[mike777]

Cynicism is not a coherent plan.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Cynicism is not a coherent plan.

Neither is ignorance of history

The white invaders reduced the Native American population by over 90%.

You wish to do this to the Muslims who live in the Middle East?

Peter

[Winstonm]

mike777, on May 26 2007, 07:32 PM, said:

Cynicism is not a coherent plan.

Credit where credit is due. That was good. LoL.

[Winstonm]

I do have a plan, though.
Allow other nations to self govern without intervention.
Defend the U.S. against invasion.
Defend individual rights as guaranteed by the U.S. constitution.

Now, Mike, let me ask you some questions. As you are surely aware, I have railed against the subjugation of individual rights in order to strengthen the executive branch.

The Military Commission Act allows the president to declare anyone, citizen or not, an enemy combattant and place them in the custody of the military, where the Military Commissions Act applies, which allows no habeus corpus, allows torture and forced confessions, and can use hearsay evidence to not only convict but sentence to death and execute such sentence - all with no oversight from Congress or the Judicial branch.

Are these necessary products of the global war in which you believe and are they right and justifiable actions in order to conduct the war?

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, here are my suggestions:

1. Write off Iraq as a bad investment. I don't think there is any point wasting any more money. I'd pull the troops out as quickly as possible, recognizing that this will take 12 - 18 months. Accept that Iraq is going to burn. With luck, the Iraqi's will be too distracted killing each other to cause much trouble else where.

2. Re-allocate the funds used for the War in Iraq for financial aid packages in other parts of the developing world. Work to improve things in countries like Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the like. I think that the best chance of creating long term stability in Iraq is to integrate countries like Egypt into the broader world economy. We need the equivalent of the Marshall Plan for the Middle East...

3. Institute a serious carbon tax. (I favor a carbon tax for a number of reasons. I consider this relevant here because we I believe that the US needs to ween itself away from Middle Eastern petroleum)

4. Everyone knows what the solution to the Palestinian - Israeli problem looks like. Dictate terms to both sides.

[pbleighton]

Quote

For what its worth, here are my suggestions:

1. Write off Iraq as a bad investment. I don't think there is any point wasting any more money. I'd pull the troops out as quickly as possible, recognizing that this will take 12 - 18 months. Accept that Iraq is going to burn. With luck, the Iraqi's will be too distracted killing each other to cause much trouble else where.

2. Re-allocate the funds used for the War in Iraq for financial aid packages in other parts of the developing world. Work to improve things in countries like Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the like. I think that the best chance of creating long term stability in Iraq is to integrate countries like Egypt into the broader world economy. We need the equivalent of the Marshall Plan for the Middle East...

3. Institute a serious carbon tax. (I favor a carbon tax for a number of reasons. I consider this relevant here because we I believe that the US needs to ween itself away from Middle Eastern petroleum)

4. Everyone knows what the solution to the Palestinian - Israeli problem looks like. Dictate terms to both sides.

Richard, I agree with 1-3, but how do you propose to accomplish 4?

Peter

[mike777]

You have mentioned the carbon tax and your thoughts often.

I have come around to where I think we need to encourage the use of carbon/fossil fuels not discourage them.

Of course I am not advocating all of us choking on dirty air or drinking filthy water.
I am talking about incentives to encourage the use of carbon based or fossil fuels not a disincentive such as a carbon tax.

I want to drive demand and supply up. Let the price go wherever the market places it.

To phrase it in other words I want the Law of Demand to kick in without price controls. One simple example of this is to remove the gas mileage requirements on cars and trucks. Another is make it easier to drill for oil and build refineries in the USA.

If people wish to impose more stringent pollution laws in terms of allowable measurements of particles in the air and water, so be it. IF this is what you mean by a carbon tax on an individual basis, then I am all for it. I am against paying more in gas taxes in general, tax the car..not the gas.

Your business or car or truck can put as much pollution in the air/water as you wish. You just pay for it.

[pbleighton]

Quote

You have mentioned the carbon tax and your thoughts often.

I have come around to where I think we need to encourage the use of carbon/fossil fuels not discourage them.

Of course I am not advocating all of us choking on dirty air or drinking filthy water.
I am talking about incentives to encourage the use of carbon based or fossil fuels not a disincentive such as a carbon tax.

I want to drive demand and supply up. Let the price go wherever the market places it.

To phrase it in other words I want the Law of Demand to kick in without price controls. One simple example of this is to remove the gas mileage requirements on cars and trucks. Another is make it easier to drill for oil and build refineries in the USA.

If people wish to impose more stringent pollution laws in terms of allowable measurements of particles in the air and water, so be it.

Your business or car or truck can put as much pollution in the air/water as you wish. You just pay for it.

Rationale?

Peter

[mike777]

pbleighton, on May 26 2007, 08:14 PM, said:

Quote

You have mentioned the carbon tax and your thoughts often.

