Bush was told Iraqi democracy may be impossible

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Pinto, Aug 14, 2003.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #1
    link

    US intelligence officials cautioned the National Security Council before the Iraq war that the American plan to build democracy on the ashes of Saddam Hussein's regime -- as a model for the rest of the region -- was so audacious that, in the words of one CIA report in March, it could ultimately prove "impossible."

    That assessment ran counter to what the Bush administration was saying at the time as it sought to build support for the war.

    The intelligence community's doubts were fully aired to top Bush administration officials in the months before the war in multiple classified reports.


    Once again Bush gets told one thing, and says the opposite to the public.

    Lets face it, the real reason was always the oil.
     
  2. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    Ahh, who cares if it's possible, we'll do it anyway...

     
  3. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #3
    Re: Bush was told Iraqi democracy may be impossible

    I've never accepted that explanation, at least not entirely. The real reason is control. I have a strong suspicion that in the end the Bush administration will be perfectly happy with an autocratic government in Iraq, so long as that government is pro-American. In fact it may well turn out that the only hope of installing a stable, friendly government in Iraq is to have it be authoritarian. Remember, before it was anything else, the clearly stated Bush policy was "regime change," not democracy.
     
  4. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #4
    Re: Re: Bush was told Iraqi democracy may be impossible

    But the underlying reason to want control is because the Mid East has all that easy to get oil.
     
  5. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
  6. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #6

    Define easy to get.

    1. Sweltering heat
    2. Broken down oil infrastructure, estimates run from $30 to $100 billion to bring it up to snuff.
    3. Religious fundamentalists who want to control the Iraq's people and will use every means possible to do so.
    4. Neighbors, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria that support anti-american terrorism.
    5. Opec does not want the additional oil on the market.


    Hmmm, doesn't look too easy to me. It does sound sort of similar to Texas ;) at least 1 and 3. Nigeria would have been easier, hell, even Libya would be. Oh well, too late now.
     
  7. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    Re: Re: Re: Bush was told Iraqi democracy may be impossible

    It's certainly arguable that the only reason the US cares about the Middle East is oil, but I don't think it's quite that simple. We don't seem to care much about Latin America these days, and they've got plenty of the stuff. Geopolitics are more complicated then that.
     
  8. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #8
    Politically unstable: Colombia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Colombia is already low in total production of oil. Venezuela hasn't exported much oil since Chavez came into power and screwed up their system. Iran is becoming ever more polarized between the mullahs and the secular folks. Al Qaida is entrenched in Saudi Arabia and there is the problem of succession near at hand in the House of Saud.

    Citgo is a Venezuelan-owned company.

    Some 9% of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia.

    The physical quality of American daily living depends on oil. The average American city has a three-day supply of food in the stores.

    The success of the economy depends in large part on the cost of transportation of goods, services and people. It depends even more on availability of fuel for this transportation.

    Now, our efforts around the mideast might or might not be "all about oil". It's entirely possible that they damned well oughta be.

    'Rat
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    The massive levels of oil needed could be lowered by responsible use of it. The government, however, sees no value in conservation. The only solution they see is to get more oil. That's a one-sided solution to a multi-faceted problem.
     
  10. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #10
    Why, then, mac, is there so much effort on the part of both government and industry for such things as fuel cells? These would reduce the demand for oil in transportation by at least 20% if not more.

    I note that a Ballard-cell car was recently driven across the U.S. Cell hp 100; net available, 60 hp. That's better than an IC engine at some 35% net. (Based upon BTU/lb of fuel.)

    FoMoCo sez that the IC engine will be a thing of the past by 2010. They've already "bet" over a billion dollars on fuel cells.

    'Rat
     
  11. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
    The level of effort is minimal in the US and the first fuel cell cars sold here will probably be made by Japanese, not US, manufacturers. The US car makers haven't even put a single hybrid car on the market. The government investment in fuel cell technology is a token intended to inoculate the Republicans against charges that their energy plans rely entirely on oilfield production.
     
  12. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    Why then 'Rat did our Vice President say that conservation is nothing more than a "personal virtue" not a method of reducing demand? When we had our energy crisis here, we basically conserved our way out of it that summer. All the dire predictions of 30 days of rolling blackouts became less than a half dozen once people realized they could make a difference themselves. The government could be doing far more to encourage conservation, and if they did I would be much more willing to support new oil drilling in places like ANWR.
     
