Every time I read something like this I can't help contrast the
feeling of wonder, inspiration, and relief I would feel on every
launch to orbit that was needed to build the infrastructure
necessary for SPS compared to the misery, pain, dread and fear of
what confronts the West, no correct that, America and the UK, as
they struggle mightly to stabilize a region that is a basketcase and
a populace that loves anti-American conspiracy theories.

Iraqi Teenagers Cheer as American Blood Flows
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=3806528

"This is good. If they ask me, I will join the resistance. The
Americans have to die," said Ali Qais, 15. "They are just here to
steal our oil."

Yeah right. The US is spending 4x on Iraq compared to what it
imports from the whole of the Middle East. Let this canard die once
and for all.

"Teenage boys were irritated to hear that two American soldiers were
just wounded, not killed."

"He even believes that U.S. troops plant the bombs themselves,
risking American lives to terrify and kill Iraqis."

Who on this list believes that this Faustian bargain the US has made
will end with Iraq? For those who oppose the war and now want the US
to leave Iraq to the Iraqis, do you think that all will be peaches
and cream with the American withdrawal? Do you think that the region
will become as stable and as sensible as the suburbia you inhabit?
Tell me why you foresee this outcome?

For those who are supporting the war and the occupation, tell me how
much more blood and treasure is going to be required in the coming
years to stablize the region? What are your limits? Do you believe
in the domino theory of an Iraqi democracy destabilizing the
neighboring countries and with this process all will be sweetness
and light? Why will this work when you see the structural
underpinnings of the region rotting away?

The hard-hearted, but unmentioned, option is to embark on a
Manhattan Project of SPS energy independence and leave the Middle
East to fester in its own stew. They don't want the West involved,
fine, let's pull out and let them have their Seventh Century Islamic
ideal.

In the end, I'd rather be reading about another launch into orbit,
and another SPS being built and another electrolysis plant making
cheap hydrogen, and yes, even how inefficient and bloated NASA is as
it undertakes this project (of course a free market approach would
be preferrable, but I'll even take NASA) than be confronted daily
with the morass we are in and for which there is no clear exit. Do
you think speeding up the timetable to hand over power to the Iraqis
is going to solve the problems? Clearly it's an attempt by Bush to
extracate his administration from Iraq before he faces an election,
yet how is a job half done in Iraq worthy of the strategy that
preceded the war?

CIA Report Says U.S. Losing Popular Support in Iraq
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3808966

"...noted that no member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing
Council nor any other Iraqi politician had shown an ability to lead
the nation following the U.S.-led invasion in March that chased
President Saddam Hussein from power, the official said."

And this is the situation that prompts them to speed up the
handover. If this happens, we'll be back at square one. Iraq will
still be a morass, Saddam is gone, and the US and the rest of the
world hasn't gained anything.

It's been reported that the Iraqis are ashamed that the Americans
had to come and liberate them from Saddam and it wounds their pride
that they couldn't do the job themselves, so now they're turning on
the Americans. Iraq will never be a post-WWII Germany or Japan. They
psyche of the population and many other factors are completely
different. ISTM that we're invoking the post hoc ergo propter hoc
fallacy. We rebuilt Japan and Germany after WWII and they became
successful societies, therefore our aid is what made them successful
societies. So too will this transpire in Iraq.

When the Americans do withdraw, the insurgents will proclaim their
victory in driving the Americans out. The anti-American hatred will
remain, perhaps even be stronger. The billions poured into Iraq will
be unappreciated. Why even bother, if the region can't even see the
morass it's in?

Let's cut and run, and launch to the future.

Well folks, that's what I really think.

