legislation aimed at privatization and reduction of big govt., federal deficits and the like. A republican solution to healthcare would be something involving more private sector competition, not a 600 billion dollar welfare bill written by Hillary Clinton. (Who, BTW, has voted in favor of almost all of Bush's policies, becuase Ben is Glory.)

3. Might focus on working with more traditional US allies, like Japan and Korea in Asia, helping to oppose N. Korea, not transfering troops out, and working to oppose the spread of communist China, supporting other traditional allies like Taiwan. Bush has his head up the ass of communist China just as Clinton did, with the Hong Kong question. And please, I don't want to hear any 'lease is up' stories. Communists conquered the Chinese empire bit by bit, they are no relation to old China, they don't get to conquer other things that other Chinese states conquered for free (apparantly they did) the same way that Germany doesn't get poland for free just because it belong to a previous German empire.

4. Might actually embrace republican foreign policy doctrines such as internationalism, diplomacy and containment. Republican foreign and military policy traditionally is like Chess, whereas democratic policy is like a tug of war. The advantage of the republican policy is that you never end up on your ass.

5. Might actually support some republican legislation such as provisions which would help businesses compete overseas, develop new technologies in the private sector such as alternative energies and stem cell research, and adopt a general pro-business stance. Instead, we're seeing major American corporations face the choice of either a Saudi or Chinese buy out, or go bankrupt. This is very similar to what happened under Clinton, and it's not very pro-American or pro-business. This sort of paranoid fear of new technologies is not a democrat position, it's a socialist one, and comes from the number of former socialists in his govt. We also might see a president support higher moral and ethical standards, and not oppose things like a ban on torture, or geneva conventions, or international law.

6. Finally, he might actually try to support candidates for office. Defeating Hillary in the Senate in '06, if he were to try, would be a lot easier than defeating her for president in '08, and it would have the same effect, to remove her from politics. Hillary, regardless of how unpopular she may be, is a serious threat to the republican '08 race, and should be taken out right now. Because, as has been repeatedly shown, organizing skill and influence peddling have a lot more to do with winning then do the opinions of the politically astute. The most educated voters may not vote for her, but who cares, she has these skills down, and it would behoove a republican to have a mike dukakis to run against in '08 and not have to worry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:41 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
You'll probably be surprised to know that I believe the current business in Iraq falls into the latter category -- and it probably could've been resolved with a good, old fashioned coup or assassination. Nonetheless, hindsight is always perfect, and now that we're there, we need to finish the job right or it was all for nothing.

Latter category? You lost me here. I hope you don't mean terrorism. Nothing's worse for a terrorist than and evil dictatorial police state. Saddam Hussein may have offered money ($20,000) to terrorists, but Iraq was hardly a terrorists best friends. Terrorists like places that they can organize armies of mass hate and destruction, places like Afgh., and Somalia, places already in anarchy. Objectively, the US is a haven for terrorists relative to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, because we allow our citizens freedom. And one of the things we might chose to do with that is to become terrorists. Look around the world where terrorism appears, it's in the places with the greatest personal freedom, the US for instance has had many terrorist attacks. Far more than police states.

Quote:
I do believe, however, that Zarqawi would breed terrorists regardless. The terrorists strike me as the kind of people who don't need an excuse to act.

And he can do it all he wants in Jordan, which is a hole in the sand. I don't want him to have Iraq, which is sitting on trillions of dollars in oil reserves, with which Zarqawi could purchase a nuclear arsenal.

Quote:
Eventually, (hopefully soon) I believe the Iraqi people will be able to stand on their own and keep this to a minimum. Unfortunately, I think it'll always be part of that region, but the aim has to be to control and minimize it as best as possible.

I would hope so to. But also, I'm realistic. The real threats to Iraq long term are: Al Qaeda, Iran, and China. China has openly expressed an interest in funding and arming Iran to invade and conquer Iraq, they did this back in 2000 or something, it was printed in the people's daily, as in 'this is a good idea, it's public policy.' I remember reading it at the time. Zawahiri has made it clear that he wants that oil flow to fund Al Qaeda, and he has more than enough buyers lined up. Since the prize is extremely valueable, China would be willing to spend a lot of money, and various Arabians would invest in Al Qaeda, even billions of dollars if they thought it would pay off. Iraq is going to need one Mother of God Defense, not just a few guys in matching trousers.