  13. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #13
    :D You sound like my wife: "Why did he say that?" :D

    Usually, it's cause the silly dipstick didn't know any better.

    If conservation were the only virtue, we'd sure have us a country full of sinners.

    Hybrid cars so obviously violate the KISS principle that (IMO) they will never be cost-effective in the marketplace. The Ballard fuel cells are now in production and they can't meet the demand. Daimler-Benz, for instance, is using them in city buses.

    I imagine that Toyota, GM and Ford are going nuts trying to figure out a fuel-cell package that they can sell at a profit. But if they're not close to profitable, they just won't do it and I can't blame them. If it won't sell in the tens of thousands, what the hell good is it? The great hope is that very-large-scale production of the cells will allow costs lower than today.

    From what I have read, the present cost of a cell which could supply the "average" house (3/2/2?) with electricity is about twice that of Solar. Solar with that size rectifier would cost around $16,000 plus maintenance, if built with the house. I'm sorta guessing that right now, a fuel cell that would power an econocar would run some $30,000 if not more--plus the rest of the car.

    When you look at some of this R&D, and the problems regarding cost effectiveness, you can be glad that cost-effectiveness wasn't involved in that first moon landing.

    Anyway, R&D money is deductible, which strikes me as a good thing. Funny. Folks talk about the "military-industrial complex" without realizing that "military" = "government". And they ignore the government/military-university-industry complex that's so involved in cars and environment and medicine and even the Internet...

    Be that as it may, we're dependent on foreign oil for another goodly number of years.

    'Rat
     
  14. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    Internal combustion engines also violate the KISS principle, we simply fail to notice anymore because we're used to them. In fact modern car engines are so exquisitely complex, even the manufacturers often don't know how to find and fix problems. And forget your basic shade-tree mechanic -- they can hardly make head or tail out of the tangle of stuff under the hood of a contemporary car. No KISS at work there. So, have you ever looked -- closely -- at the guts of a VCR or camcorder? Tell me that technological monstrosity doesn't violate the KISS principle in spades! Yet they are made by the millions, and very cheaply besides.

    If we were committed -- and I mean really committed to alternate fuel sources, we'd be there in a hurry. The reason we've made so little progress is due to the massive economic and political inertia built up around the way things are done now. It's more expedient to move some elk around in Alaska then to figure out a way to avoid having to move the elk around.
     
  15. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    And I'm not even talking about things that cost more money. At least not over say a max 5 year payback period. Energy req's on all new construction needs to be tightened up overall. Many of our buildings built in the 50's and 60's were built on the idea that it was cheaper to heat/cool than to insulate. Any attention paid to building orientation up front would save on energy costs. New buildings in California are required to meet strict energy guidlines designed to reduce dependance on electricity.

    There are viable sources of clean solar energy on a large scale that can be built now. In fact in Austrailia they are going to build a solar tower that will be able to light 200,000 homes.
    Link

    And in southern California there is a slightly different experimental plant on a different principle.
    Link

    And that is only on the more commercial scale. There are many other options, I can point you to many of them if you require links etc., but the point is that it's more than just fuel cells and hybrid cars.

    There are options out there, and if we would subsidize them to even a quarter of the level we subsidize fossil fuels we could make them viable very fast.
     
  16. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #16
    imo, the moon landing was possible because everyone wanted it. very few in power today seem to want alternative energy.

    i maintain the way to fix a whole ton of problems is to steadily raise the price of gas until it hits $5+/gallon. then we'll see:

    1. consumers demanding better performing vehicles
    2. a serious R&D effort in alternative energy
    3. immediate implementation of technologies working today (wind power, that cool heat tower, wave farms, etc.)
    4. more investment in and use of public transportation

    maybe we'd even stop urban sprawl...
     
  17. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #17
    Not to argue, but to offer some perspective: IC engines evolved over time--many decades, just to get to fuel injection for street use, for instance. Anti-smog equipment and computerized controls took around ten years, each, before they became really reliable.

    There is the same sort of evolution for video cameras and digital cameras. Much of the impetus came from the space effort and the miniaturization needed in that endeavor. The guts of a VCR appear complex, but they're assembled by minimum-wage labor (or its equivalent) who do it step by step.

