[OAW]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/

In a nutshell, this guy is saying that current US foreign policy in the Middle East is the root cause of the terrorism problem and that the US invasion of Iraq is just adding fuel to the fire. So the question becomes, what are we going to do about it? If we are unwilling or unable to change the foreign policy, then we are going about the war effort all wrong. Anyway, I won't re-hash everything the man said here. I just found it to be a fascinating interview.

Discuss!

OAW

[Orion27]

Originally posted by OAW:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/

In a nutshell, this guy is saying that current US foreign policy in the Middle East is the root cause of the terrorism problem and that the US invasion of Iraq is just adding fuel to the fire. So the question becomes, what are we going to do about it? If we are unwilling or unable to change the foreign policy, then we are going about the war effort all wrong. Anyway, I won't re-hash everything the man said here. I just found it to be a fascinating interview.

Discuss!

OAW

Yes, we won't rehash that he says we underestimated the enemy and we have pursued this war in Iraq and Afghanistan too "daintily" and that we need to be more aggressive and accept the fact there will be civilian casualties and that this aggressive posture is our "only option". I agree. In a nutshell he says our only option is to kick some serious a.. seriously.

[mr. natural]

Fascinating interview.

Among the highlights, IMHO, is his contention that al Qaida succeeds precisely because bin Laden has identified US foreign policy actions that directly offends Muslim sensibilities about sovereignty & power in their own land -- which is something they have have not had a lot of historical success as far as the west goes & the US in particular. In short, the accumulated Islamic animus of being stepped on and having their strings pulled by foreign occupiers or their supported proxies is very great indeed.

And although they are different, Ayatollah Khomeini was a precursor for bin Laden. (I also think that the lesson of Iran is one that we don't rightly consider when it comes to our options with bin Laden and this across the globe radical Islamic animosity he has tapped into. Maybe I'll add to this train of thought later.) But they both spring from the same deep well of resentment that is tied to their culture of Islamic religion.

In any event, I happen to think this fellow's ideas about bin Laden and al Qaida are worthy of deeper reflection.

I also especially thought the following was something we hear too little of, regarding the approach we've taken:

...We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do...

The recognition he makes here is that "our only option" is war so long as we refuse to acknowledge our part via our presently rigged policies toward these folks and their land; and in order to change this requires a debate of openness and honesty about whether we want to wage an endless war against an enemy without end.

I may not agree with every thing this fellow says, but there are nuggets of wisdom in his analysis.

That the war in Iraq was mistake as far as this war against al Qaida terror goes and how it has actually helped bin Laden's cause may not be clear to a lot of folks, but it is to this fellow as it always was to me.

[Zimphire]

AHAHAHH

An anonymous CIA officer is making controversial claims in a book about terrorism, saying the U.S. is fighting the wrong war in the wrong place. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.

Of course since this guy in "anonymous "there is no way to track his record, or see anything about him at all.

This is just another person looking to make money on a book.





Mitchell has it dead on though

"You're saying that no amount of public diplomacy will reach the Muslim world and change their minds because they hate everything that we stand for."

[mr. natural]

As posted by Zimphiree:

Mitchell: "You're saying that no amount of public diplomacy will reach the Muslim world and change their minds because they hate everything that we stand for."

Anonymous: "No, I don't think they hate everything that they — that we stand for. In fact, the same polls that show the depths of their hatred of our policies show a very strong affection for the traditional American sense of fair play, the idea of rule by law, the ability of people to educate their children. I think the mistake is made on our part to assume that they hate all those things. What they hate is the policy and the repercussions of that policy, whether it's in Israel or on the Arabian Peninsula. It's not a hatred of us as a society, it's a hatred of our policies."

Fixed!

[eklipse]

"No, I don't think they hate everything that they — that we stand for. In fact, the same polls that show the depths of their hatred of our policies show a very strong affection for the traditional American sense of fair play, the idea of rule by law, the ability of people to educate their children. I think the mistake is made on our part to assume that they hate all those things. What they hate is the policy and the repercussions of that policy, whether it's in Israel or on the Arabian Peninsula. It's not a hatred of us as a society, it's a hatred of our policies."