Quote:
How can this be anything but speculation, though, unless Bush and his inner circle have confided in you (or elsewhere, where I haven't seen it)? On what do you base this view? Again, not for the sake of argument, but just to satisfy my curiosity.

Intellectuals publish things all the time. Read up on the PNAC crowd, newamericancentury.org and the people listed there, and what they used to do. As a regular visitor I remember when they used to have all this stuff posted, but I've also researched it, they wrote about this stuff then too, they were trying to push Carter into a war in Iran, these same people. This is old stuff. War on terrorism is new stuff, and they had to be dragged into it kicking and screaming by Dick Clarke and some of the boys at military intelligence.

I'm not really given to much speculation. But it's not my job to convince you, just a nod, here's what I understand: These guys, wolfowitz, perle et al, were socialist bent on a troskyite global social revolution in the 70s, and nothing has changed since then, except that they are appointees of a president, who is, sadly, nominally republican.

What I think of them, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al, personally, for what it's worth, I think they're commies. They don't give a damn about freedom, personal or otherwise, and could care less about the private sector, American business, the advancement of technology, progress, or America for that matter. I have no use for them.

[qupte]But, I would imagine that after a while they would've seen that the U.S. wasn't interested in conquest

This isn't the point. It's that they knew we, in the embodiment of democrats, particularly, sought to enforce our will on the world, not like China would, by conquering it, but by intervening militarily to support US-friendly governmental styles. They, too, would seek to influence the world in a similar manner, but their ideas of what was desirable and what was oppressive were in direct ideological conflict to ours.

Quote:
I do think most of the hatred people feel for the U.S., though, is due to envy. The guy on top is always hated.

No argument here.

We had a discussion about this earlier, and there was some number crunching done, and I think it was widely agreed, with one or two dissenters, that the time was something on the order of ten more years before the US is replaced by China as the dominant world economic power. Use them wisely. For my part, I got my info from the CIA, who is also convinced of this. They said 11 years.

Quote:
I do believe, though, that the U.S. never sought a position of global superiority.

Depends how you define superiority. I think it's long been the position of the GOP that we were world diplomat, and the position of the Democrats that we were the global police. We do see ourselves with a global role though.

Quote:
I was only on the internet a few hours before I was doused in a napalm bath. Something about me, I suppose.

I think I was labelled a troll within an hour of being on this board.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 4:36 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Latter category? You lost me here.

I was referring to your reasoning for using military force -- your "least death" barometer. Your latter category was "If military action results in more death then no military action, then no military action should be taken."

I was suggesting that Iraq could've possibly fallen into this category, at least in the short term, and that immediate military action might not have been necessary at the time it was taken. However, we have no idea what Saddam might've eventually done -- which could've easily put Iraq into your former category. Like I've said, hindsight is 20/20.

The reason you probably didn't know what I was referring back to was the numerous paragraphs of my response between your quote on "least death", and my referring back to it as I did.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:36 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
I was referring to your reasoning for using military force -- your "least death" barometer. Your latter category was "If military action results in more death then no military action, then no military action should be taken."

Sorry, got turned around there. Yeah, I was unclear on Iraq, but once it was clear to me where the idea originally came from and why it had been concocted, which was essentially in socialist think tanks of the 70s, and to bring liberalism to the mid-east, the whole idea lost charm for me, or perhaps, even a reason to exist. Later, when more data about Hussein and his status as a fumbling dictator came into light, it was clear that Hussein was like an old Stalin, mass murderer of the past, who could probably be sedated. Or edged on into more mass murder, as Clinton had done. But the real threat here was what a destablized Iraq would become Alqaedistan.

True, this is hindsight, but the folk over at the CIA and military intelligence has made a plenty enough convincing argument for me that this was pretty much know, Saddam could be controlled and replaced, but that Cheney and his eggheads were overly selective in choosing data which supported their position.

When I had to go back and think, well, why would they have done that? What's better about a US imposed state than an internal coup? And that's when I realized that this was never about Saddam, just like it was never about Al Qaeda. It was about three things:

1) Liberalizing the Middle East, about which I do no care, but has been a key concern of the folks at PNAC for some time.