I have come around to where I think we need to encourage the use of carbon/fossil fuels not discourage them.

Of course I am not advocating all of us choking on dirty air or drinking filthy water.
I am talking about incentives to encourage the use of carbon based or fossil fuels not a disincentive such as a carbon tax.

I want to drive demand and supply up. Let the price go wherever the market places it.

To phrase it in other words I want the Law of Demand to kick in without price controls. One simple example of this is to remove the gas mileage requirements on cars and trucks. Another is make it easier to drill for oil and build refineries in the USA.

If people wish to impose more stringent pollution laws in terms of allowable measurements of particles in the air and water, so be it.

Your business or car or truck can put as much pollution in the air/water as you wish. You just pay for it.

Rationale?

Peter

I assume we will use up the cheaper sources first and then use up the more expensive sources next. The goal is to use up the supply faster, not draw out the supply for decades and decades longer.

The combination of increasing price and decreasing supply should regulate demand and spur alternative sources faster. The alternative is for the government to decide what is the best alternative source of energy not the markets. Disaster.

See government subsidies. If the government wants to fund basic science, that is fine. If the government wants to bet on Sugar Cane fuel, that is a Disaster.

[pbleighton]

Quote

The combination of increasing price and decreasing supply should regulate demand and spur alternative sources faster. The alternative is for the government to decide what is the best alternative source of energy not the markets. Disaster.

See government subsidies. If the government wants to fund basic science, that is fine. If the government wants to bet on Sugar Cane fuel, that is a Disaster.

The carbon tax is the reverse of betting on a specific technology. It creates a broad, powerful incentive for all non-carbon sources of energy. May the best source(s) and technologies win.

Do you really not understand this, or are you goofing?

Peter

[mike777]

pbleighton, on May 26 2007, 08:27 PM, said:

Quote

The combination of increasing price and decreasing supply should regulate demand and spur alternative sources faster. The alternative is for the government to decide what is the best alternative source of energy not the markets. Disaster.

See government subsidies. If the government wants to fund basic science, that is fine. If the government wants to bet on Sugar Cane fuel, that is a Disaster.

The carbon tax is the reverse of betting on a specific technology. It creates a broad, powerful incentive for all non-carbon sources of energy. May the best source(s) and technologies win.

You really don't understand this, or are you goofing?

Peter

You made the most important point. It is biased against carbon. It is not an equal footing. That is the point. Agree. That is bad.

Peter we are carbon!

I want Carbon to have just as much chance as to win as anything else, not have an automatic bias against it.

[pbleighton]

Quote

You made the most important point. It is biased against carbon. It is not an equal footing. That is the point. Agree. That is bad.

Why should I agree that a policy which accelerates the production replacements for carbon-based fuels, which are highly polluting, AND are running out, is a bad thing?

Do you think excise taxes don't work (they do, just ask the tobacco industry), or is this just ideology?

Quote

Peter we are carbon!

Is your brain burnt toast?



Peter

[mike777]

pbleighton, on May 26 2007, 08:39 PM, said:

Quote

You made the most important point. It is biased against carbon. It is not an equal footing. That is the point. Agree. That is bad.

Why should I agree that a policy which accelerates the production replacements for carbon-based fuels, which are highly polluting, AND are running out, is a bad thing?

Do you think excise taxes don't work (they do, just ask the tobacco industry), or is this just ideology?

Quote

Peter we are carbon!

Is your brain burnt toast?



Peter

If you equate our carbon based life forms and carbon with smoking. ok. No bias there.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on May 27 2007, 03:16 AM, said:

4) fight the war akin to how we fought the American Indian wars.

5) point 4 would be very tough to get agreement to do, maybe impossible.

Do you fully understand the implications of line 4?

The United States fought a war of extermination against the Native Americans. The US used a wide variety tactics that would consider War Crimes today. To be perfectly clear, we're talking about a genocide that featured deliberate biological warfare and a continuing series of sneak attacks against civilian population centers. Throughout the ethic cleansing campaign, the US government continually acted in bad faith. The government negotiated treaties which it refused to enforce or deliberately violated.

You're constantly saying that the US is involved in a 40 year war with the Islamic world. Are you seriously suggesting that the US should be trying to exterminate the Muslims?

[pbleighton]

Quote

I am on the side of the Kurds for starters.



That's easy. How about the other 90% of the country?

Quote

Jobs, jobs, jobs... would you institute a draft, so we could have the 450,000-600,000 combat troops which the counterinsurgency manual says we need to do the job in Iraq? Plus another 1.5 million to do the same to Iran?

Mike, you haven't got around to answering these questions, so I thought I'd remind you...

Peter

[pbleighton]

Quote

If you equate our carbon based life forms and carbon with smoking.

I haven't smoked ANYTHING for 20 years. And you?