[OAW]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Fascinating interview.

Among the highlights, IMHO, is his contention that al Qaida succeeds precisely because bin Laden has identified US foreign policy actions that directly offends Muslim sensibilities about sovereignty & power in their own land -- which is something they have have not had a lot of historical success as far as the west goes & the US in particular. In short, the accumulated Islamic animus of being stepped on and having their strings pulled by foreign occupiers or their supported proxies is very great indeed.

Indeed. I thought it was especially noteworthy when he mentioned that the three holiest lands in Islam are currently occupied by Westerners.

1. Saudi Arabia - US
2. Iraq - US
3. Palestine (Jerusalem) - Israel

And then we wonder why Muslims in general and the Middle Eastern "man on the street" has a beef with US foreign policy!

Originally posted by mr. natural:

...We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do...

Unfortunately, the man is right. Some may take his statement as advocating a more aggressive approach to the War on Terror. And he is saying that. However, the key point is that he is saying we have to do that if we are unwilling or unable to address the root cause of the problem ... which is our foreign policy in the region. Personally, I think removing our forces from Muslim lands ... not from the entire region since we need to protect oil shipping lanes in the Gulf with our naval forces ... would go a long way towards reducing terrorism. Secondly, adjusting our "Israel can do no wrong" approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would undoubtedly help as well. Lastly, encouraging true democracy instead of supporting corrupt and/or oppressive regimes in the region will help as well. But our approach continues to be to feed the people in the Middle East sh*t, tell them that it's chocolate cake, and then wonder why we aren't well regarded in the region.

OAW

[mr. natural]

I'll be the first to agree with you, OAW, and, not surprisingly from the looks of it here, the last too.

Anyway...

Posted by OAW:
Personally, I think removing our forces from Muslim lands ... not from the entire region since we need to protect oil shipping lanes in the Gulf with our naval forces ... would go a long way towards reducing terrorism.

I concur (indeed, I have consistently advocated for getting the f*ck out of their backyards), although I'd quibble with you about the need for the naval presence even (in that our oil addiction needs to be fundamentally addressed if any of the rest of this mess is to be straightened out).

*The lesson of Iran,* is that once we leave them alone (or as in Iran are kicked out), and they are left to their own devices to rule, it tends to take a lot of steam out the radicals rhetorical agenda; not to mention the ability or desire among the disenfranchised populace to bother actually attacking us.

For one thing the formerly *outsider* leaders are now in control, and thus suddenly too busy actually having to deal with the politically harsh realities of feeding, housing, educating, and providing or allowing for meaningful labor in their new found theocracies; And this in essence removes one huge leg of their propaganda campaign once the US is no longer involved in their internal affairs! (It really is elemental, Mr. Watson. )

Hence, I think it is in our best interests to actually let bin Laden take over Saudi Arabia!

Imagine him actually running such a country with all those unemployed young Saudi 20 year old rebels who probably just want to kick back with their harem of wives and play Grand Theft Auto!

Secondly, as is revealed in this linked interview, polling shows that the common folk of the middle east simply desire a sense of direct control over their own affairs. Again, i present the situation in Iran, where interestingly, the status of America and our ideals among the common Iranians has risen in direct correlation to how little we have meddled in their internal affairs over the past 20 years!

In essence, America's influence works best when it is left to insinuate itself, rather than be imposed by misplaced foreign/military policy at the behest of our club-footed one-eyed behemoth of a government.

This falls under your suggestion:

Lastly, encouraging true democracy instead of supporting corrupt and/or oppressive regimes in the region will help as well.

Again, I heartily concur that this would go a long way to undermining the support which al Qaida depends on against US.

But, as I am so often having to say about all this, your final sentence sums up our continuing unquestioned stupidity, tragically:

But our approach continues to be to feed the people in the Middle East sh*t, tell them that it's chocolate cake, and then wonder why we aren't well regarded in the region.

Indeed.

Go figure.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Fixed!

And he is full of it.

They have SAID that they hated our way of life.

Some terrorists organizations have even said they didn't want to "become friends" they wanted us dead.

[PacHead]

That "anonymous" insider story could be bogus for all we know.

