47 replies to this topic

[Reno]

If you don't stop at a checkpoint, expect to get shot. That's not terrorism, that's common sense. Now, IF the U.S. funded the use of motorcycles driven into crowds of innocent people as explosive delivery systems, I might agree that the U.S. was a terrorist state. Since we don't and the foreign criminal minorities in Iraq do, I'll continue calling these foreign fighters terrorists.

Graph of U.S. Defense yearly budgets. Think about this. The U.S., per year, dumps more money into it's military then all other nations combined. That means more research, better equipment, and the best training. I know for a fact we were spending more then all other countries even before the start of the middle east wars. The worlds fastest super computer isn't working on weather forecasting, it's crunching nuclear blast simulations for the pentagon. It wouldn't surprise me at all if half the technologies we think are 30 years off are actually hear but kept out of the private sector to keep the economy from cratering under the stress of assimilation.

The Internet came out and people started trading music for free. Over a few years the music industry is brought to its knees. What happens if a clean free fuel comes out? There becomes no need for petroleum or any industry that creates or distributes it. Car companies either convert or go under, and the world's economy takes 20 years to recover.

Edited by bobscrachy, 30 June 2009 - 09:14 AM.

[TheFountain]

From wiki and 'the predictions of Ray Kurzweil', the Singularity is going to occur in 2045.
But I was under the impression that the technology that the US ARMY is developing is 50 years ahead of current technology.
So shouldn't the US ARMY have passed the Singularity stage?
Do you think they're keeping it under wraps?

Solve

One word. CLASSIFIED.

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source and if they really did have technology 50 years ahead don't you think they would have used it to find people like Osama Bin Laden or crush the terrorist resistance in Iraq by now?

Not unless it serves them to keep things the way they are for the majority of the population. And I take exception to your description of things in Iraq. The 'terrorist resistance' as you so simplistically put it is really just people defending their homeland.

The united states is the guilty party there, not the Iraqis, who I will add have died in the hundreds of thousands since the U.S led invasion. Are you saying the majority of that 100 thousand people were terrorists? eh let's not even discuss this. I am ashamed of the united states in this regard.

The U.S. did not go in and purposely try to kill civilians, they're the unfortunate victims of ongoing battle between the U.S. military and extremist terrorists that do not want us there. No where in the my previous post did I say all the Iraqis were terrorists.

You are being too much of an apologist for the united states. Fact of the matter is that the united states military is responsible for the majority of civilian casualties in iraq due to one fact, indiscriminate targeting. They have not tried that well to distinguish between civilian and military targets. Therefor they have been consciously killing civilians for 6 years.

Again you called the people who defend their own land from invaders 'terrorists'. I always thought the invaders of said lands were terrorists. In this case the U.S military. I am not saying other countries are perfect, but people need to stop being U.S apologists and realize how guilty we are of so much worldly problems. I am sick of hearing about how wonderful 'we' are.

Anyway, back on topic, if you don't think the u.s government can control disclosure regarding new classified technology then apparently you never heard of MK ultra (there are thousands of websites dedicated to it, google it). They can control anything they damn well please. Including peoples minds.

I could be wrong about everything, I mean the universe might just be a worm crawling on the back of some omnipotence that merely has yet to eliminate it, but I am speaking of observed phenomenon right now. Nothing else. And I am going to stop talking about this right now because every time I (or any of us) talks about it our words are processed through some elaborate computer program that is designed to seek out and eliminate undesirable language (technology only 'they' are in possession of).

haha just kidding...

or am I?

I'm calling the religious extremists in Iraq that engage in suicide bombings (that kill their own people) terrorists. Don't tell me you don't view people that engage in said behavior terrorists?

I view people who invade other countries and indiscriminately kill hundreds of thousands of its inhabitants terrorists.

[rwac]

I view people who invade other countries and indiscriminately kill hundreds of thousands of its inhabitants terrorists.

What about people who kill hundreds of thousands of "fellow countrymen" ?

[TheFountain]

I view people who invade other countries and indiscriminately kill hundreds of thousands of its inhabitants terrorists.

What about people who kill hundreds of thousands of "fellow countrymen" ?

The domestic struggles of other countries are none of my business. Nor is their economy or culture. Let them evolve as they evolve. Let us evolve as we evolve. That is the point of diversity. Let us mind our own business.