TangoMan

This is purely politics and has little to do with the purpose of this list
IMHO, but since you started it I will offer you the view that there is a
subject in your reasoning that doesn't exist as a single entity, you are
mixing two very different things in it.
That subject is "US".
The "US" who decided to go at war over Iraq is not the same of that who is
paying the bill.
The first "US" is the current hawk administration who has strong political
backing by two major economical lobbies (between others): oil and heavy
industry, in particular weapon manufacture. The other "US" is made of the
general American public who has been sold Saddam as a defender of freedom
when Iran was seen as a major threat to the interest of the friends of the
current administration. At that time they paid large sum of public money
into the pockets of weapons manufacturer to arm Saddam. They have more
recently bought it again, this time as a supporter of international
terrorism, despite the fact that every intelligence agency, in US and
abroad, denied any basis to that claim.
The thing in common with these two faces of the Iraqi dictator (and don't
get me wrong I wouldn't ever dream to defend Saddam as a positive figure in
any sense!) is that the friends of this administration have made a fortune
again also in this occasion.
Yes, the "US" is spending 4x on Iraq compared to what it imports from the
whole of the Middle East, but that is American public money. Much of it is
going into weapons industry and even more is being spent on industrial
infrastructures that will make money to another group of friends of the
current administration.

Iraq was a first rate economy before this bunch of nice guys started to work
on it, let's not forget that. The problem with all Arab people, and not
Iraqi alone, is that they don't like foreigners on their land, they never
did, not even when they are other Arabs. Things are slightly complicated by
the fact that "their land" is claimed by all at the same time. If you look
back at the history of the Arab world since the end of WWI when the first
Arab nations emerged from the left overs of the British and French colonial
empires they have done nothing else than fight each other and backstab each
other in the back at the first opportunity. How on earth can you expect them
to suddenly fall in love with Americans now? With the same people that
starved them for over a decade, support Israel and are now occupying their
country with tanks?
Face it, the main reason to oppose the war in Iraq has always been that it
would be another Vietnam and would destabilize the region. Every expert,
including the American ones warned of it. Surprise surprise, it's exactly
what's happening.
The "US" made of the American public has already paid a very heavy toll of
blood and money (again), and will only pay more and more, but the people who
took the decision in the face of the opposition of the entire democratic
world, despite public opinion and in flagrant breach of every international
law, they haven't paid nothing. Quite the contrary, their businesses are
going better than ever. Would that have something to do with why they took
that decision in the first place? Surely not, that would be another
anti-American conspiracy theory, no doubt.

The saddest part is that unfortunately you are right on one point, pulling
out now it won't do any good. Probably the best thing that can be done now
is to put the whole mess back in the hands of the UN, where it should always
have been. That way you could pull off as fast as possible replacing the
occupation troops with Arab or accepted-accepted contingents. A UN political
cover would still no doubts need a major US and UK military backing anyway,
but would have a much easier life stabilizing the region. That probably
would require splitting the country in it's ethnic components, modern Iraq
as a nation is an artificial construct created with the declared intent of
facilitating the control over the oil producing region. It's made of
different ethnic groups that hate each other and had never stopped to fight
for independence. The best that could be achieved is probably a UN supported
federation of independent states.
There is a problem though: that would go against the private interests of
the same old group of people who, once again, happen to be those same ones
who actually have to take the decision... mmm, let me guess... we won't get
that, isn't it? :)
What it's more likely to happen IMHO is that the oil producing region and a
few other essential centers will become highly militarised fortified
enclaves in a apartheid regime, while the rest of the country and of the
people will be left into abrupt misery and in a civil war state for another
decade or two. That of course would cost the lives of a few hundred or maybe
even thousand more Americans, and countless billions of public spending, but
if you happen to know the right people (and have a solid stomach) it will
make you a fortune. As usually. This is pretty much the reason and the
mechanics behind every war, not just this one. Name and places changes, but
the story is always the same I'm afraid.

SPS won't change the story, just the places and the people. We need another
few hundred thousand years of evolution to fix the real problem IMO, after
all to paraphrase a famous anthropologist, we've been killing and eating
each other for a couple of millions years, and it's only two thousand or so
since the first person who came up with the idea that maybe there is another
way to live together has been nailed to a cross for it, give it some time...

Well, at least that's what *I* really think. Don't really expect to convince
anyone, just wanted to give a ring to the other bell, just for the sake of
discussion... :)

Cheers,

Claudio

"Eye per eye will make the humanity blind." (Ghandi)

> This is purely politics and has little to do with the purpose of
this list
> IMHO,

I really didn't want that to be the impression that came across with
my post because I'm trying to argue that SPS is a 3rd alternative.
By pointing out the problems with both the pro and anti positions on
Iraq I'm trying not to make this a polemic and to rehash the debates
on Iraq that we see all around us.

