ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
...
Pursuing ANWR is not 'alternative energy.' And it's a drop in the figurative bucket.
Cycloptichorn
Yes, pursuing ANWR is pursuing alternate energy. It's an alternate to some middle east oil.
After development, ANWR is potentially a source exceeding 1% of America's energy requirements over the next 50 years thereafter.
All we need is about 50 additional such sources within America to augment our other current and developing domestic sources.
So let's get on with it and ignore the stupid malarkey.
Right, right.
And when those sources run out? Then what?
Here's an idea: move to renewable sources as soon as possible. It is the only solution which has any sort of long-term probability of success whatsoever, and has the potential to save us tremendous amounts of money.
Cycloptichorn
revel asked : what's a piker ?
Quote:piker definition
n.
Slang
1. A cautious gambler.
2. A person regarded as petty or stingy.
piker etymology
[Possibly from Piker, a poor migrant to California, after Pike County in eastern Missouri.]
in ontario a "piker" is a person who is somewhat miserly , a penny-pincher
that's us !
getting back to "private banks" : we stayed for a week in lugano , a beautiful swiss city with a strong italian influence .
we were amazed by the number of banks in a city of less than a 100,000 population - they seemed to be as numerous as cornerstores in ontario !
we stayed in a very nice but small hotel and were amazed that most guests were business people from all over the world meeting in lugano to arrange deals . there were reps from large american drug companies , british banking firms , german engineering firms - you name it !
surely , they could have just easily met in london or new york , i assume . meeting in a small swiss city probably gave them an extra measure of privacy !
hbg
from the website of the "swiss private bankers association" :
Quote:Relying on a permanent secretariat located in Geneva, the SPBA is deeply committed to defending the professional interests and status of the Swiss private bankers. It also plays a decisive role in maintaining favourable legal conditions for asset management in Switzerland.
The Swiss Private Bankers Association devotes all its skills and experience to:
representing the interests of its members in dealing with the authorities in Switzerland and abroad
writing position papers addressed to the Swiss authorities commenting draft legislation or proposals for new regulations
participating actively in the main professional associations at national level
defending the interests of Switzerland as a financial centre either directly or through the Swiss Bankers Association
promoting the private bankers' image in Switzerland and throughout the world
favouring the exchange of information and experiences between its members
Cycloptichorn wrote:Here's an idea: move to renewable sources as soon as possible. It is the only solution which has any sort of long-term probability of success whatsoever...
Its too late. We should have been making the shift away from oil and gas in the 1970s - not primarily for environmental reasons but because the damn stuff is beginning to get short - as we knew it would but pretended it wouldnt. Now the only thing that will make up the shortfall is nuclear.
I don't think we had the technology to do it in the 70's.
I'm not sure we have it now.
ican wrote :
Quote:While I've seen a great many actual Iraq poll results, none of those have actually reported that a majority of the Iraqi people want us out of the country before they are capable of defending themselves without our help.
i can not present any poll results stating how many iraqis want the u.s. to leave .
i am wondering why so many iraqis - particularly those of the middle-class - have left iraq ?
it seems that life in iraq has become like "hell on earth" . so many of those that have the opportunity , have left the country .
i do not know what life in iraq will be if the u.s. should pull out rather abruptly .
i do not think that the u.s. has been able to better the lives of ordinary iraqis during the last four years of occupation ; aside from the many dead and maimed , pictures from iraq show a place that looks much like some german cities after WW II .
wasn't the whole idea to bring peace , freedom and good government to iraq ?
surely , one cannot blame the ordinary iraqis for the death , destruction and miserable state of affairs in iraq ?
hbg
while there was a downward trend of u.s. military deaths from oct 2005 to march 2006 , it seems that there is now a pronounced upward trend .
i can only feel sorry for the precious and mostly young lives being lost in this terrible war !
can their deaths ever be justified ?
hbg
US Can Forget About Winning in Iraq: Top Retired General
US Can Forget About Winning in Iraq: Top Retired General
By Sig Christenson
Agence France-Presse
Sunday 03 June 2007
The man who commanded US-led coalition forces during the first year of the Iraq war says the United States can forget about winning the war.
"I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will - not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat," retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said in an interview.
