5 ms·

It's crazy that the US blew over 4 Trillion and countless lives for oil in Iraq. Yet, we spend practically nothing on technology that could offer clean, safe, e

• Zikes 13y ago
  We didn't go to Iraq for oil, we went there so that more of our own money could be funneled from government coffers into politicians' bank accounts by way of defense contracts.
  • scarmig 13y ago
    Even that goes too far. We're terrified of the fact that we live in an arational, incomprehensible world. It's a comforting fiction that some large conspiracy controls everything for the benefit of itself at the expense of everyone else, because at least that admits the possibility of control. And if societies can be controlled, at least in principle they can be fixed. Much scarier is the idea that power stumbles blindly around like a drunken three legged elephant, arbitrarily murdering half a million people for no coherent reason beyond, well, why not?
    • Zikes 13y ago
      I didn't say that the entirety of society is under the control of a single cabal, only that the people in power at the time were able to exert enough influence in that instance to send the country into an unnecessary war so as to benefit themselves financially.
    • byerley 13y ago
      Perhaps scarier and more accurate is the idea that it's done for a very good reason, but that we lack the context/intelligence to understand it as individuals. No one wants to be the organism in a superorganism.
      • tripzilch 13y ago
        Seriously. The regular and systematic murder and disposal of countless innocent intestinal flora, sometimes bordering on genocide, is considered healthy and even joke-worthy by some of us superorganisms.
  • billspreston 13y ago
    The scary thing is (whether true or not) that just by comment you are now on a list, tucked away for the government to use against you in the future.
    • Zikes 13y ago
      If that comment were enough to be used against me, then they would not need that comment.
  • spikels 13y ago
    "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." -Napoleon
• r00fus 13y ago
  There are some who propose that Iraq was invaded in response to Saddam's switch to use Euros rather than Dollars as reserve currency [1]. From a plutocratic viewpoint, that might well be a considered as vile an act as say, using bio-weapons on the Kurdish separatists. [1] http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/22/the-usa-attacked-iraq-because-saddam-had-wd/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/22/the-usa-attacked-iraq...
  • mathattack 13y ago
    Call me naive, but I think it was Junior surrounding himself with folks who wanted him to finish the job that Pops started. I think they (like most who start wars) dramatically underestimating the costs and complexity. I'm less inclined to believe that it has to do with gassing their own people (why start caring now?) or going to the Euro. But I do agree with the above points that we spend an awful lot of time fighting symptoms, when we don't worry nearly enough about ridding ourselves of oil dependency. Energy independence is a long out problem with a lot of vested interests lined up against it - this is precisely the type of investment that does warrant government funding.
    • mturmon 13y ago
      According to those who interviewed the principal decision makers, your "naive" belief is roughly correct. For example, from Mark Danner's recent article (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/mar/06/darkness-dick-cheney/?insrc=hpma http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/mar/06/darknes...) -- "According to those attending National Security Council meetings in the days after September 11, The primary impetus for invading Iraq…was to make an example of [Saddam] Hussein, to create a demonstration model to guide the behavior of anyone with the temerity to acquire destructive weapons or, in any way, flout the authority of the United States." In other words, single out one of the bullies, attack him, knock him out, and by so doing, scare the rest of the bullies. I'm not saying it was either a good idea or an effective idea, but such was was the strategic thinking (if we can call it that).
      • mathattack 13y ago
• Symmetry 13y ago
  If we had wanted oil out of Iraq then Saddam would have been quite happy to give it to us as the price of remaining in power. Heck, we could have just lifted the embargo and all of Iraq's oil would have gone onto the world market and we'd be able to buy more for cheap. If you want to say that the US invaded Iraq because the embargo was going to fail anyways, and this way Iraqi oil production would be delayed by years causing oil production in Texas to be more profitable at least then you'd have a conspiracy theory that made sense. But really it was mostly Saddam overestimating US intelligence capabilities, assuming we'd know that he didn't have any nukes despite what he was telling his supporters, while really the US was relying on the reports from those of Saddam's supporters who defected. Cui Bono doesn't work in a world where there are multiple equally intelligent forces trying to fool each other.
  • specialist 13y ago
    Sorry. No. Cheney and Bush decided to invade, for whatever reason, and concocted a convenient justification. Hans Blix (UN inspector) repeatedly, emphatically explained that Saddam had no WMDs. Etc. Saddam would have been quite happy to give it to us as the price of remaining in power. Saddam had completely capituated and agreed to all of Cheney Bush demands. They invaded any way.
• coolfuzion 13y ago
  I rather think those guys have a very interesting approach: http://www.generalfusion.com/ http://www.generalfusion.com/
• drjesusphd 13y ago
  > I'm happy to see any money going into fusion research, but it does seem that Focus Fusion has a much better chance of delivering in the near term What do you base that on? I've found very little in the open literature.