2) Consolidating the Middle East into a Mid East Union, in preparation for transfer to a one world govt. I'm not fond of govt., and I fear a one world police state, and also the war which would lead up to it, but I also think this idea hasn't been openly discussed enough to make it public policy.

3) To gain control of the oil. I think the purpose of this is not so much to get rich as to leverage the world, but I think it's an ill conceived idea. Holding the Middle East is a lot harder than taking it, and even if you hold it, it's not the world's lone oil supply. Once you have the world's oil supply, you have to confront the reality that the world response might be to move to alternative energy. Don't be fooled. These technologies are not 'still on the drawing board' and 'not ready for market.' They've been ready to roll for decades now, they just keep improving on them. I have a design for a car myself that I intend to build someday which never requires a recharge and burns no fuel. I'm sure the boys at Honda and GM have a few in store more than I do.

All of this makes the idea of their arguments of the threat of Iraq to its own people or the outside world, as well as the data backing up those claims, automatically suspect.

That said, I don't mind seeing a lefty looney like Saddam gone, I just don't want to see him replaced with Al Zarqawi.

I guess a final note on this, let's kill this whole plan before things get any worse. We're going to need a massive defense just to secure Iraq from the terrorists, and it would be best if that was an international coalition and well trained and well armed Iraqis.

But let's not invade Iran. Iran is already a capitalist democracy, whatever the flaws, and it's leader, however much of an asshole he actually is, is not really in any way a threat to his neighbors, even Israel. Iran is not a particularly aggressive warlike nation, and is completely surrounded by hostile nuclear powers, two of them being the united states. An Iran with an arsenal of nukes would still be a nation backed into a corner by enemies with superior firepower, in short, nothing more than they are today.

As far as nuclear power goes, we signed a treaty in the 1970s allowing Iran to develop and build nuclear power if they do it on their own in exchange for not seeking nuclear weapons. There's not even, as of yet, any evidence that they are in violation of that.

The only reason Iran is on the nuke path is that they are not dumb. They know very well that they were marked for death by Dick Cheney in something he published back in '98, along with Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Since Cheney is now leader of the most powerful nation on Earth (don't kid yourself that Bush actually makes decisions) and has already taken out Iraq and Afghanistan, and is now threaten Iran and Syria, they know that their number is up. They want any bargaining chip they can find to try to stall the eventuality.

If you're ready to lose American lives, feed international terrorism and bankrupt the US economy, (as well as destroy the image of America worldwide,) in order to bring Women's Lib to Persia, then well...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 6:16 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
I have a design for a car myself that I intend to build someday which never requires a recharge and burns no fuel. I'm sure the boys at Honda and GM have a few in store more than I do.

What power source does it run on? Just curious?

Quote:
If you're ready to lose American lives, feed international terrorism and bankrupt the US economy, (as well as destroy the image of America worldwide,) in order to bring Women's Lib to Persia, then well...

Don't tell Cartoon that! (s)he and buddy Prey will descend upon you from on high!
"You're flexing your e-penis! Too much Virtual Testosterone! You're an Islamic terrorist! We need the Oil in Iraq, that's justification enough! Kill the heathens! Burn 'em, Burn 'em all!"

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 3:41 PM

DREAMTROVE

It's electric, more than that I'm not going to say. But my point was just, there is not shortage of new designs for non-oil consuming vehicles. If you controlled all the oil and withheld it from NK or somewhere, they'd just say "Okay, screw oil."

As far as a money making proposition, oil is big money on a personal or corporate level, but it's nothing compared to a typical federal budget. Bush is going to have wasted $20T by the time he's done. Controlling Iraq is only going to generate $30B a year. Considering the estimates are the conflict will have cost us $2T in the end, and an extra $6T in loss of business, it's only money for the people who happen to own oil companies, it's nowhere near a net financial gain, it's a mega mammoth loss.

Anyway, me and cartoon were getting along fine. It's you liberals who have to duck :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 9:56 PM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
I have a design for a car myself that I intend to build someday which never requires a recharge and burns no fuel. I'm sure the boys at Honda and GM have a few in store more than I do.

