Space is not sexy. Learning about the universe is not sexy. Learning about anything is not sexy. Fighting terrorism, now THAT'S sexy. Trillions of dollars worth of sexy. Proving once again...sex rules.
13 billion...BAH! that's nothing. Let's talk about real money. Money that is truly wasted. Better yet, let's not. It'll just piss me off...besides it would be off topic.
A tax funded entity is what kept my power on for over three whole years without a single outage. My old Seth Thomas clock verified it. A tax funded entity kept the water for much longer without fail. A tax funded entity made it possible for me to go to work without the need for an automobile for 15 years, also without fail. A tax funded entity delivers an enormous volume of mail at a much lower price than any private one ever could. Tax funded entities are the only kind that actually has to respond to the people who vote and pay for it. So I can say from experience that not all tax funded entities are bad. A teeny bit of socialism goes a long way towards making life a lot more pleasent. I would trust a tax funded entity to maintain the national infrastructure of transportation, communication, power, and water far more than any private company. And I sure don't want to see a private military or police that answers only to shareholders, despite all the faults of the gov't one. It's tax funded regulation that keeps the privates honest. If tax funded entities are failing us, then it's up to us to use the power of the vote of fix it. And, as you noted, NASA is not a complete failure.
Do you know of any government that isn't? Besides, I believe the people there also have a right to vote. That being the case, maybe it's the voters that are completely controlled by large corporations. Anyway, if they don't like it, they can always vote in a small corporation:-)
The monopolization of genetic information is a serious issue - people are trying to do stupid things - like attempting to apply copy protection measures (both physical and legal) to life. Life attempts to copy itself & tradional copyright / patent laws should not apply.
This could be what they are concerned about. That the info could be locked under copyright at a future date. Obviously, making the info freely available is not piracy. An exclusive copyright would be. That would be like them taking my info and not allowing me to use it as I wish. That is actual theft, thus piracy.
Those films are over 50 years old. There is no digital medium that has proven to last that long (for obvious reasons), but so far, due to format changes, new tech, etc. digital has shown to require much more maintenance than things like film, vinyl, and even tape. I personally think it's better to have to re-copy once every 50 years as opposed to once every 10 or 15 years. Plus, the old tech has proven to be mcuh more durable. We can still use 50 year old telephones, phonographs, movie projectors, etc. I don't believe that CD and DVD players will be so fortunate. This more due to their low manufactured quality than anything else. I would be interested in knowing how old the oldest currently running microchip is. Anyway, if Hollywood were to re-copy those old films to new film, they could virtually ignore it for another 50 years. If they put it on digital, they'll have to re-copy every time the tech becomes obsolete, and they'll have to use a new format. And error correction can only go so far. The only way a CD or DVD can last as long as film, vinyl, etc. is if they are made out of glass(or quartz) and gold. These are the only materials that I know of that don't degrade over time. However, the issue of the player will remain unresolved...unless they make one with vacuum tubes and neon lasers:-)
You should transfer to film. That way you will have a viewable movie 50 years from now after the DVD plastic fogs over and the aluminum flakes off. And chances are that you will be able to find an antique projector to show it because you can bet that there won't be any working 50 year old DVD players.
Feel free to correct me, but I thought that bit copy isn't possible on CDs and DVDs due to the nature of the medium and error correction, and that some copy protection schemes use the bad sectors on the original so that if it sees bad sectors on the copy that are different, it won't play.
Well, I have to admit, A regular old mechanical volume control is easier to operate. Putting everything into a menu 20 layers deep can get tiresome. Especially for those with bad eyesight. Some things need to be readily accessible, by touch if possible. "Volume" and "stop"(or at least "pause") are a couple of them.
...another techno-crutch that will absolve parents of the annoyance of actual parenting. Let's not talk to kids about the effects of loud noises on their hearing - that's too difficult. Instead, let's be passive-aggressive pricks and preempt their judgment with parental-surrogate crippleware.
Not true. It could go a long way towards patent reform, or better yet, complete abolishment. I want to see these kind of things continue to either force a resolution, or else take us back to the stone age. Anything that demonstrates the folly of the concept of intellectual property is a good thing. I say, Bring it on.
Heh, kinda figured you'd get it backwards. "Stay the course..." Pay no attention to that iceberg straight ahead. But hey, Look at the bright side. Things are going your way. You'll be able to watch the war on the TV for many years to come. It might even be on the air as long as "General Hospital" has been on. And Ollie can keep his job at FOX. You win. The war will continue as you wish. And I can watch history repeat itself again while munching on my chips and salsa and gulping down the beer and enjoying another "crappy" day in paradise. Whatever you do, please make sure the wrong lizard doesn't get in.
Communist pirates...capitalist pirates...Doesn't matter they're still pirates. You prefer capitalist pirates because you derive benfits from them. Capitalist pirates are a bit more pragmatic. Life is good inside the empire while those outside the walls suffer. If we lead by good example instead of simple, straight up thievery, Communism wouldn't have a chance to to take hold without a war. But when other people see our example, communism is just another alternative. Both Cuba and Vietnam would most likely have been allies if we could only accept the conditions they put forth. They would accepted our help if we had actually offered help instead of ultimatums. If we had done our part to put an end to aparthied in S. Africa. Mandela would have been an ally. Instead, we accused him of being a Communist. It may have been true. He may have been under the impression that Russia would help to end aparthied. Of course that would never have happened. But considering how the west treated him, what other option would he have? Let's go back to Chile. They voted for socialism because the capitalists were robbing the counrty blind. We are seeing resurgance of anti-Americanism in South America for the same reasons as before. Our actions during the cold war(which I did live through since Eisenhower's first term) has cost us so much credibility, and it's still costing us now. My fingers are sore. The thing is that we are doing the exact same thing we have always been doing. Why would anybody expect the result to be any different? The reasons are irrelevent. Nobody cares about the reasons. They only see the actions, which hasn't changed throughout our history. If you want different results, then you simply must act differently. Our present actions will insure perpetual war. Amierca is the most powerful counrty on the planet at this time. If they want the rest of the world to see things their way, then they need to set a proper example. Preaching one thing and doing just the opposite will get them nowhere fast. That's another point that shouldn't have to be spelled out.
of a responsible parent. He takes upon himself to ban these things from his house, instead of asking the gov't to pass some "child protection" law to do it for him. He deserves all of our support.
You are right. We should stay for their benefit. I guess I'll never get through that we are not there for their benefit. We are there for ours. We are "protecting" American interests, not Middle Eastern interests. I would like to think that American interests would include peace in the region. Our actions say otherwise. We seem to have trouble seeing that looking out for their interests might also benefit ours. Such is the nature of pirates.
The situation at the time arguably justified such actions.
Wrong! There is nothing justifiable about those actions. Absolutley nothing. It was and is pure piracy. There is nothing justifiable about trying to "correct" one blunder with another. And calling these atrocities "blunders" is really giving them the benefit of a doubt. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
What is your point? Are you or are you not claiming that Bush & Co. reduced Iraqi oil production in order to create/exacerbate a worldwide production shortfall to boost oil prices to boost oil company profits?
I don't need to claim anything. The numbers speak for themselves.
They have the economy to buy what they need even without the discounts, though.
They have to import almost everything they have. Where do they get their raw materials? Not within Israel. This is a country that cannot exist without outside support.
...but it's vastly more *likely* that the actions are well-intentioned, but misguided and occasionally stupid.
That old cliche about "...good intentions" couldn't apply more.
Preventing the influence of Communism from growing justified all kinds of horrible actions.
Really? Incñuding acting just like them evidently. Good way to win converts, eh? Many countries turned communist or attempted to(with democratic elections, no less) because of our "good intentions". We actually pushed them away. I find it to be pretty weird to corner a dog and beat on it until it bites back, and to call it "justifiable" to continue to beat up on it for biting back. Leading by example seems to be out of the question. I got news for you. We are now seeing the results of the examples we have set...and continue to set.
I think you suffer from an peculiar form of naivete: the naivete of unbounded cynicism.
Not so much cynicism as a recognition that we are animals and continue to act like animals. I don't see anything unatural in what we are doing. No conspiracy needed. We have the power to see, but choose to ignore that we are acting like talking chimps in every way. The only difference being that we know what we see in the mirror. This is what saddens me.
...And that would be a real breeding ground for terrorism AT BEST...
It is our presence that is turning the area into a real breeding ground for terrorism. Terrorism was a fairly local phenomenum until the U.S./Europe got involved. They attack us because we attacked them. And I'm only going back to the beginning of the 20th century. This is a colonial war, with the winner getting the spoils. This a pirates robbing and pillaging the area. I believe that the U.S. is just the muscle in what is really a British operation. And now we are on the same enemies list as the Mongols. If we were to be there with thre real intent of establishing a stable gov't, we would be fighting a much more competent war, with results. I can guarantee that staying can only perpetuate the war, which is good for the likes of General Dynamics and Halliburton, et al, but it's not good for the Iraqis, or anybody else that happens to be on the wrong end of the rifle. But hey, Wall Street is looking up these days. Please consider that behind closed doors, the well being of the people of the region never comes up. They are only discussing how to divvy up the profits. There are too many that believe that we are there for some higher purpose. Nothing could be farther from the truth. You can believe what you want. The results are speaking for themselves. War is good for business. I consider those who want to continue this as either naive or despicable.
Second, copyright laws were not created to protect artists alone; they also protected publishers, but their actual goal was to serve the public interest by enticing authors and publishers to behave in certain ways beneficial to the public.
I'm sure you're aware the some early French copyright law left the artist out of the picture completely. It almost caused a riot. I, for one, have always believed that copyright law was to benefit the publishers/distributors above all else. And for some it provides a way to silence the critics. I believe that this also was part of the original intent of these laws.
Leaving too soon and dropping the country into a civil war, on the other hand, will convince the *rest* of the Iraqis and other middle-eastern moderates, that we really didn't want anything but their oil, and sacrificed them to get it. Emphasis mine
Pretty much what we did do while we were playing both sides of the Iran-Iraq war. We fed them just enough weapons to maintain a "balance". Kinda funny (sad) that we didn't invade Iraq when they invaded Iran. So I guess we will stay for the propaganda value...to "convince" them we are there for their benefit.
...(a) why hasn't the US done a good job of maintaining oil production in Iraq (oil production is well below what it was in pre-war Iraq) and (b) why isn't the US taking the oil revenues (the oil revenues are going to the Iraqi government, and the US is actually investing more US taxpayer dollars into Iraq's reconstruction than Iraq is bringing in with oil sales).
You did notice that the petrol companies are enjoying record profits, right? Allowing production to fall allowed the prices to jump to over...what?...70 dollars a barrel? Not that this was specifically the cause of that, but you should be able to see my point.
And in the absence of any existing power structure, the most ruthless and violent will end up on top, after destroying the not quite as ruthless and violent, and wiping out lots of others in the process.
We won't care how ruthless their next leaders will be. We will let them stay in power as long as they are pro American. This is how it went down with Saddam himself. And this is how it will happen with the next guy. And the next. And so on. The majority may appreciate the removal of Saddam now, but that will all disappear with the "new" Saddam. To paraphrase, "When you lock a person up in a room with a madman for 25 years, just how should he react when you finally let him out?"
If we want to win this we will seal the borders, empty, then flatten the cities, and then rebuild. This is the only way to assure that all weapons are disabled, and that no more can get in. We have to remove their will to fight. Not just their ability. At this point we are doing exactly the opposite. But I don't believe we want to really resolve this. The simple fact is that war is very profitable.
The Israelis are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.
I'll believe that when we stop selling weapons to them. As far as Israel is concerned, anything less than complete surrender of all territories taken in 1967 is just plain meaningless. Only then will we know if the Palestinians are willing to talk peace. Contrary to popular belief, their hatred is not unprovoked. I don't know exactly what happened in 1947-48, but I do know that I would be mighty pissed if some jerk came and took my prime Meditterrenean beach front property. I do know that there will be no peace until at least that territory(from the '67 war) is given back. The fact that we didn't demand this tells me that we don't want peace. I do know that our presence will be used to keep the wars going. If we leave (completely) the violence may or may not end. We won't know until we try. So far everybody that has meddled in the region only made things worse. Both Israel and Iraq are British creations. They are both oddities that cannot survive on their own any better than the goofy borders and countries they set up in Africa. There is nothing happening now that could convince me that this time it will not end up exactly as it has before. This is not the last chapter in this book.
The "blood for oil" argument doesn't hold water.
I call it "blood for money". And most corps/governments are more than happy to shed plenty of other people's blood for it. And the huge profits generated from this give them plenty of reasons for staying. Or it really could be that we are incompetent. That, to me would be really sad. That we can't elect and maintain a competent gov't in the states anymore.
There is only one way to leave Iraq better off than we found it. It's by repeating what we did in WW2 to the Japanes and the Germans. By completely carpet bombing them almost to oblivion and rebuilding from scratch. Anything less will just leave the horrible mess you describe. Anything less will simply result in us being chased out like the other outsiders before us. It's better if we leave voluntarily. And of course there's Israel. That little hot button will keep the war going indefinitely. We will be "stuck" there as long as we continue to unconditionally support them. I repeat, promoting democracy is not the reason we are there, and if it wasn't for their natual resources that we are so addicted to, we would just walk away. Actually, we never would have invaded in the first place. If we actually had good intentions, we would be trying help places like Africa. If it wasn't for our lost credibility from Vietnam, we could have assured that Pol Pot would never had reached the status he recieved. When people can believe that we actually do represent freedom, they will accept our help. Instead we are a pariah, and now we are in a never ending war. Walking away from the middle east can only shorten the misery. What ever misfortunes they suffer won't be on our conscious.
What we did in Syria in 1949 wasn't to invade and (attempt to) establish a democratic government...
That's right. And the same applies to Iraq. Only this time we had to put a spin on the situation to get the rest of us to go along. We don't want democracy when it could so easily backfire. It's best to provide an illusion. The problem now is that so many are seeing through that lie. There are too many other places that are much worse off that aren't being "liberated" by any coalition to believe any stated goal of the gov't. You seem to go along with the belief that people can't take care of themselves without our input. That is dead wrong. What we have now is a really big(and getting bigger) group of people that hate us. And this situation will guarantee that we will have to deal with this for many generations. Some people carry a grudge for a very long time. Just ask them what they think of the Mongols. And staying there will only assure that the hate continues. We can walk away, and we should stay away until such time that they actually invite us. As it is, people are dying for nothing. Worse, they're dying for somebody else's money. You can put all the expensive philosophy behind our actions you want. The fact is, war is about money and power. What we have are two(or more) pirates fighting for just that. Everything else is quite secondary.
Slashdot Mirror
Space is not sexy. Learning about the universe is not sexy. Learning about anything is not sexy. Fighting terrorism, now THAT'S sexy. Trillions of dollars worth of sexy. Proving once again...sex rules.
13 billion...BAH! that's nothing. Let's talk about real money. Money that is truly wasted. Better yet, let's not. It'll just piss me off...besides it would be off topic.
A tax funded entity is what kept my power on for over three whole years without a single outage. My old Seth Thomas clock verified it. A tax funded entity kept the water for much longer without fail. A tax funded entity made it possible for me to go to work without the need for an automobile for 15 years, also without fail. A tax funded entity delivers an enormous volume of mail at a much lower price than any private one ever could. Tax funded entities are the only kind that actually has to respond to the people who vote and pay for it. So I can say from experience that not all tax funded entities are bad. A teeny bit of socialism goes a long way towards making life a lot more pleasent. I would trust a tax funded entity to maintain the national infrastructure of transportation, communication, power, and water far more than any private company. And I sure don't want to see a private military or police that answers only to shareholders, despite all the faults of the gov't one. It's tax funded regulation that keeps the privates honest. If tax funded entities are failing us, then it's up to us to use the power of the vote of fix it. And, as you noted, NASA is not a complete failure.
Do you know of any government that isn't? Besides, I believe the people there also have a right to vote. That being the case, maybe it's the voters that are completely controlled by large corporations. Anyway, if they don't like it, they can always vote in a small corporation :-)
The monopolization of genetic information is a serious issue - people are trying to do stupid things - like attempting to apply copy protection measures (both physical and legal) to life. Life attempts to copy itself & tradional copyright / patent laws should not apply.
This could be what they are concerned about. That the info could be locked under copyright at a future date. Obviously, making the info freely available is not piracy. An exclusive copyright would be. That would be like them taking my info and not allowing me to use it as I wish. That is actual theft, thus piracy.
I always thought that's how the professional bootleggers did it. They just stamped out the copies, just like the authorized distributors.
Those films are over 50 years old. There is no digital medium that has proven to last that long (for obvious reasons), but so far, due to format changes, new tech, etc. digital has shown to require much more maintenance than things like film, vinyl, and even tape. I personally think it's better to have to re-copy once every 50 years as opposed to once every 10 or 15 years. Plus, the old tech has proven to be mcuh more durable. We can still use 50 year old telephones, phonographs, movie projectors, etc. I don't believe that CD and DVD players will be so fortunate. This more due to their low manufactured quality than anything else. I would be interested in knowing how old the oldest currently running microchip is. Anyway, if Hollywood were to re-copy those old films to new film, they could virtually ignore it for another 50 years. If they put it on digital, they'll have to re-copy every time the tech becomes obsolete, and they'll have to use a new format. And error correction can only go so far. The only way a CD or DVD can last as long as film, vinyl, etc. is if they are made out of glass(or quartz) and gold. These are the only materials that I know of that don't degrade over time. However, the issue of the player will remain unresolved...unless they make one with vacuum tubes and neon lasers :-)
You should transfer to film. That way you will have a viewable movie 50 years from now after the DVD plastic fogs over and the aluminum flakes off. And chances are that you will be able to find an antique projector to show it because you can bet that there won't be any working 50 year old DVD players.
Feel free to correct me, but I thought that bit copy isn't possible on CDs and DVDs due to the nature of the medium and error correction, and that some copy protection schemes use the bad sectors on the original so that if it sees bad sectors on the copy that are different, it won't play.
Well, I have to admit, A regular old mechanical volume control is easier to operate. Putting everything into a menu 20 layers deep can get tiresome. Especially for those with bad eyesight. Some things need to be readily accessible, by touch if possible. "Volume" and "stop"(or at least "pause") are a couple of them.
...another techno-crutch that will absolve parents of the annoyance of actual parenting. Let's not talk to kids about the effects of loud noises on their hearing - that's too difficult. Instead, let's be passive-aggressive pricks and preempt their judgment with parental-surrogate crippleware.
I like Ballmer's method better.
Here I am thinking the story was about this chip getting bird flu or something...
No good can come of this.
Not true. It could go a long way towards patent reform, or better yet, complete abolishment. I want to see these kind of things continue to either force a resolution, or else take us back to the stone age. Anything that demonstrates the folly of the concept of intellectual property is a good thing. I say, Bring it on.
Heh, kinda figured you'd get it backwards. "Stay the course..." Pay no attention to that iceberg straight ahead. But hey, Look at the bright side. Things are going your way. You'll be able to watch the war on the TV for many years to come. It might even be on the air as long as "General Hospital" has been on. And Ollie can keep his job at FOX. You win. The war will continue as you wish. And I can watch history repeat itself again while munching on my chips and salsa and gulping down the beer and enjoying another "crappy" day in paradise. Whatever you do, please make sure the wrong lizard doesn't get in.
"None are so blind as those who refuse to see..."
Communist pirates...capitalist pirates...Doesn't matter they're still pirates. You prefer capitalist pirates because you derive benfits from them. Capitalist pirates are a bit more pragmatic. Life is good inside the empire while those outside the walls suffer. If we lead by good example instead of simple, straight up thievery, Communism wouldn't have a chance to to take hold without a war. But when other people see our example, communism is just another alternative. Both Cuba and Vietnam would most likely have been allies if we could only accept the conditions they put forth. They would accepted our help if we had actually offered help instead of ultimatums. If we had done our part to put an end to aparthied in S. Africa. Mandela would have been an ally. Instead, we accused him of being a Communist. It may have been true. He may have been under the impression that Russia would help to end aparthied. Of course that would never have happened. But considering how the west treated him, what other option would he have? Let's go back to Chile. They voted for socialism because the capitalists were robbing the counrty blind. We are seeing resurgance of anti-Americanism in South America for the same reasons as before. Our actions during the cold war(which I did live through since Eisenhower's first term) has cost us so much credibility, and it's still costing us now. My fingers are sore. The thing is that we are doing the exact same thing we have always been doing. Why would anybody expect the result to be any different? The reasons are irrelevent. Nobody cares about the reasons. They only see the actions, which hasn't changed throughout our history. If you want different results, then you simply must act differently. Our present actions will insure perpetual war. Amierca is the most powerful counrty on the planet at this time. If they want the rest of the world to see things their way, then they need to set a proper example. Preaching one thing and doing just the opposite will get them nowhere fast. That's another point that shouldn't have to be spelled out.
Seriously, I've seen this guy on various interviews and TV appearances, read about him online, and the guy seems completely mad.
Acting! Genius! Thank you!
of a responsible parent. He takes upon himself to ban these things from his house, instead of asking the gov't to pass some "child protection" law to do it for him. He deserves all of our support.
No, we should stay for their benefit.
...but it's vastly more *likely* that the actions are well-intentioned, but misguided and occasionally stupid.
You are right. We should stay for their benefit. I guess I'll never get through that we are not there for their benefit. We are there for ours. We are "protecting" American interests, not Middle Eastern interests. I would like to think that American interests would include peace in the region. Our actions say otherwise. We seem to have trouble seeing that looking out for their interests might also benefit ours. Such is the nature of pirates.
The situation at the time arguably justified such actions.
Wrong! There is nothing justifiable about those actions. Absolutley nothing. It was and is pure piracy. There is nothing justifiable about trying to "correct" one blunder with another. And calling these atrocities "blunders" is really giving them the benefit of a doubt. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
What is your point? Are you or are you not claiming that Bush & Co. reduced Iraqi oil production in order to create/exacerbate a worldwide production shortfall to boost oil prices to boost oil company profits?
I don't need to claim anything. The numbers speak for themselves.
They have the economy to buy what they need even without the discounts, though.
They have to import almost everything they have. Where do they get their raw materials? Not within Israel. This is a country that cannot exist without outside support.
That old cliche about "...good intentions" couldn't apply more.
Preventing the influence of Communism from growing justified all kinds of horrible actions.
Really? Incñuding acting just like them evidently. Good way to win converts, eh? Many countries turned communist or attempted to(with democratic elections, no less) because of our "good intentions". We actually pushed them away. I find it to be pretty weird to corner a dog and beat on it until it bites back, and to call it "justifiable" to continue to beat up on it for biting back. Leading by example seems to be out of the question. I got news for you. We are now seeing the results of the examples we have set...and continue to set.
I think you suffer from an peculiar form of naivete: the naivete of unbounded cynicism.
Not so much cynicism as a recognition that we are animals and continue to act like animals. I don't see anything unatural in what we are doing. No conspiracy needed. We have the power to see, but choose to ignore that we are acting like talking chimps in every way. The only difference being that we know what we see in the mirror. This is what saddens me.
...And that would be a real breeding ground for terrorism AT BEST...
It is our presence that is turning the area into a real breeding ground for terrorism. Terrorism was a fairly local phenomenum until the U.S./Europe got involved. They attack us because we attacked them. And I'm only going back to the beginning of the 20th century. This is a colonial war, with the winner getting the spoils. This a pirates robbing and pillaging the area. I believe that the U.S. is just the muscle in what is really a British operation. And now we are on the same enemies list as the Mongols. If we were to be there with thre real intent of establishing a stable gov't, we would be fighting a much more competent war, with results. I can guarantee that staying can only perpetuate the war, which is good for the likes of General Dynamics and Halliburton, et al, but it's not good for the Iraqis, or anybody else that happens to be on the wrong end of the rifle. But hey, Wall Street is looking up these days. Please consider that behind closed doors, the well being of the people of the region never comes up. They are only discussing how to divvy up the profits. There are too many that believe that we are there for some higher purpose. Nothing could be farther from the truth. You can believe what you want. The results are speaking for themselves. War is good for business. I consider those who want to continue this as either naive or despicable.
...the quantity of those acts would likely decrease sharply.
Hmmm...don't know how much lower you can get.
Second, copyright laws were not created to protect artists alone; they also protected publishers, but their actual goal was to serve the public interest by enticing authors and publishers to behave in certain ways beneficial to the public.
I'm sure you're aware the some early French copyright law left the artist out of the picture completely. It almost caused a riot. I, for one, have always believed that copyright law was to benefit the publishers/distributors above all else. And for some it provides a way to silence the critics. I believe that this also was part of the original intent of these laws.
Leaving too soon and dropping the country into a civil war, on the other hand, will convince the *rest* of the Iraqis and other middle-eastern moderates, that we really didn't want anything but their oil, and sacrificed them to get it. Emphasis mine
...(a) why hasn't the US done a good job of maintaining oil production in Iraq (oil production is well below what it was in pre-war Iraq) and (b) why isn't the US taking the oil revenues (the oil revenues are going to the Iraqi government, and the US is actually investing more US taxpayer dollars into Iraq's reconstruction than Iraq is bringing in with oil sales).
Pretty much what we did do while we were playing both sides of the Iran-Iraq war. We fed them just enough weapons to maintain a "balance". Kinda funny (sad) that we didn't invade Iraq when they invaded Iran. So I guess we will stay for the propaganda value...to "convince" them we are there for their benefit.