If the citizens of other countries are going to mount an insurrection against their government for its atrocities, let them. The only thing that the U.S presence in the middle east has ever accomplished was to make more middle-easterners angry at the west. Enough is enough, learn the lesson already.

Edited by TheFountain, 30 June 2009 - 06:59 PM.

[rwac]

The domestic struggles of other countries are none of my business. Nor is their economy or culture. Let them evolve as they evolve. Let us evolve as we evolve. That is the point of diversity. Let us mind our own business.

If the citizens of other countries are going to mount an insurrection against their government for its atrocities, let them. The only thing that the U.S presence in the middle east has ever accomplished was to make more middle-easterners angry at the west. Enough is enough, learn the lesson already.

And what do you propose to do when they attack America, Americans and our interests.
The world is too interconnected to really ignore domestic struggles.

Unless you propose to wall the rest of the world out some how ...

[niner]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if half the technologies we think are 30 years off are actually hear but kept out of the private sector to keep the economy from cratering under the stress of assimilation.

The Internet came out and people started trading music for free. Over a few years the music industry is brought to its knees. What happens if a clean free fuel comes out? There becomes no need for petroleum or any industry that creates or distributes it. Car companies either convert or go under, and the world's economy takes 20 years to recover.

If a clean free fuel comes out, car companies don't go under, they make a fortune because everyone wants to buy a new car now. All the money we used to spend on oil that went up in flames is now directed to productive activities, and everyone benefits. The world's economy grows like never before. Exxon Mobil executives are really pissed off... So unless you want to propose a conspiracy theory claiming that Exxon Mobil exerts undue influence on the US Government, I think your analysis is flawed.

Edited by niner, 30 June 2009 - 11:34 PM.

[TheFountain]

The domestic struggles of other countries are none of my business. Nor is their economy or culture. Let them evolve as they evolve. Let us evolve as we evolve. That is the point of diversity. Let us mind our own business.

If the citizens of other countries are going to mount an insurrection against their government for its atrocities, let them. The only thing that the U.S presence in the middle east has ever accomplished was to make more middle-easterners angry at the west. Enough is enough, learn the lesson already.

And what do you propose to do when they attack America, Americans and our interests.

I propose we leave them alone so they don't attack.

Cause and effect is quite clear in this regard.

It's not about a wall it's about either helping them or leaving them alone. The united states is not helping them, it's killing them.

Edited by TheFountain, 30 June 2009 - 11:53 PM.

[rwac]

I propose we leave them alone so they don't attack.

For instance, do we (the western world) buy oil from Saudi Arabia or not ?
(And thereby support an "illegitimate" regime)

You're mistaken. They will not leave us alone no matter what.

In certain cultures(honour-shame cultures), backing off will be considered a sign of weakness
and will prompt further attacks. The only thing respected is strength.

Edited by rwac, 01 July 2009 - 02:15 AM.

[niner]

I propose we leave them alone so they don't attack.

For instance, do we (the western world) buy oil from Saudi Arabia or not ?
(And thereby support an "illegitimate" regime)

You're mistaken. They will not leave us alone no matter what.

In certain cultures(honour-shame cultures), backing off will be considered a sign of weakness
and will prompt further attacks. The only thing respected is strength.

We tried the strength thing, and where did it get us? I think there is probably a pathway that lies orthogonal to weakness/strength. It would involve doing the right things, like not propping up dictatorships, not buying so much foreign oil, and not supporting settlement building in the occupied territories. I don't think that we can really say that they will not leave us alone no matter what. Our actions create a large reservoir of resentment that can be exploited by religious fanatics. Without that large reservoir of resentment, there may still be religious fanatics, but they will be powerless.

[rwac]

We tried the strength thing, and where did it get us?

not propping up dictatorships, not buying so much foreign oil, and not supporting settlement building in the occupied territories. I don't think that we can really say that they will not leave us alone no matter what. Our actions create a large reservoir of resentment that can be exploited by religious fanatics. Without that large reservoir of resentment, there may still be religious fanatics, but they will be powerless.

Well, Iraq is now relatively stable and free.
Afghanistan is definitely better off without the taliban.
Time will tell.

Dictatorships are generally replaced by religious extremists, with all the problems that creates.
Examples: Taliban, Iran. Both cause quite a few problems.

As for foreign oil, a certain party will not allow drilling in the US or offshore.
What better way to reduce dependence than get our own.
Some estimates say that there may be as much oil in the US as in Saudi Arabia.

This must be the longest running refugee crisis in the whole world, because it's deliberately kept festering.
No one, apart from the Israelis want to see this problem solved.
Hence the continuing rocket attacks on Israel.

[Reno]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if half the technologies we think are 30 years off are actually hear but kept out of the private sector to keep the economy from cratering under the stress of assimilation.

The Internet came out and people started trading music for free. Over a few years the music industry is brought to its knees. What happens if a clean free fuel comes out? There becomes no need for petroleum or any industry that creates or distributes it. Car companies either convert or go under, and the world's economy takes 20 years to recover.

If a clean free fuel comes out, car companies don't go under, they make a fortune because everyone wants to buy a new car now. All the money we used to spend on oil that went up in flames is now directed to productive activities, and everyone benefits. The world's economy grows like never before. Exxon Mobil executives are really pissed off... So unless you want to propose a conspiracy theory claiming that Exxon Mobil exerts undue influence on the US Government, I think your analysis is flawed.

Uh-huh, your right and it takes a car company to make one of these cars from the ground up.

Possibility one is this. Everyone has thirty thousand dollars in their back pockets just waiting for this new free fuel burning car to come out. The automotive industry also has the infrastructure and capital set aside to produce millions and millions of these experimental cars to fulfill this massive abundance of consumer demand.

Think of it this way. There are experimental hydrogen cars available today. You only need to have a couple hundred thousand dollars to be able to buy one. There are several reasons for this. The main reason is that there are no factories set aside to mass produce these things. There all built as a specialty project. There a specialty project because they are experimental. They are experimental because it takes years if not decades to prefect a new technology. This is just hydrogen we're talking about here. There has yet to be a realistic production method for hydrogen that doesn't involve the use of petroleum derived energy.

Possibility two. Let's say this clean free fuel can be used in your current car with little money and modification. Overnight the petrol industry becomes obsolete. Millions of people at car factories loose their jobs because nobody is buying petroleum cars anymore. The few people that are buying petrol cars are getting them modified. So these brand new cars aren't selling for their full value. Since the car factories aren't tooled to turn out these new engines, it takes years to retool them to pump out these new cars. In the mean time those companies that can't go years without incoming capital go under. Think of present day GM and Ford. The petroleum industry with owns refineries all over the nation and world go out of business. Who needs petroleum refineries when you don't need to use petrol anymore. Millions of people lose their jobs. Do you realize how many people work the refineries on the gulf coast alone?? Texas and Louisiana alone depend on the oil industry to survive.

In the end the world would adapt. It would just take years. It would come after another long recession had ravaged the world. Those that would be made unemployed by this new technology would need time to go get reeducation and placement in a new field. It would be a long hard costly situation. Hence, this is why i believe the government is slow to release and adopt cutting edge advances.

I think your analysis is flawed.

Edited by bobscrachy, 01 July 2009 - 06:15 AM.

[niner]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if half the technologies we think are 30 years off are actually hear but kept out of the private sector to keep the economy from cratering under the stress of assimilation.

The Internet came out and people started trading music for free. Over a few years the music industry is brought to its knees. What happens if a clean free fuel comes out? There becomes no need for petroleum or any industry that creates or distributes it. Car companies either convert or go under, and the world's economy takes 20 years to recover.

If a clean free fuel comes out, car companies don't go under, they make a fortune because everyone wants to buy a new car now. All the money we used to spend on oil that went up in flames is now directed to productive activities, and everyone benefits. The world's economy grows like never before. Exxon Mobil executives are really pissed off... So unless you want to propose a conspiracy theory claiming that Exxon Mobil exerts undue influence on the US Government, I think your analysis is flawed.

Uh-huh, your right and it takes a car company to make one of these cars from the ground up.

Possibility one is this. Everyone has thirty thousand dollars in their back pockets just waiting for this new free fuel burning car to come out. The automotive industry also has the infrastructure and capital set aside to produce millions and millions of these experimental cars to fulfill this massive abundance of consumer demand.

There is a lot of money sitting on the sidelines. People are keeping their old cars because there's nothing that special about the new models and economic times are scary.