What power source does it run on? Just curious?

May I suggest bullshit?

Err no that isn't a snide remark, he lives in the country and biomass methane, from all kinds of organic waste sources has potential for powering vehicles.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:26 PM

CITIZEN

DT, I'm not trying to steal your design, I was just curious

...

I hold out hope for alternate energy; we've got busses in London running off of Hydrogen which is perfectly safe now. I believe there are similar schemes in operation in New York for instance, but with taxis?

All they kick out is water, though I hear water vapour can also cause global warming, but I'm not losing sleep over it. I mean it's got to be better than the cocktail of greenhouse gasses and carcinogens emitted by petrol burning...

And I was getting along fine with Cartoon for awhile, until I spent too long disagreeing with him for the thin facade of Moderate to contain the vicious extreme right wing Christian fanatic within.

It'll happen too you too, in fact it already has if you look up the thread a bit. Don't say I didn't warn ya.

And I'm a Liberal Libertarian, which means left wing in Britain, and simultaneously left and right wing in America, as you point out

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 7:31 PM

DREAMTROVE

Citzen,

Many years ago, I came up with a design for a car, which I sent to a scientist, who then passed it off as his own. I'm not going to post this one to the web, where it will automatically become public domain. I was merely pushing the idea that the usual counter argument "the technology's not there yet" is a fallacy.

No, it's not Fletch's idea, though someone has recently developed such a vehicle, and it's not a bad idea. This is a better use than putting it into our water or food supply.

Upstate we are actually making leaps and bounds on the idea of alternative energy. We have a town which is entirely powered by it's own wind farm, and another with a housing community in which all the houses are self sufficient by having solar panelled roofs which feed massive batteries in the basement. There are corn oil cars and a waterfall provides most of the city's power as you may know. It may come from having money but no oil.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 3:12 AM

CITIZEN

DT:
Seriously I was joking, hence the tongue, it's your design, your idea, you don't want to post it then that's your prerogative, and none of my business I was just poking fun...

Though saying "its powered by ..." isn't the same as making your design public domain

.

You may want to patent it, or if you can't afford that use a poor mans patent, which stops anyone else patenting it, so makes stealing it pointless.

The problem over here with renewable sources is that some people don't want them. Like some locals who live in a windy part of Cornwall fighting to stop a wind farm being built because they're noisy and an eye-sore. Far as I can see they have a choice, wind farm, coal fired power station or no electricity. Half the problem is everyone wants the trappings of modern society (well at least 99.99%) but many think creating them is someone else’s problem.

We can benefit, but someone else has to do all the suffering for it...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 8:04 AM

DREAMTROVE

Citizen

Quote:
Like some locals who live in a windy part of Cornwall fighting to stop a wind farm being built because they're noisy and an eye-sore.

I they are lying to you. We have one here, and it makes no noise. The windmills here were designed by Burt Rutan, the spaceship guy, but if someone wants ones that look different, they can design them differently.

But nonetheless, we have our own grass roots citizens group trying to stop it. These people are led by a normal upstate rural hick, who just happens to have gotten several million dollars in stock options from an oil company. I suspect an investigation into your local Cornwal citizens would reveal something similar.

Myself, I would be perectly happy to make a drastic reduction in power consumption.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 9:10 AM

CITIZEN

That's my thought exactly, I've been near these sorts of windfarms, they were near silent. When you're right underneath them they make some noise, but nothing uncomfortable and at any distance they're fine.

It's possible theres some deals going on behind the scenes, I think the whole "we don't mind the advantages, as long as the disadvantages are someone elses problem..." stance has a big thing to do with it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2006 10:27 AM

FLETCH2

I used to live near the Trent valley, basiclly a long line of coal fired power stations placed there to take advantage of the South Yorkshire coalfield. Beyond that were villages and towns with dozens of coal mines complete with winding gear, chimneys and spoil heeps. Those folks in Cornwall had a nice place to live (with electricity) because the resources needed to produce the energy just happened to be somewhere else, now it's were they live.

If you look at traditional corn windmills they come in a number of designs some of which are prettier than others I'm sure if they wanted they could find a design everyone would like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE