Aurel,
Although I live in Italy and was brought up in the UK both my parents were American and I am an American citizen.
You have been very vociferous in this and related threads on this topic and critical of America and American policy, but it seems, unwilling to accept that the French position is ultimately about French self interest. The pot calling the kettle black?

I have spent most of this week helping to sort the paperwork for some refugees from the Congo. They have some interesting comments to make about French commercial interests and France's support of a heavy handed dictatorship to protect French interests. As you have been so critical of the motivations for the attack on Iraq perhaps you would care to justify the French position in the Congo?

Isbao,

Although I have not followed the Congo situation as closely as the Iraqi one, my feeling is that it is exactely the same thing. You are right, France is defending its self-interrest, and trying to maintain its sphere of inluence, which has historically been in Africa.
The US is creating for itself a new sphere of influence, which is the middle east. The great difference is that no american wants to admit it, and they are using this stupid excuse of the war against terror to take control of the region, and hiding behind great generous pretexts like freeing the iraqui people. Typical anglo-saxon hypocrisy. In the end, it is just about power and money. France is not much better, but at least does not invent pretexts to justify its actions.

Aurel

whatta load of... KRAP! The only "sphere of influence" the USA is going for is to "influence" terrorists that if they pull off another 9-11, they will surely die. As will the regimes of the countries who support terrorism. We gave Japan back to the Japanese...Germany back to the Germans, now united thanks to the USA outspending the USSR in the cold war. The last time I looked, the USA wasn't ruling Italy either. And Aurel tries to tell us that the USA wishes to go back to being a ruler of colonies? Frankly, it would be to the USA's disadvantage to do so. But you know, I'm way past giving a flying "freedom" kiss whether the rest of the world loves the USA or hates the USA. You want to fight, bring it on...you want to whine in a pseudo intellectual manner? Go right ahead on her...because you do have the right to be full of it.. Say whatever you want...the USA will DO whatever it wants. Dig?

I think taking over a country might be a little strong. However, taking control over a country's oil reserves is surely good for US oil corporations, yes? And if not oil reserves, we can (and have) established many American-based corporations in far reaches of the world in order to "captitalize" on the potential profits to be made. Now that in itself is just free-market business. No harm, no foul as long as these businesses play by the rules of the country that hosts them. It's when our government steps in and attempts to change the political structure of a country to make life easier for these businesses is where many people draw the line and rightly so accuse the USA of interferring in a country's internal affairs.

People in the US might feel the same way if, for example, Japan pays off ("lobbies") our govt. officials to make their TVs more attractive than US TVs (the term is "dumping"), thus trimming the competition. Gee, I think that happened already. On second thought, maybe Americans don't feel quite that way. Maybe no conscience or awareness level. Maybe we're satisfied to just provide services (except for service jobs that are going to India, Ireland and other places that read better than us 'mericans). Boy, our corporations do get around don't they?

Am I glad Halliburton (private corporation) is financially healthy. After all, that multi-billion contract they received is being paid for by ..... us private citizens. Do we see a pattern here? Ain't capitalism great or what?

Sherwood Lee

I too would speak cautiously with the T-word, as in "take over." The war has already cost so much money, whatever budgetary windfall Clinton's Administration assembled, is now completely gone, plus, the government's in the red again. No one wants to see that happen as it invariably means higher taxes, etc. Taking over a country like Iraq could bankrupt the U.S. and many other countries, European included just in a simple domino-like manner.

As far as a few benefitting greatly from the war, that would be a given in any conflict. Defense contracts are a prime example of this. What Bush suffers (if not just plain ego and ignorance), is the closeness of his VP to Haliburton; a controversial link from the Bush Administration's inception, as Cheney had to resign his chairman's position from Haliburton before running for vice president.

With that done, Haliburton now receives a contract to go into Iraq and "fix" the oil side of things - yes, it is fishy. There is one thing, however, that should be considered: Haliburton, supposedly, has been in sensitive oil vs. foreign soil situations before, and is one of the few U.S. companies of its kind to pass muster with the State Department.

For whatever that's worth, it is one of the issues the Bush Ad. hangs its hat on as a reason Haliburton (along with a few other select entities) was chosen to regenerate Iraqi oil supplies.

War is a racket, everybody knows that. There is no noble war. It won`t solve terrorism either. The example of Israel is very clear for that: the most Sharon hits the Hamas, the most Hamas hits back...This is a never ending spiral...
There are many, many fishy things in the war against terror. The most serious ones are the complete lack of investigation on 9/11, the secrecy of the govt., the connections between the Carlyle group and Bush-Bin laden families, Haliburton-Cheney as mentioned eralier, the numerous false claims and lies to justify the war, etc,etc...
Like I said, many americans like pwd72s are unwilling to see that their government is not only that great liberator and promoter of freedom, but also an imperialistic power that establishes the rules for its own benefit. At least, I have no problem admitting the same for my own country.

Aurel

Hmmm! That is certainly not the impression I get when listening to French politicians and spokesmen speaking to the international media.
Perhaps we should just subscribe to Milu's view that he's never shaken hands with a politician without feeling the need for a shower?

Now U got it Aurel..why are we creating that sphere....cause there is oil...which is needed to fuel the GLOBAL ECONOMY. So it's not about a barrel of oil per say BUT ABOUT THE GLOBAL ECONOMY...Why U ask..The GLOBAL ECONOMY NEEDS A STEADY, STABLILY PRICED Supply of oil in order to THRIVE.

If the price of a barrel of oil remains high, or the source of supply is in jeopardy economic markets will remain in flux...which leads to Global economic recession and possibly Global depression.

When the price of a barrel of oil was $12 bucks everybody was riding high...contemplating buying that new Porsche....now that oil is $32 a barrel how many of you are thinking about that new Porsche...and worried about getting a "pink slip" .why is the price of a barrel of oil $32 instead of $20, the threat of disruption in the source of supply due to war and Terrorist activities.

Geez people look at the BIG PICTURE and not just the trees in the forest...WMD, French interst or no French interests, muddy this or muddy that...who cares....I want gravy on my Pork Chops again...and for that to happen the GLOBAL ECONOMY has to be THRIVING...not in recession or stagnation, ole GW didn't creat 911 but was let with the ***** on his plate..and 911 was the catalyst of this crisis. The issue of Liquidity can bring the USA down....gota go now.........

There's a scene from the movie Tucker: The Man And His Dream where Preston Tucker offers to shake the hand of the senator who has been opposing Tucker's business venture. The senator puts his hands in his pockets rather than shake Tucker's hand. Tucker's reply?

"Nice to see a politician's hands in his own pockets for once!"

Bush getting "bushed" in The Bush?
 

Well, it seems the CIA and the Administration are at odds. Bush's State of the Union speech included reference to Iraq receiving uranium from Africa, which the CIA says he should have never said, while the Administration contests that it's sloppy CIA intelligence that told him/them this.

Hmmm...

The endeavors of our president may be difficult in his next invasion.

First; we can count on Great Britain not helping the US.

Second; I wonder if the CIA can be counted on as not helping Bush. :confused:

Wow, Tabs ! I never thought we would agree on anything, LOL.
Now that we are on the same wavelength, let me show you that there could be another path. The global economy needs energy, right ? So far, the main source of energy is oil. Unfortunately, the muslims have most of it, hence the necessity to `force them` to be reasonable in their deals, right ?
To do that, a lot of money is spent on the military. At the expense of education, research, health, etc...
There are many other ways to make energy: solar, cold fusion, plasma, fuel cells...Unfortunately, none of them are financially viable, because the ressources have not been dedicated to develop them to the point they can beat oil. The politicians prefer to allocate ressources at the military to go get the oil. And fill the pockets of their friends of the militaro-industrial complex. Short term vision, while the right solution would be to become independant from muslim oil. And muslim terrorism would decrease at the same time, since there would be no more american presence on THEIR land. But asking politicians to look beyond a 4 year schedule may be a little too much, I understand that...

Aurel

I presume you'll be the first in line to trade in your 911 on a GM Hy-Wire?

Nope, I use my professor salary at Rutgers University to fix the 911, while at he same time developing new materials for solar cells, Li-ion batteries and high energy supercapacitors for hybrid vehicles. What do YOU do to improve the situation ?

Aurel

First of all, there is no Muslim oil. There's crude, baby crude, light sweet crude, or whatever, but no Muslim oil. I don't see my oil meter getting out of the dashboard and bowing east at 12-noon.

Second; all this "hype," because that's what it is, about alternative fuel sources is baloney. Know why? Humans, not just Americans, but humans are used to going to the gas station, filling up their tanks, paying and driving off. Anything else is beyond our comprehension and convenience, the ladder being much more important than the former.

That isn't to say we should not believe in alternative fuels. Still in all, they are a long way off. As for now, nothing matches the long term performance and cost of a conventional dino burner. It's been that way for close to 150 yrs., and at the slow-learning manner our species crawls along, it'll be that way for 150 more.

Not to say alt. fuels aren't important.

Just like J.R. Ewing once said: "Bobby, the world's been runnin' out of oil since oil was discovered..."

Interesting. What do you profess (teach), professor?

dd74,

I am research professor. This means I do not teach, but do 100% research, and support of phD students. My field is electrochemistry and polymer science.
Although I love the 911 and its polluting flat six, I have dedicated all my research to inventing better batteries, the ones that you can charge in five minutes for instance...Oil may last another couple of decades, but there are many people working on the next generations of energy sources out there, with a vision that reaches where politicians will never be able to see...

Aurel

Very admirable. But what about the consumer? That's my whole argument. How is "research" approaching them? Here in L.A., a very few self-labled "hip people" drive hybrids and electric cars, and the like. Bill Mahr, Arriana Huffington, etc. But one problem is they're cost prohibitive. And performance, for those performance minded folks, is pretty dismal. It really homogonizes (sp?) driving, i.e. takes all the fun out of driving.

Forward thinking minds may be ready for this, but Joe Blow out there thinks it's a hassle to plug in a lamp let alone look for an outlet to plug in their car.

Did you know that there is a federation of electric drag racing ? You would not believe how torquey and fast electric motors can be, when you hook the right battery to them. Of course, you don`t have the music of the engine, but the perormance is there. Here is their web site. Does your 911 do the quarter mile in 8.8 s...?

Aurel

Oh, not much, though the microprocessor(s) in your computer would cost 15-20% more if the cost reductions I put in place weren't in use in the semiconductor industry.

I think this perhaps should be amended to read "This means I can not teach". I had my fill of your type at Cornell.

Excuse me now, I have to go tend to the six kittens we're fostering. They're up for adoption if anyone in AZ is interested.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...r_adoption.jpg

Actually, one of the car magazines - Car and Driver or something, did a story on a Honda CRX whose battery allowed it to do 0-60 in the 5 to 6 sec range. I was very impressed.

1) But when's the cost going to go down?

2) Any plans for mass production? And I mean serious mass production. None of this one or two hybrid every five years that comes out of Ford or GM.

3) I do think having a quiet, albeit "noiseless" car has very strong appeal.