Peter

[luke warm]

what i would do (militarily) if i was in charge (i figured i'd weigh in, what the hell)

first of all, i'd define my goals...
1) the liberty and safety of our citizens is my first priority, and in a choice between the two liberty comes first
2) the u.s. armed forces exists to kill people and destroy things, not to police our or any other country
3) i would not use force overseas unless i was prepared to go in, eradicate the determined enemy, and leave... taking 9/11 as an example, if intelligence determined that islamic terrorists were responsible i'd give countries that harbor such terrorists 168 hours to begin to seriously arrest/eradicate them before i took action... i would expect results, meaning the leadership of those organizations would be impacted... if the countries involved took no action, i would

since someone will want an example of my actions, i'll give a hypothetical... 9/11 occurs, i make my speech, intelligence determines that al quaida's leaders have taken refuge in the mountains of afghanistan and the deserts of jordan, and the govt's of neither country take action... i'd nuke the camps, in the mountains and in the desert... my response to the the resulting world-wide outcry would simply be "we want peace but will use every weapon at our disposal if attacked"... of course i'd have made that known ahead of time, knowing that i'd not be believed...

how i'd run the war in iraq... i'd do what i could to determine the real will of the people... do they want democracy? if so, i'd section the city off and sweep the city, destroying all who are fighting to overthrow the gov't (regardless of religious affiliation)... if it's a war, i'd wage war... my aim is to win and to preserve american lives... preserving other lives is secondary to this... if not, i'd leave... of course i'd never have been there in the first place

i believe that if you once decide to put your soldiers at risk, you put them in harm's way as briefly as possible... if an enemy decides to attack america, that enemy and those who support that enemy will be destroyed as efficiently and quickly as possible

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on May 27 2007, 05:21 PM, said:

since someone will want an example of my actions, i'll give a hypothetical... 9/11 occurs, i make my speech, intelligence determines that al quaida's leaders have taken refuge in the mountains of afghanistan and the deserts of jordan, and the govt's of neither country take action... i'd nuke the camps, in the mountains and in the desert... my response to the the resulting world-wide outcry would simply be "we want peace but will use every weapon at our disposal if attacked"...

I really don't understand this fetish for using nukes...

The US has plenty of conventional weapons that could easily destroy a terrorist training camp. We have cluster bombs, napalm, the GBU-43B which affectionately known as the "Mother of All Bombs". There are lots of ways to sterilize a square mile of Pakistan without using a nuke.

Using a nuclear weapons creates a LOT of fallout. Some of this is radioactive. Most of it is political. If the US started unilaterally throwing around nukes we would completely estrange ourselves from the rest of the world. Even the British and the Canadians would abandon us.

You don't start a military action by pissing in the face of the international community.

[Winstonm]

Quote

i believe that if you once decide to put your soldiers at risk, you put them in harm's way as briefly as possible... if an enemy decides to attack america, that enemy and those who support that enemy will be destroyed as efficiently and quickly as possible

Jimmy, although I agree in principle with this I believe you leave out a critical element and that is a non-interventionist foreign policy. It is disinginuous to effect regime change and then cry "enemy" when those deposed want to do harm. One cannot effect his will on the world and then back that with mass destruction of the enemy that his own actions created and claim justice done in the name of peace.

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." George W. Bush

"War is Peace." George Orwell, 1984

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on May 27 2007, 09:46 AM, said:

I really don't understand this fetish for using nukes...

it isn't a fetish, i believe the loss of life and property is less, especially as those losses relate to american soldiers

Quote

The US has plenty of conventional weapons that could easily destroy a terrorist training camp.  We have cluster bombs, napalm, the GBU-43B which affectionately known as the "Mother of All Bombs".  There are lots of ways to sterilize a square mile of Pakistan without using a nuke.

true, but all of those ways result in mass destruction of infrastructure, unlike neutron bombs

Quote

Using a nuclear weapons creates a LOT of fallout.  Some of this is radioactive.  Most of it is political.  If the US started unilaterally throwing around nukes we would completely estrange ourselves from the rest of the world.  Even the British and the Canadians would abandon us.

with the neutrons, the radioactivity is gone within 48 hours... let me ask you, if an enemy knew ahead of time that flying jets into our buildings would be met with either 1) their own destruction at the hands of those who presently harbor them or 2) nuclear retaliation, would they be more or less willing to launch such an attack? would a sympathetic country, such as (for example) syria be more or less willing to capture and turn over such people if they knew we would take matters in our own hands otherwise?

Quote

You don't start a military action by pissing in the face of the international community.

you don't start a military action by attacking a country willing to defend itself with all weapons at its disposal... it depends on your goals

winston said:

Jimmy, although I agree in principle with this I believe you leave out a critical element and that is a non-interventionist foreign policy. It is disinginuous to effect regime change and then cry "enemy" when those deposed want to do harm.

i've already said i'd not have attacked iraq, at least not in this way, and i'd certainly not allow my armed forces to be a police department