I feel I don't have to join either camp, and I like criticizing
both, because I feel the 3rd alternative is the best. I didn't like
the way that this whole Iraq adventure unfolded but I also wasn't
blind to the threat the whole region, not just Iraq, posed to the
West. I would have solved the problem by following a different
strategy altogether.

Unfortunately, for me to make my case for SPS I felt it necessary to
invoke geopolitical realities and I don't want these examples to
mire us in the pro vs. anti debate.

I'm going to answer many of your points but I'll try to frame them
with reference to the 3rd alternative. For those who want to avoid
the pro - anti debate, be warned I'll be criticizing both, so you
may want to just skip this post for my previous posts layed out my
arguments and this is just rebuttal and clarification taht doesn't
add substantively to my argument.

> The "US" who decided to go at war over Iraq is not the same of
that who is
> paying the bill.

In a Democracy, it in fact is. Otherwise there is no such thing as a
national interest. It has to be decided by someone - in the case of
a Democracy it is the elected representative, not mob rule. The
representative is held accountable in an election, the mob is
unaccountable and changes its mind on a whim.

> The first "US" is the current hawk administration who has strong
political

There's nothing inherently wrong with being a Hawk, and there is
nothing inherently good in being a Dove.

> backing by two major economical lobbies (between others): oil and
heavy
> industry, in particular weapon manufacture.

This is dirty money politics that you're referring to. I don't like
that it exists. I don't really have an opinion as to whether it is a
prime cause for the decisions that preceded the war, but it is by no
means a uniquely American, or Bush Administration, feature. It is
quite common the world over, Europe included.

<also applies to the French, Russians, Germans and others>>

Yeah, realpolitik is dirty and taints the idealism that we think, or
hope, politics should be - but politics is often a dirty and corrupt
affair.

> The thing in common with these two faces of the Iraqi dictator
(and don't
> get me wrong I wouldn't ever dream to defend Saddam as a positive
figure in
> any sense!)

I'll take you at your word but what did the anti protesters advocate
be done with Saddam in particular, and the Middle East in general?
All I heard was a deafening silence.

> is that the friends of this administration have made a fortune
> again also in this occasion.

Yes, they have. So what?

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_716376_1_A,00.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm
http://www.hichemkaroui.batcave.net/frenchnet.htm
http://www.plp.org/comm03/2france.html

I feel that I'm being pulled into defending the pro-war position as
a response to your anti-war postion, and you know what, just because
I'm such a crumudgeon, I will be the Devil's Advocate. I've got lots
of criticisms for both positions and feel that the West, or America,
could have embarked on a SPS project and just put out fires in the
Mid-East for the next twenty years until energy independence came
closer to fruition. But alas, through lack of foresight and
leadership the 3rd option, or a variant of it that didn't use SPS,
wasn't chosen.

As an aside, I'm dismayed no end by the schism that's developed
between America and much of the world. I do business in Asia, have
lived and studied in Italy, have annual holidays with my closest
circle of friends, who are Germans, and I can't believe how far
attitudes are diverging as I notice in my interactions with people
from these regions. Of course my views are strictly anecdotal.

Here is an illustration from a Dutch blogger that touches on this
very subject.

http://www.peaktalk.com/archives/000457.php

His thoughts are in response to the flurry of articles that were
precipitated by this one:

http://www.nationalreview.com/europress/europress200310170948.asp
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?
xml=/opinion/2003/11/04/do0402.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/11/04/ixopini
on.html

For those who are still reading, and are interested in this side
issue, I recommend this excellent analysis in the "Economist." It's
a long read (click the "next article" button - 8 pages) but packed
full of information from the Pew Survey that is worth thinking on.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?
Story_ID!72066

> Yes, the "US" is spending 4x on Iraq compared to what it imports
from the
> whole of the Middle East, but that is American public money. Much
of it is
> going into weapons industry and even more is being spent on
industrial
> infrastructures that will make money to another group of friends
of the
> current administration.

Yes, but you neglect to point out that the $87 billion is being
spent in Iraq. That money is paying for American military presence,
and $20 billion is an outright grant to Iraq. This all BENEFITS the
people of Iraq. Read this from an ex-Iraqi journalist now living in
Sofia, Bulgaria. Note his observation on how reporting is done in
Iraq.

http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1653.cfm

> Iraq was a first rate economy before this bunch of nice guys
started to work
> on it, let's not forget that.

Surely you're not saying that Bush and the neocons are responsible
for the degradation that devastated the Iraqi economy! Maybe Saddam
had a role? Maybe his defiance of UN sanctions played a part? Could
he have cooperated like the South Africans did in dismantling a WMD
program? You bet he could, but he didn't.

>

> Face it, the main reason to oppose the war in Iraq has always been
that it
> would be another Vietnam and would destabilize the region.

There are those who will argue with you that the region wasn't
stable before the war. You can't destabilize a dysfunctional region.
The war and the following insurrection have only changed the nature
of the destabilization by focusing it on American soldiers, and now
unfortunately on Italy.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID 031112-040619-3708r.

For those who thought it was a stable region, then their definition
of stability probably resulted from a deal with the devil. In fact,
Bush just issued a major foreign policy initiative that acknowledged
60 years of error and looks to promote Democracy in the Mid-East,
and as Fareed Zakaria notes, "Some things are true even if George W.
Bush believes them."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/991191.asp?0dm=s15Ck

Every expert,
> including the American ones warned of it. Surprise surprise, it's
exactly
> what's happening.

Yes, it is. You're right. The Bush Administration was very sloppy in
its post-war planning.

> The "US" made of the American public has already paid a very heavy
toll of
> blood and money (again), and will only pay more and more, but the
people who
> took the decision in the face of the opposition of the entire
democratic
> world,

Which didn't have the fortitude to enforce UN resolutions for 12
years. What's the use of condemning something, and threatening
force, if you'll never use force?

I'm not saying the decision to go to war was the correct one, but I
sure won't buy into the argument that mob rule is the barometer by
which to judge the correctness of a decision.

Further, Bush is accountable ONLY to the American electorate, not
world opinion, and prior to the war, the majority of people were in
support of the decision, be it based on accurate or inaccurate,
whether intentional or not, information.

> despite public opinion and in flagrant breach of every
> international law,

No, international laws were followed. You may disagree with the Bush
Administration interpretation of UN Resolutions 687 and 1441 but
there is much room for debate on how they can be interpreted.
Definintely not clear cut like the anti-war protesters would like to
believe. Bush can make a good prima facia case that he abided by
international law.

You must be referring to the breachs of International law commited
by the French in Africa. 35 military interventions in 34 years. What
should we make of that?

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/35/020.html

they haven't paid nothing. Quite the contrary, their businesses are
> going better than ever. Would that have something to do with why
they took
> that decision in the first place? Surely not, that would be another
> anti-American conspiracy theory, no doubt.

You can't give the Bush Administration the courtesy of actually
believing that they thought that there was some threat emanating
from Iraq so you cast aspersions on them and sluff off the
motivations for war simply as a plot to profit the businessmen that
supported Bush. Very cynical and simplistic of you. But
congratulations are in order as well, for you got me to actually
defend Bush. Phew, thankfully I can hide behide my pseudonym :) and
no one has to know what I've just done.

> The saddest part is that unfortunately you are right on one point,
pulling
> out now it won't do any good. Probably the best thing that can be
done now
> is to put the whole mess back in the hands of the UN, where it
should always
> have been.

Absolutely the worst thing that can be done. The UN is a
professional Interim Governing Authority. Look at their performance
around the World. The best thing is for the Americans to stay the
course, suffer the sacrifices and get the job done right. They
shouldn't cut and run, for it will do more damage to their
reputation in the long run. Anti-Americanism really blinds people to
how ineffective the UN really is.

You're right though, that the UN should have had the backbone to
enforce the resolutions, and not left it to the Americans and Brits
to do the work, whether it was right or wrong, that needed to be
done.