You did notice that the petrol companies are enjoying record profits, right? Allowing production to fall allowed the prices to jump to over...what?...70 dollars a barrel? Not that this was specifically the cause of that, but you should be able to see my point.
And in the absence of any existing power structure, the most ruthless and violent will end up on top, after destroying the not quite as ruthless and violent, and wiping out lots of others in the process.
We won't care how ruthless their next leaders will be. We will let them stay in power as long as they are pro American. This is how it went down with Saddam himself. And this is how it will happen with the next guy. And the next. And so on. The majority may appreciate the removal of Saddam now, but that will all disappear with the "new" Saddam. To paraphrase, "When you lock a person up in a room with a madman for 25 years, just how should he react when you finally let him out?"
If we want to win this we will seal the borders, empty, then flatten the cities, and then rebuild. This is the only way to assure that all weapons are disabled, and that no more can get in. We have to remove their will to fight. Not just their ability. At this point we are doing exactly the opposite. But I don't believe we want to really resolve this. The simple fact is that war is very profitable.
The Israelis are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.
I'll believe that when we stop selling weapons to them. As far as Israel is concerned, anything less than complete surrender of all territories taken in 1967 is just plain meaningless. Only then will we know if the Palestinians are willing to talk peace. Contrary to popular belief, their hatred is not unprovoked. I don't know exactly what happened in 1947-48, but I do know that I would be mighty pissed if some jerk came and took my prime Meditterrenean beach front property. I do know that there will be no peace until at least that territory(from the '67 war) is given back. The fact that we didn't demand this tells me that we don't want peace. I do know that our presence will be used to keep the wars going. If we leave (completely) the violence may or may not end. We won't know until we try. So far everybody that has meddled in the region only made things worse. Both Israel and Iraq are British creations. They are both oddities that cannot survive on their own any better than the goofy borders and countries they set up in Africa. There is nothing happening now that could convince me that this time it will not end up exactly as it has before. This is not the last chapter in this book.
The "blood for oil" argument doesn't hold water.
I call it "blood for money". And most corps/governments are more than happy to shed plenty of other people's blood for it. And the huge profits generated from this give them plenty of reasons for staying. Or it really could be that we are incompetent. That, to me would be really sad. That we can't elect and maintain a competent gov't in the states anymore.
There is only one way to leave Iraq better off than we found it. It's by repeating what we did in WW2 to the Japanes and the Germans. By completely carpet bombing them almost to oblivion and rebuilding from scratch. Anything less will just leave the horrible mess you describe. Anything less will simply result in us being chased out like the other outsiders before us. It's better if we leave voluntarily. And of course there's Israel. That little hot button will keep the war going indefinitely. We will be "stuck" there as long as we continue to unconditionally support them. I repeat, promoting democracy is not the reason we are there, and if it wasn't for their natual resources that we are so addicted to, we would just walk away. Actually, we never would have invaded in the first place. If we actually had good intentions, we would be trying help places like Africa. If it wasn't for our lost credibility from Vietnam, we could have assured that Pol Pot would never had reached the status he recieved. When people can believe that we actually do represent freedom, they will accept our help. Instead we are a pariah, and now we are in a never ending war. Walking away from the middle east can only shorten the misery. What ever misfortunes they suffer won't be on our conscious.
What we did in Syria in 1949 wasn't to invade and (attempt to) establish a democratic government...
That's right. And the same applies to Iraq. Only this time we had to put a spin on the situation to get the rest of us to go along. We don't want democracy when it could so easily backfire. It's best to provide an illusion. The problem now is that so many are seeing through that lie. There are too many other places that are much worse off that aren't being "liberated" by any coalition to believe any stated goal of the gov't.
You seem to go along with the belief that people can't take care of themselves without our input. That is dead wrong. What we have now is a really big(and getting bigger) group of people that hate us. And this situation will guarantee that we will have to deal with this for many generations. Some people carry a grudge for a very long time. Just ask them what they think of the Mongols. And staying there will only assure that the hate continues. We can walk away, and we should stay away until such time that they actually invite us. As it is, people are dying for nothing. Worse, they're dying for somebody else's money. You can put all the expensive philosophy behind our actions you want. The fact is, war is about money and power. What we have are two(or more) pirates fighting for just that. Everything else is quite secondary.
By backfire, you mean we could find out who Saddam's real accomplices are? Yeah, that could be embarassing.
Wiqi project?