One does not make peace with Al Qaeda terrorists nor their friends. One wipes them out.

And hating our "policies" is just a clever way of saying they hate us (without directly saying it), since we are the ones who make those policies.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by OAW:
Indeed. I thought it was especially noteworthy when he mentioned that the three holiest lands in Islam are currently occupied by Westerners.

1. Saudi Arabia - US
2. Iraq - US
3. Palestine (Jerusalem) - Israel

And then we wonder why Muslims in general and the Middle Eastern "man on the street" has a beef with US foreign policy!



Unfortunately, the man is right. Some may take his statement as advocating a more aggressive approach to the War on Terror. And he is saying that. However, the key point is that he is saying we have to do that if we are unwilling or unable to address the root cause of the problem ... which is our foreign policy in the region. Personally, I think removing our forces from Muslim lands ... not from the entire region since we need to protect oil shipping lanes in the Gulf with our naval forces ... would go a long way towards reducing terrorism. Secondly, adjusting our "Israel can do no wrong" approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would undoubtedly help as well. Lastly, encouraging true democracy instead of supporting corrupt and/or oppressive regimes in the region will help as well. But our approach continues to be to feed the people in the Middle East sh*t, tell them that it's chocolate cake, and then wonder why we aren't well regarded in the region.

OAW

Well said.

[Orion27]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Well said.

So how do we protect Israel?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Orion27:
So how do we protect Israel?

Israel has proven that they are perfectly capable of protecting themselves from outside aggression.

Don't they have nukes?

And if you're referring to terrorism: The US is doing nothing to "protect" Israel from that threat.

Perhaps if Israel learned to make a real effort of living with its neighbors and its own non-Jewish inhabitants, the terrorism problem would dwindle away.

Killing, segregating, and displacing them certainly isn't working.

-s*

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Israel has proven that they are perfectly capable of protecting themselves from outside aggression.

Don't they have nukes?

So, I assume you take it that it is perfectly ok for Israel to nuke somebody, inorder to defend themselves ? I take it you will not complain or whine if this happens, am I correct ?

About making the effort in living with it's neighbors, perhaps you should ask the same of the aggressive neighbors which are in the region, which do not even recognize the existance of Israel. Israel doesn't need to make peace with countries who seek to destory them.

Your logic is like blaming WW2 on the European countries that Hitler invaded. Why did these countries not make the effort in living with it's nice nazi neighbors ? I wonder why.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by OAW:
1. Saudi Arabia - US
2. Iraq - US

List fixed.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by PacHead:
So, I assume you take it that it is perfectly ok for Israel to nuke somebody, inorder to defend themselves ?

Why would you assume so?

Why would that assumption or even his postion on the matter change the fact that Israel will defend itself with nukes if it has to.

Do you have a say in the matter?

Does anyone here?

Well then have a nice cup of SHUT the **** up!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by PacHead:
That "anonymous" insider story could be bogus for all we know.

One does not make peace with Al Qaeda terrorists nor their friends. One wipes them out.

And hating our "policies" is just a clever way of saying they hate us (without directly saying it), since we are the ones who make those policies.

Indeed.

[deomacius]

I HAD to comment on this...

Palestinians have a simple message to most Israelis and Zionists: 8.5 million Palestinians are going no where. The sooner the majority of Israelis and Zionists understand this simple message, the faster they shall wake up from their delusional coma.

The revisionist version of the history of "palestine" that has been widely accepted by society is outrageous. The sooner the facts of what that country WAS and what it is now are accepted the faster everyone will be able to move forward. The sooner palestinian militants stop blowing up Israeli civilians the sooner Israel will cooperate, IMHO.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by mr. natural:

I concur (indeed, I have consistently advocated for getting the f*ck out of their backyards), although I'd quibble with you about the need for the naval presence even (in that our oil addiction needs to be fundamentally addressed if any of the rest of this mess is to be straightened out).

*The lesson of Iran,* is that once we leave them alone (or as in Iran are kicked out), and they are left to their own devices to rule, it tends to take a lot of steam out the radicals rhetorical agenda; not to mention the ability or desire among the disenfranchised populace to bother actually attacking us.

For one thing the formerly *outsider* leaders are now in control, and thus suddenly too busy actually having to deal with the politically harsh realities of feeding, housing, educating, and providing or allowing for meaningful labor in their new found theocracies; And this in essence removes one huge leg of their propaganda campaign once the US is no longer involved in their internal affairs! (It really is elemental, Mr. Watson. )

Hence, I think it is in our best interests to actually let bin Laden take over Saudi Arabia!

Imagine him actually running such a country with all those unemployed young Saudi 20 year old rebels who probably just want to kick back with their harem of wives and play Grand Theft Auto!

While I tend to agree with you, I've thought the same many times, it takes a great leap of faith to actually carry through on policy like you describe. A leap that I don't think any US politician is willing to take.

Ceding Saudi Arabia to Bin Laden or other radical Islamists would be such a leap.

No matter how pious a hat they claim to wear this brand of radical Islam is authoritarian government. Plain and simple. It's a bunch of old men dictating every aspect of their society with an iron fist. No different than the Politburo, National Socialists, or the old men who rule China. Would any president voluntarily allow that kind of regime a foothold in such a vital region? Would any free citizen feel comfortable to see the millions who would have to live under that rule? I know I wouldn't. It seems like a huge step backwards. It's not unreasonable to assume you'd see Taliban-like regimes.

Secondly, even if we started a 'Alternative Energy Manhattan Project' to wean us off oil, the results wouldn't come to fruition for decades. Until then we'd be at the mercy of radicals that want to destroy us and our freedoms for their own benefit. Yes, the oil would still have to flow to meet the internal needs of those countries but that doesn't mean they can't or won't play games with the price or the flow of oil. That would devastate our economy.

Also, even if the US could reduce our dependence it wouldn't immunize us from the dependency the rest of the world has on oil. Our economies are too interrelated to assume we'd be fine if our allies were to be raped by radicals in control of such a vital resource.

I, like you, think it's encouraging to see how disenchanted the Iranian public has become of theocracy rule. But I would caution that the story isn't over there yet. We've seen the pattern with communism, eventually the public will chafe and rebel when their leaders turn out to be such utter failures and incompetents. It's been 20 years in Iran, but it could be another 20 before we see serious reform towards democracy. Who knows what's going to happen between now and then? Are we willing and patient enough to go through the same process with the whole of the Middle East?

It's definitely tempting to withdraw and leave them to grow out of their own mistakes but the cost would be too much. Not to say that I approve of Bush's direction, I'm don't, but I think it's better than total withdrawal. I think we need to engage the Middle East and help move them towards democracy. The question is whether you do it with a hammer (like Bush) or with an open hand.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Israel doesn't need to make peace with countries who seek to destory them.

Actually that's exactly what peace is good for! If there was already peace before there would be no need to make peace, as it would be already the case, obvious don't you think?

But to be more specific: Israel is only slightly more than a US-military- and a US-spy-base in order to keep the US-neo-colonies under control.

Normally, if the arabic states were really souvereign and democratic nations, they would have led war until that US-military-base is under arabic control. But the reality is different, the arabic states are cursed with US-installed and US-supported dictatorships that suppress their own people, of which their foreign policies are decided in Washington-DC, including the "let's do as if-wars" of 48, 67 and 72/73.

Besides, at least three of the arabic US-neocolonies that called for the destruction of Israel rhetorically have signed peace-agreements with Israel and vice-versa.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
No matter how pious a hat they claim to wear this brand of radical Islam is authoritarian government. Plain and simple. It's a bunch of old men dictating every aspect of their society with an iron fist. No different than the Politburo, National Socialists, or the old men who rule China. Would any president voluntarily allow that kind of regime a foothold in such a vital region? Would any free citizen feel comfortable to see the millions who would have to live under that rule? I know I wouldn't. It seems like a huge step backwards. It's not unreasonable to assume you'd see Taliban-like regimes.

Maybe you don't know it, but Saudi Arabia has already a Taliban-sort of regime, and they had it since the Saudis came to power with the help of the USA in the last century.