Possibility two. Let's say this clean free fuel can be used in your current car with little money and modification. Overnight the petrol industry becomes obsolete. Millions of people at car factories loose their jobs because nobody is buying petroleum cars anymore. The few people that are buying petrol cars are getting them modified. So these brand new cars aren't selling for their full value. Since the car factories aren't tooled to turn out these new engines, it takes years to retool them to pump out these new cars. In the mean time those companies that can't go years without incoming capital go under. Think of present day GM and Ford. The petroleum industry with owns refineries all over the nation and world go out of business. Who needs petroleum refineries when you don't need to use petrol anymore. Millions of people lose their jobs. Do you realize how many people work the refineries on the gulf coast alone?? Texas and Louisiana alone depend on the oil industry to survive.

That's not the way it would work. The first cars designed to use the new technology would be expensive. People would still buy gas cars, but would no doubt pay a little less for them. Carmakers would initially get higher profit margins on the new tech which would partially offset the losses on the old tech. People wouldn't stop using oil overnight, because it would take 5-10 years to completely replace the fleet. If it was really that cheap and easy to do a retrofit, then it would be cheap and easy to modify the construction of new cars, so it wouldn't take carmakers long to adapt. If over a short period of time, the need for gasoline cratered, there would be large disruptions in the petroleum industry, but poop happens.

In the end the world would adapt. It would just take years. It would come after another long recession had ravaged the world. Those that would be made unemployed by this new technology would need time to go get reeducation and placement in a new field. It would be a long hard costly situation. Hence, this is why i believe the government is slow to release and adopt cutting edge advances.

I think that some of what you say makes sense, but that you are overestimating the effect by an order of magnitude. There has never in history been a case of a new and better technology causing a long recession. On the contrary, new and better technology makes us all wealthier. (Though some more than others, obviously.) Every new development in consumer technology (8-track to cassette, Pentium 2 to P3, CRT to flatscreen...) has resulted in a new round of money-spending. If the government really had such wonderful but disruptive technology, why would they not quietly go to the automakers and let them prepare in advance? At least that way they would get some advantage from it. They can't really deploy it widely if it's as economically dangerous as you posit, so they would have to lock it away somewhere.

[TheFountain]

I propose we leave them alone so they don't attack.

You're mistaken. They will not leave us alone no matter what.

propagandist bologna...

[Reno]

If there was a lot of money out there sitting on the side lines then these wouldn't be scary economic times. I myself don't have enough money to go out and buy a new car. The unemployment rate here in the U.S. is up to 9%. That means there are at least 27 million people in that boat with me.

you are overestimating the effect by an order of magnitude. There has never in history been a case of a new and better technology causing a long recession.

There has never been an advancement that has completely rendered an industry as massive as the oil industry obsolete. The world is addicted to oil right now. If you were to cut that addiction cold turkey there would be withdraws.

CRT to flat screen is a bad comparison. Compact Disc to P2P is closer. When the factories that made the cathode ray tube were told by the tv manufacturing companies that their product was no longer needed people either retrained, or lost their jobs. The difference between this and your comparison is petrol isn't refined and shipped by the thousands of pounds. It's shipped in the millions of barrels. If people one day found out that they didn't have to pay for gas anymore if they got a thousand dollar retrofit then you would have a surplus of petrol. The price would drop, and there would be no need to retrieve, refine, and distribute it. That means millions of jobs lost and, an industry destroyed.

Every new development in consumer technology (8-track to cassette, Pentium 2 to P3, CRT to flatscreen...) has resulted in a new round of money-spending.

This is true. Each one of these products depended on other companies and other products to work. There is a company that makes capacitors. There is a company that makes magnetic tape. There is a company that makes cathode ray tubes. When one of these advancements hits the economy there is a group of companies that lose. Oil is the cathode ray tube of the car industry. The difference is big oil dwarfs that of all other industries. Big oil will either fall slowly or leave an economic crater big enough to drop the world into another recession.

Edited by bobscrachy, 02 July 2009 - 03:04 AM.

[niner]

We tried the strength thing, and where did it get us?

not propping up dictatorships, not buying so much foreign oil, and not supporting settlement building in the occupied territories. I don't think that we can really say that they will not leave us alone no matter what. Our actions create a large reservoir of resentment that can be exploited by religious fanatics. Without that large reservoir of resentment, there may still be religious fanatics, but they will be powerless.

Well, Iraq is now relatively stable and free.
Afghanistan is definitely better off without the taliban.
Time will tell.