Sanchez, in his first interview since he retired last year, is the highest-ranking former military leader yet to suggest the Bush administration has fallen short in Iraq.
"I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time," Sanchez told AFP after a recent speech in San Antonio, Texas.
"We've got to do whatever we can to help the next generation of leaders do better than we have done over the past five years, better than what this cohort of political and military leaders have done," adding that he was "referring to our national political leadership in its entirety" - not just President George W. Bush.
Sanchez called the situation in Iraq bleak, which he blamed on "the abysmal performance in the early stages and the transition of sovereignty."
He included himself among those who erred in Iraq's crucial first year after the toppling of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Sanchez took command in the summer of 2003 and oversaw the occupation force amid an insurgency that has sparked a low-grade civil war in Iraq.
He was in the middle of some of the most momentous events of the war, among them the dissolution of the Iraqi army and barring millions of Baath Party members from government jobs: two actions seen as triggering the rebellion among Sunni Muslims, who fell from power with Saddam.
Sanchez is also most closely identified with the Abu Ghraib scandal, which occurred on his watch.
Though he was cleared of wrongdoing by an Army probe, Abu Ghraib's images of naked prisoners humiliated by a rogue torture squad cost Sanchez an almost certain fourth star in the Senate, which approves general officer promotions.
Sanchez, 56, declined to talk about Abu Ghraib or other key events of the war, or say who was to blame for what went wrong.
"That's something I am still struggling with and it's not about blame because there's nobody out there that is intentionally trying to screw things up for our country," he said. "They were all working to do the best damn job they can to get things right."
Despite those good intentions, Americans will be forced to "answer the question what is victory, and at this point I'm not sure America really knows what victory is," said Sanchez, who is thinking of writing a tell-all book about his year in Baghdad.
The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, reacted on Sunday to Sanchez's comments by insisting: "It's just way premature to be talking in terms of victory or defeat."
"What we're trying to do here is stabilize the security situation, particularly in Baghdad, to allow a political process some time and space to work," he said on Fox News.
He said time was needed for Bush's "surge" strategy, launched in January, of ploughing thousands more troops into Iraq "to make a difference on the streets and then time for this political process to unfold."
Sanchez said a large troop commitment would be needed for years to come but conceded it is "very questionable" whether Americans would support it.
Still, he said, "the coalition cannot afford to precipitously withdraw and leave the Iraqis to their own devices."
Andrew Krepinevich, a former aide to three defense secretaries who heads the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, shared that assessment.
"What you are looking at are three factions who are profoundly mistrustful of one another," he said. "Iraq is a country where those on top have brutally repressed those on the bottom, and that is the way they look at seizing power and maintaining power."
Retired Army General Barry McCaffrey, a ground commander in the 1990-1991 Gulf War, said he's trying to remain optimistic but thinks domestic support for the war will evaporate within 36 months.
"I personally don't think it's over yet," said McCaffrey, who recently toured Iraq. He said he thinks General David Petraeus, the coalition commander in Iraq, and Crocker can stave off a wider civil war.
"The question is, can the ambassador and Petraeus open reconciliation talks among Iraqis, and (Secretary of State) Condi Rice - keep the regional powers from meddling any more in Iraq? The jury's out," he said.
hbg, Your graph on US military casulaties is fine, but what would be more defining would be the daily, monthly and yearly average numbers.
question : can it really get much more miserable - particularly for the ordinary iraqis who don't have a chance to get out ?
reading the latest news from the BBC , i am concluding : YES , it'll probably get much worse !
and u.s. general sanchez seems to agree a/t previous post - and so does u.s. lt. col. garver - see below .
hbg
Quote:Most of Baghdad 'not controlled'
US and Iraqi forces control fewer than one-third of Baghdad's neighbourhoods, according to a review of a security crackdown in the city since February.
An interim US military assessment says sectarian violence has diminished in some areas, but is particularly serious in Sunni-Shia areas of west Baghdad.
More than 20,000 US reinforcements are being deployed as part of the campaign.
Details of the report came as police said they had shot a suspected female suicide bomber in east Baghdad.
An interior ministry spokesman said the woman in traditional Muslim dress, walked towards a police recruiting centre and ignored calls to stop.
It's going to get harder before it gets easier. We know it's going to be a tough fight over the summer
Lt-Col Christopher Garver
US military spokesman
Three police recruits received minor wounds from the explosion. The woman died at the scene of the attack.
"Some elements of the mechanised brigade saw a suspicious woman and ordered her to stop, but she didn't respond and approached the recruits, so they opened fire on her and she exploded," a police spokesman said.
Although suicide bombings are a frequent occurrence in Iraq, female bombers are relatively rare.
'Iraqi failures'
A US military spokesman said it would not be possible to judge the success of the Baghdad security plan until all the extra units had been put in place.
Details of the interim assessment included information that US and Iraq forces were in control of just 146 of Baghdad's 457 districts.
The report highlighted a failure of Iraqi police and army units to provide all the forces promised to carry out basic security tasks including manning checkpoints and conducting patrols.
May had the third highest death toll of American soldiers, 127, since the US-led invasion to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein in March 2003.
Thousands of Iraqis have been killed since February.
Correspondents say there was a significant reduction in the number of sectarian killings early on in crackdown, but numbers have now risen again, with dozens of bodies being found in Baghdad almost every day.
President George W Bush won a tough battle with opposition-controlled Congress to fund the crackdown and is under pressure to show progress or start bringing troops home.
source :
STILL LITTLE SECURITY IN BAGHDAD
Well this should make things a little more interesting.
Quote:Kurdish rebels kill 7 in attack on Turkish military base
The Associated PressPublished: June 4, 2007
ANKARA: Kurdish rebels fired rockets and grenades at a Turkish military outpost Monday, killing seven soldiers in a bold attack that heightened tension at a time when Ankara has threatened military action against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq.
The army sent helicopter gunships and reinforcements to Tunceli Province in southeastern Turkey after guerrillas rammed a vehicle into the military post and opened fire with automatic weapons and rockets, local media reported.
Soldiers returned fire, killing the vehicle driver, the military said.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/04/news/turkey.php
I posted this elsewhere, but you may have missed it. This is an excellent piece showing the absurdities and hopelessness of our presence in Iraq.
^5/30/07: Dying for an Iraq That Isn't
By Harold Meyerson (Washington Post)
Of all the absurdities attending our unending war in Iraq, the greatest
is this: We are fighting to defend that which is not there.
We are fighting for a national government that is not national but
sectarian, and has shown no capacity to govern. We are training Iraq's
security forces to combat sectarian violence though those forces are
thoroughly sectarian and have themselves engaged in large-scale
sectarian violence. We are fighting for a nonsectarian, pluralistic
Iraq, though whatever nonsectarian and pluralistic institutions existed
before our invasion have long since been blasted out of existence. In
the December 2005 parliamentary elections, the one nonsectarian party,
which ran both Shiite and Sunni candidates, won just 8 percent of the vote.
Every day, George W. Bush asks young Americans to die in defense of an
Iraq that has ceased to exist (if it ever did) in the hearts and minds
of Iraqis. What Iraqis believe in are sectarian or tribal Iraqs -- a
Shiite Iraq, a Sunni Iraq, an autonomous Kurdish Iraqi state, an Iraq
where Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani or Moqtada al-Sadr or some other
chieftain holds sway.
These are the Iraqs for which Iraqis are willing to kill and die.
Whatever their merits and their shortcomings, they are at least rooted
in reality. These Iraqs have adherents and territory. The Iraq for which
Bush compels Americans to fight has neither.
One of the mysteries of the current discussion of how best to get out of
Iraq is that so many otherwise clear-eyed critics of administration
policy say we should withdraw our combat troops but leave units behind
to train Iraqi forces. As rational policy, it's vastly preferable to
leaving combat forces there as well, but it leaves unanswered the
question of which Iraqi forces, exactly, we should train. Those of the
current Shiite-dominated Nouri al-Maliki government, which has employed
Shiite forces to terrorize Sunni areas? What exactly would we train
these forces to do? Be more tolerant of the Sunnis? Would that we could,
and would that we could train Sunnis to be more tolerant of the Shiites,
but these are matters not subject to training.