The only three differences to Afghanistan were a)the oil and the curse and sake of a welfare-state and b) a relatively peaceful century and c)that Saudi Arabia is a US-neocolony and as such is under diplomatic protection (meaning not nearly as harsh media-coverage as other countries are treated with etc..).

Taliesin

[itai195]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Normally, if the arabic states were really souvereign and democratic nations, they would have led war until that US-military-base is under arabic control. But the reality is different, the arabic states are cursed with US-installed and US-supported dictatorships that suppress their own people, of which their foreign policies are decided in Washington-DC, including the "let's do as if-wars" of 48, 67 and 72/73.

And what would happen if the people suddenly gained control of those nations? More unrestrained war against Israel? No US politician is going to let that happen.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Maybe you don't know it, but Saudi Arabia has already a Taliban-sort of regime, and they had it since the Saudis came to power with the help of the USA in the last century.

The only three differences to Afghanistan were a)the oil and the curse and sake of a welfare-state and b) a relatively peaceful century and c)that Saudi Arabia is a US-neocolony and as such is under diplomatic protection (meaning not nearly as harsh media-coverage as other countries are treated with etc..).

Taliesin

I wouldn't compare the Afghanistan-flavor Taliban with Saudi Arabia. In SA there isn't the complete and absolute rejection of western ideals that happened with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

At least in SA they embrace education, medical care, the media, and other things western. Afghanistan was almost a throwback to the 9th century. The only thing modern they condoned were guns.

Maybe you could call SA Taliban-lite but not to the extreme that was practiced in Afghanistan.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by itai195:
And what would happen if the people suddenly gained control of those nations? More unrestrained war against Israel? No US politician is going to let that happen.

Good question and not easy to answer, because it's like a matrix-equation with too many unknowns.
First it would propabably lead to a United States of arabia or United States of Islam in the longterm, the US would propabably try to react with CIA-coups, but they wouldn't work anymore, direct warfare wouldn't be possible either as that islamic/arabic union/confederation would possess atom-bombs and other WMD's..

It would lead to the use of ressources in the interest of the own people, meaning for their own industries before they get sold, which would off course make them more expensive, etc..

Both the military as well as the economic as well as the industrial capability of that country would obviously experience a considerable jump.

But what about that US-military-base called Israel, that is equipped with atom-bombs. Well, direct warfare against Israel would not be possible, but the United States of Islam or Arabia would maybe install an economic embargo upon Israel as long as it doesn't accept a genuine peace with the palestinians, off course with the right of return for the palestinians, as well as an agreement to dissolve any US-military and US-spy-bases etc..

Obviously the US will never allow that all to happen and will do everything to prevent the non-preventable, and by this maybe even accelerate the process unwillingly..

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I wouldn't compare the Afghanistan-flavor Taliban with Saudi Arabia. In SA there isn't the complete and absolute rejection of western ideals that happened with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

At least in SA they embrace education, medical care, the media, and other things western. Afghanistan was almost a throwback to the 9th century. The only thing modern they condoned were guns.

Maybe you could call SA Taliban-lite but not to the extreme that was practiced in Afghanistan.

The difference between those countries can be traced back to the oil that allowed Saudi-Arabia to build a welfare-state, as well as made it a US-neo-colony which had to allow western espescially US-products to enter Saudi-Arabia.

The other thing was that Afghanistan was totally destroyed during the war with the Soviet-Union with approximately 1,5 million killed Afghnans, and the surviving Afghans engaged then in a bloody civil-war...

Taliesin

[mr. natural]

vmpaul:

First of all, you are correct about my proposal. The suggestion that we pull our troops from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, even Iraq, etc., would truly require, as you put it, "a leap of faith." And certainly this isn't in our deck of foreign policy cards as presently rigged.

I still think it is worth considering, and and airing out in debates too. That we cannot even imagine our politicians considering this and debating such an idea reveals a lot more about how shallow our public discourse has become, as well as how we are locked into -- and tragically so -- a set of policies (and unquestionable responses borne of the policies) which amounts to it's own form of dogmatic blind faith!

That being the case, as noted above by me in reference to this interview:

The Anonymous CIA agent said:

As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do.

Our dilemma can best be summarized by a simple cause & effect test developed by an 18th century protopsychiatrist who developed an infallible method of distinguishing the sane from the insane. Those to be diagnosed were locked in a room with water taps on one side of the room and a supply of mops and buckets on the other. The water taps were turned on and one watched the reactions of those being diagnosed. Those considered mad ran for the mops and buckets while the sane walked over and turned off the taps.

It is my contention that our relationship to the middle east and the people therein, via our foreign policy -- which must be noted is driven by our oil addicted economic policy -- is all mops and buckets. It is an insane policy and only results in chain reactions of insanity by all of us who live under it.

In any event, who says the the House of Saud would cave in if we were to withdraw our troops. After all the armaments we've sold these guys one would think they could defend themseves! But if not, that's really their problem and not mine or ours. Since when did Saudi Arabia become our 51st state?

Bin Laden has repeatedly stated he hates our presence there and attacks us for it. Cause and effect. Remove the cause and we might actually diminish the terror. It would be an interesting experiment if we could only dare try it, no?

Bin Laden's energy might then be directed at toppling the House of Saud, instead of directing operatives to fly planes into our buildings! But just because we leave Saudi Arabia doesn't mean we stop trying to kill the mother f*cker. Yet if we left it would certainly remove one of bin Laden's core recruitment keys -- the stationing of armed infidels within Islamic holy lands.

And even if he or his ilk did take over Saudi Arabia, so what? Yes, it may seem offensive to our sensibilities that the citizens of Saudi Arabia might suffer under such a theocratic rule, but what is so special about them as opposed to the billion chinese folk suffering under a similar totalitarian, but communist instead of theocratic, rule! I feel bad for them but we aren't wasting our supposedly precious blood and treasure to liberate them are we?

And like in Iran, Bin Laden and his nutty fanatics would then have to actually rule a restless populace. This would certainly keep him busy and out of our hair. What's he going to do? Cut off oil to us? Such a move would do more to bring about his down fall than it would ours, or the rest of the western world.

Would we suffer economically -- sure. But the point of any real war is winning it and a certain amount of suffering is a small price to pay if we ever really want to win this war. We seem to think we can win this war without real sacrifice. Keep shopping our president tells us! What kind of a joke of a war is this? I guess all the hero worship about the sacrifices that folks made in WWII is just more shallow window dressing to make ourselves feel good about how special we are now, eh? Well, if you ask me, such obvious narcissism is just another form of arrogance, none of which pays handsomely in the long run.

Anyway, I don't believe losing Saudi Arabia would "devastate our economy," at least not lethally. They need our money as much as the west needs their oil -- at least for a little while.

(Also, I think it worth pointing out that the *economy* is a conceptual reality of our own making that should work for us, rather than vis versa in that *we serve* the economy -- which is how you and most everyone else seem to thinks it works best. Which raises a serious question: Are we slaves to the GNP or the DJI, or can we actually manage an *economy* that it serves us? Although we have strayed far off such a path of comprehension, I believe we can and should accomplish the latter. To accept the premise that *the economy* rules us is to accept servitude to an abstraction of our own making. This is another mop & bucket point of faith based insanity we unquestionally accept.)

An energy future and an economy that is not so beholden to oil addiction is not "decades" away if we decided that it was in our vital national interest and would help win this war on terror. Numerous studies have be done, by energy researchers and big firm venture capital investors, which all suggest that a complete over-haul and switch to a hydrogen based economy is financially and technically doable within one decade! (I have before me Worldwatch Paper #157, entitled "Hydrogen Futures: Toward a Sustainable Energy System" which summarizes how this can happen. See here to purchase.)

Or as is stated in 2001 here:

"If we really decided that we wanted a clean hydrogen economy," a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, USA comments, "we could have it by 2010."

The barriers are now mainly psychological, agrees Stanford Ovshinsky of Energy Conversion Devices in Troy, Michigan: "What is involved is the task of changing a huge, powerful, entrenched global industry from a petrol-engine base to an electric one."

Another good place to research is The Rocky Mountain Institute [www.rmi.org] and this page full of pdf's about hydrogen.