Hmm. Relative to what? And free? Sounds like Maliki is consolidating power in ways that are starting to worry people. I would agree that Afghanistan would be better off without the Taliban, if the Taliban were gone, but it sounds like they are still very much there. Will it be our next Vietnam? Time will tell.

Dictatorships are generally replaced by religious extremists, with all the problems that creates.
Examples: Taliban, Iran. Both cause quite a few problems.

In 1953 Iran, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, the democratically elected PM, was overthrown with CIA involvement. The Shah was installed with our help, and he was a dictator. This event still looms in the minds of Iranians today. The '79 revolution was blowback from this event. In Afghanistan, the Soviets installed a puppet regime in 1980; we and Iran, among others, supported the Mujahideen, some of whom were the Taliban, who eventually took control. More blowback? Sounds like it.

As for foreign oil, a certain party will not allow drilling in the US or offshore.
What better way to reduce dependence than get our own.
Some estimates say that there may be as much oil in the US as in Saudi Arabia.

Other estimates disagree. Burning less oil really is another option, but "a certain party" would not allow it. GM is now bankrupt...

This must be the longest running refugee crisis in the whole world, because it's deliberately kept festering.
No one, apart from the Israelis want to see this problem solved.
Hence the continuing rocket attacks on Israel.

Wow, I can't believe you think that no one besides Israel wants to see the end of the occupation. Do you think the Palestinians like living in a giant prison camp? That really makes no sense at all. The status of Palestine, and particularly of Jerusalem, is simply huge in the Muslim world.

[rwac]

Hmm. Relative to what? And free? Sounds like Maliki is consolidating power in ways that are starting to worry people. I would agree that Afghanistan would be better off without the Taliban, if the Taliban were gone, but it sounds like they are still very much there. Will it be our next Vietnam? Time will tell.

I should have said better off without the taliban ruling them.

In 1953 Iran, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, the democratically elected PM, was overthrown with CIA involvement. The Shah was installed with our help, and he was a dictator. This event still looms in the minds of Iranians today. The '79 revolution was blowback from this event. In Afghanistan, the Soviets installed a puppet regime in 1980; we and Iran, among others, supported the Mujahideen, some of whom were the Taliban, who eventually took control. More blowback? Sounds like it.

Whatever the longer history may be, Carter's lack of support for the Shah triggered the '79 revolution.

Other estimates disagree. Burning less oil really is another option, but "a certain party" would not allow it. GM is now bankrupt...

Only one way to find out, and that is to drill. If the high estimates were true, would you consider drilling ?
How do you propose to reduce oil consumption anyway ? Increase prices, I assume. With all the consequent effects to the economy.

Wow, I can't believe you think that no one besides Israel wants to see the end of the occupation. Do you think the Palestinians like living in a giant prison camp? That really makes no sense at all. The status of Palestine, and particularly of Jerusalem, is simply huge in the Muslim world.

The Palestinians may not want to live in a prison camp, but their leaders certainly want to keep this crisis going.
Everytime things get close to being resolved, there are a new set of attacks.
There are ongoing rocket/mortar attacks on Israeli cities.

Look, if independence and freedom was what the Palestinian leaders wanted, then giving them some
measure of autonomy (withdraw from gaza, west bank, elections, etc) should improve things, right ? It did not.

[Brafarality]

Okay I am going to shut up about this topic now, because I am too scared to continue to talk about it since obviously very few on this website feel this way. But there are forums all over the net in which people openly discuss these issues without fear. I just do not want to be the only one talking about this stuff, it starts to feel lonely and frightening when so many other's are clueless about it. And perhaps I start getting paranoid. So that's it, I am shutting up about it until someone else shows me they aren't so naive on this subject.

Do not fear, Fountain.

Maybe in late 2001, early 2002, this was a subject that could legitimately cause you some grief, but not at this moment in time, and, probably, never again, even if we are attacked again.
It is a shame me twice thing.

You are being far more patriotic than any useless flag waving hick when you question the government.
This country was founded on principles of personal liberty and distrust of government.

In fact, it might disturb you to know just how conventional and in-line with the forefathers you are!

[Connor MacLeod]

In 1953 Iran, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, the democratically elected PM, was overthrown with CIA involvement.

Mossadegh was in fact not democratically elected as prime minister; he became PM by being selected by the Shah and then confirmed by parliament. The members of parliament were democratically elected; and interestingly, it was Mossadegh who invoked non-constitutional emergency powers to dissolve parlaiment.