When Gen. David Petraeus testifies to Congress in September, he should
be asked how many nonsectarian units the Iraqis are fielding, in actions
that effectively build a nonsectarian Iraq. If the answer is zero,
Congress could declare that it is U.S. policy to bolster Shiite Islam --
or, alternatively, Sunni Islam -- with the force of our arms. Or maybe,
just maybe, it could begin mandating the withdrawal of American forces.
It cannot, alas, compel the Bush administration to engage in the
wide-ranging diplomacy that could result in a formal partition of Iraq
that might be less bloody than the de facto partition currently
underway. The president argues that the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq
is all that prevents an all-out civil war there. Unless you believe,
however, that the U.S. occupation can magically quell or outlast Iraq's
sectarian rifts, then an internationally and domestically negotiated
partition should be the most urgent task of U.S. statecraft.
Many of my antiwar friends were furious at Democratic congressional
leaders last week for their failure to attach withdrawal deadlines to or
cut funding from our occupation of Iraq -- a failure chiefly
attributable to the simple fact that the votes weren't there for either
option. What they should recall, however, is that the much more heavily
Democratic Congress that hastened the end of the Vietnam War during
Richard Nixon's presidency did so by passing a series of incremental
measures, each of which constrained Nixon's warmaking powers a bit more
than the last. In succession, Congress banned the use of funds for
military actions in Laos and Thailand, then (after Nixon ordered the
invasion of Cambodia) banned the use of ground forces in Cambodia.
Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, one of the Democrats' foremost
doves, three times introduced an amendment that would have ended U.S.
involvement in Vietnam within nine months of enactment, but it never
passed.
It took the Democrats, and their dovish Republican allies, four full
years to pass a cutoff of funds for U.S. ground forces in Vietnam, by
which point Nixon had already pulled all ground forces out (though the
legislation kept him from putting those forces back in, which was not a
mere academic possibility). That hardly means that Mansfield betrayed
the cause of peace, any more than Nancy Pelosi's failure to shut down
the war last week means that she sold out to the Bush administration.
Mansfield put one antiwar bill after another to a vote, winning more and
more support each time around, leaving Nixon with fewer and fewer
options. Pelosi is steering the same course, for a war even more
reckless and absurd than Vietnam.
-------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See what's free at AOL.com.
revel wrote:
...
The whole part in its entirety
here
Revel, in the face of all the reported horrors being suffered by the Iraqi people, the response to Iraqi poll question Q10 startled me.
Quote:
The Iraqi Public on the US presence and the Future of Iraq
A WorldPublicOpinion.org Poll
September 1-4, 2006
...
Q10. Thinking about hardships you might have suffered since the US-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?
Worth it 61%
Kurd 81%
Shia Arab 75%
Sunni Arab 11%
in response to what ican wrote re. 61 % of iraqis think it was worth ousting SH .
i wonder if anyone has asked them how much longer they are preprared to continue living the way they are living now - and that it will probably get worse a/t u.s. military leadership ?
i also wonder why 25 % plus of the iraqi middle-class has left iraq if things are now so much better - obviously those that have left iraq have no idea what good times they are missing out on , it seems .
hbg
hamburger wrote:in response to what ican wrote re. 61 % of iraqis think it was worth ousting SH .
i wonder if anyone has asked them how much longer they are preprared to continue living the way they are living now - and that it will probably get worse a/t u.s. military leadership ?
i also wonder why 25 % plus of the iraqi middle-class has left iraq if things are now so much better - obviously those that have left iraq have no idea what good times they are missing out on , it seems .
hbg
Hamburger, I think you are smarter than this post reveals.
You too can refer to the link supplied by revel to get many of your questions answered:
worldpublicopinion Poll 9/2006 re Iraq
How many people are in the Iraq middle class? How many people constitutes 25% of the Iraq middle class? How do you know whether that percentage is more than 25%, equal or less?
The 61% of Iraqis thinking about the hardships they might have suffered
since the US-Britain invasion, personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was
worth it. They did not indicate "in any way shape or form" that they think "things are now so much better." They imply
only that for them things are better than they were. Nor do they imply that those who fled Iraq are missing out on "good times." If you were to study the rest of the poll results you would know that Iraqis dislike and even hate the way things are.
98% of posters on this thread think Ican is an arse, and 99% of those think he is a fool.
It can be seen from these figures therefore, that a very large majority of posters here think he is both an arse AND a fool.
I am not in the minority.