    The solar panel--as a useful item--has also followed this same path.

    Comparatively speaking, the IC engine is rather sloppy insofar as internal tolerances when you look at something like a fuel cell. I'd rather doubt you could do the equivalent of using 90-weight and STP when things get out of kilter.

    All the above is merely a background as to why I'm not disappointed that we don't have all these wondrous inventions in place right now. And the idea of a lot more money for more research to some extent falls in with the idea that nine women can have a baby in one month.

    Doesn't mean we can't do better in many areas, right now, of course. You just gotta pick and choose which areas upon which to focus.

    'Rat
     
  18. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #18
    I meant easy to get from a engineering standpoint. Flat desert is a lot easier and safer to drill than the ocean. All the other problems arise from political problems.

    This thread was originally about more lies from Bush. Things seem to have been sidetracked (as usual).

    Regarding alternative fuels, the industry is putting bugger-all money into research because it's not wanted as a viable alternative until the oil really does start to run out.

    So I'll guess we'll be waiting say another 15-20 years before there is no more money to be made from oil.
     
  19. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    I grew up as the child of the space era, and to believe that anything was possible where the will existed (at least where technology was concerned). It was in 1962 I think when JFK made the pledge to put an American on the moon -- only a couple of years after we'd just figured out how to get one into orbit and back safely -- and it happened less than a decade later. That was a stupendous achievement. The Manhattan Project brought atomic energy from the realm of purely theoretical science to the very real in just a few years.

    These things can be done. Maybe we've just forgotten what it means to have a will to achieve.
     
  20. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #20
    Try finding a simpler way to locomote four or more people safely, every day at speeds in excess of 60mph.

    Often, complex tasks require complex solutions. It may violate KISS, but it got us to the moon, and it gives us the computers we're using right now.

    The problems there are really:

    there are very few shade tree mechanics due to the reliability of modern automobiles

    ...ergo, auto manufacturers have stopped building cars for easy mechanical adjustment. The "tangle of stuff" you speak of is all basically the same as it was 50 years ago (plus and minus a few components) if you know what you're looking at.

    How it could possibly be done any simpler? How could you shoot digital video with a lens, five transistors and no moving parts?

    (I think) we're in agreeance here that conservation with new technologies is possible if people can get past the overwhelming (new!) technological complexities of them.

    ****, I'd love to take my turbodiesel VW back 80 years or so. I can imagine the sentiment...

    "What a piece of junk the car of the future is!" Where are the points? How the hell can you pull over and adjust the points if you can't see them? Hell, they don't even give you a toolkit! And only one spare tire!?! I've changed three flats this week alone, how the heck could you make it with only one spare tire? These cars of the future are impossible to work on, you can keep them!"
     
  21. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    Who needs democracy in Iraq? We can just install our own dictator, maybe he'll oppress his people enough that they will start pretending to like us. Hey, we could give hin the title of Shah!
     
  22. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #22
    Re: Re: Re: Bush was told Iraqi democracy may be impossible

    Look, if we really wanted it, we could go in and lay absolute waste to the middle east, and kill without cause. However, that isn't it.
     
  23. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #23
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush was told Iraqi democracy may be impossible

    maybe that was too hard a sell to the american public.
     
  24. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush was told Iraqi democracy may be impossible

    Wha wha what??? Sure it's technically possible what with our nu-cu-lar weapons, but what do you think the rest of the world would do if we nuked Iraq? Couldn't and wouldn't happen. So GW and company are employing as much force as the international community will allow. I have no doubt that if there were no cameras in Iraq there would be far more abuses of the population in the name of military expediency. We already face international criticism every time we kill an innocent civilian, what would we face if we killed a couple million? And wouldn't that be exactly what you say we went in to stop Saddam from doing? I mean, it's all about those mass graves right?
     
  25. Inu
    macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    #25
    "and kill without cause"

    well... Sure you could kill everyone left and right, but then you would see the cause of it all soon enough. There are practical Moslemic people all over the place we call earth. If you do such a thing, the gloves would be off. Civil war. Baghdad shootings all over europe, maybe the US. You might have to cage them all up in guatanamo bay'ish compounds. Lets call them Concentration Camps then. And kill them off, for the crimes they wanted to do anyways.

    Way to destabilize the world and lead to genocide on a global scale.
     

Share This Page