> The best that could be achieved is probably a UN supported
> federation of independent states.
> There is a problem though: that would go against the private
interests of
> the same old group of people who, once again, happen to be those
same ones
> who actually have to take the decision... mmm, let me guess... we
won't get
> that, isn't it? :)

Ah, you're completely off base. Look to Ankara for resistance to an
independent Kurdistan, and to the neighboring countries that would
resist the break-up of Iraq. The Bush Administration has no means to
profit from keeping Iraq whole, in fact, the Kurds and the Shia
would benefit from the oil wealth in their regions if they split
Iraq, while the Sunnis (who are the minority population and the most
pro-Baathist) would be put in the poor house. This would actually
serve American interests quite nicely.

> SPS won't change the story, just the places and the people. We
need another
> few hundred thousand years of evolution to fix the real problem
IMO, after
> all to paraphrase a famous anthropologist, we've been killing and
eating
> each other for a couple of millions years, and it's only two
thousand or so
> since the first person who came up with the idea that maybe there
is another
> way to live together has been nailed to a cross for it, give it
some time...

Actually, SPS could change the whole ball game. You're right that
the problems of the Mid-East are intractable, but quite frankly,
they really are local and regional problems, and the only reason the
West is involved is because of their dependence on the region's oil.
I've already demonstrated the the remainder of their economies is a
rounding error on the world economic stage. Simply, if not for their
oil, the Middle East could be left to their own devices.

With SPS, and America's lessened reliance on Mid-East oil, the
region could be cut loose and we could then sit back and observe how
the Europeans effectively wield their SOFT POWER to remedy the
regions problems.

> Well, at least that's what *I* really think. Don't really expect
to convince
> anyone, just wanted to give a ring to the other bell, just for the
sake of
> discussion... :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Claudio

It was fun though :)

Seriously, what other bell? I wasn't intending to introduce a pro-
war argument, so why the necessity to rebut with an anti-war
argument.

Paul Fernhout and I disagree on the the prospect of SPS being a
viable path to energy independence but we agree on the benefits of
energy conservation (I hope I characterised that correctly) and what
I've been attempting to do with the geopolitical analysis is to
engage in debate on the foreign policy front as a means of spurring
SPS development because appealing to the regular Space
Appropriations channels hasn't worked for the last few decades.
Maybe a national security motive can move things forward.

TangoMan

Message Folks, in order to keep the maillist from getting pulled down into a "quagmire" itself, we probably need to stay off of political subjects. It's certainly on-topic to discuss SPS as an alternative to attempts to stabilize the Middle East, but let's try to stay off of the more political aspects of this.

Many Thanks,
Mike Combs
Co-Moderator

Very good information from you, tangoman, which gets me thinking...
First, it is evident from the quotes that we have been caught up in the media presentation of the current events in Iraq. One can speculate as to why they prefer to present the situation as a deteriorating one, but alas, they are. Having spent a good portion of my adult life on active duty with the U.S. Military (and a significant portion of that in the mid-east), and still maintaining many friends there, I can tell you unequivocably that the real situation on the ground is far different than what we are being told by our beloved and suppossedly unbiased media channels. It is much, much better. The Iraqis love us there and are grateful for our presence. They are very aware of the consequences for themselvesshould we affect a premature withdrawal. And the actual numbers, fromelectricty to schools are astronomically better than they were before the U.S. intervention. It is quite clear from the national origin of the so called 'resistance' that thesurrounding and unbelivably repressive governments are scared out of their wits by a democratic Iraq.
Unfortunately, and obviously, the ability of any nation toinitiate and sustain (at least in the short term), a venture beyond the earth's gravity trap requires amore than fuctional economy at the very least.Since it is equally evident that this dependes on the state of the global economy, stabalizing the geographic area that is most able to unbalance said economy is more than prudent, but necessary. Therefore, the U.K. and U.S. effortsin the mid-east have more than a signifigant relation to the hopes that we hold for a stepping out into space.

That being said, realize that the ability of peoples who's mind sets are stuck in the seventh century to inhibit the human race from moving forward is limited in time by the temporal extent of their oil reserves. At best (for them)this is measured in low single digit decades. At that point, the mid-east is moot. Of course, until then, due to the time limited nature of oil reserves in general and the real need to distance ourselves from seventh century religious zeal, we absolutely must make all due haste towards oil free access to cheap and friendly energy sources. Clearly a stronger efforts towards ideas that include SPS are needed badly.
We have our work cut out for us.