From 20 Hydrogen Myths:

Myth #17. A viable hydrogen transition would take 30–50 years or more to complete, and hardly anything worthwhile could be done sooner than 20 years.

Under development since 1991, 3–5? vehicles could, in principle, enter production ramp-up as soon as 2007 with aggressive investment and licensing to manufacturers. Although the press frequently reports very long transition times as inevitable, and many in the auto industry understandably share that view, many experts feel the transition could be rather rapid. Accelerated scrappage feebates (Myth #16) could turn over most or all of the U.S. car fleet in less than a decade. The handful of hydrogen refueling stations in Japan, Germany, and the United States could grow rapidly: Deutsche Shell has said hydrogen could be dispensed from all its German stations within two years if desired. However long the transition takes —which is matter of choice, not fate — it’s better to start than not to, and we need to start quickly. The stakes are too high to dawdle.

Unfortunately for all of us, that such strategic thinking is not even regarded as realistic among our policy makers does not mean that it can't be done; rather it only suggests that we are being misled by "huge, powerful, entrenched" oil addicted policies!

It is more mop and bucket insanity.

But instead of intelligently questioning and debating such ideas, we presume to say: It can't be done, it isn't realistic, it's oh so naive.

Who is fooling whom here?

[Taliesin]

Great post, mr. natural,

but even a hydrogen-based energy-carrier is not an ideal solution, because hydrogen must first be produced out of water, and for that you need again energy, in order to divide the hydrogen from the oxygen. In that regard oil is superior, because it's a first-grade energy-carrier directly usable, while hydrogen is a second-grade-energy-carrier.

It's possible to use atom-energy to turn water into hydrogen, but that technology has its own problems considering the radio-activity, and the potentially devastating melt-downs etc...

Oil could be used to make hydrogen, but that would be quite ironic and counterproductive.

The only thing that I can think of that could be done is the use of solar-power to divide the hydrogen from the oxygen, but I don't know if solar-power is powerful enough to achieve that consistently and reliable..

The other aspect is that hydrogen is not easy to transport, as it is not a liquid but gaseously..

Taliesin

[mr. natural]

Taliesin:

In order to make this transition as direct, clean, and inexpensive as possible, the hydrogen would initially be derived from fuel cells powered by natural gas, as well as solar power where ever possible.

As far as solar power goes, believe me, it works fine and can easily produce hydrogen. This glorified calculating machine that I am writing on right now is powered by an array of photo-voltaic panels and a small windmill i have set up in my back yard (which powers the entire cottage that I work in). The power generated is stored in a battery bank. On a day like today, with brilliant sunshine and a brisk breeze too, the water/electrolyte solution in my battery bank is churning out loads of hydrogen. Unfortunately, it is floating off into the air because I don't have the means to capture it and use it.

(the Worldwatch and RMI links I provided above detail all this information. Another excellent source of information about all of this, including our oil based foreign policy foibles, is Jeremy Rifkin's book, "The Hydrogen Economy")

In any event,

From Worldwatch paper #157, "Hydrogen Futures":

...a 1999 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) infrastructure workshop report[ed] that "there are no technical showstoppers to implementing a direct hydrogen infrastructure." This was a concensus collectively reached by major auto, energy, and hydrogen companies, agencies, national laboratories, and universities. The participants pointed to the need for engineering improvements, codes and standards, and the resolution of other institutional issues. But company representatives felt that they were technically capable of proceeding with the development of the infrastructure and technologies for hydrogen markets. The issue is the timing and coordination of capital investments, and the need for government and industry to collaborate in developing a roadmap.

What's missing is a proper sense of urgency and direction coming from the Federal branch; especially the executive branch we are stuck with!

It is also insane to note that we expend more money (estimated at $30 to $60 billion -- before Iraq) just to protect our oil addicted economic interest in the Middle East than we receive in terms of the value of the imported oil. "As in the Roman Empire in its later stages, the military costs of maintaining the energy flow-through was becoming more expensive than the net value of the energy being secured." (pg. 147, "The Hydrogen Economy," by Jeremy Rifkin)

How much longer does anyone think we can keep propping up this vulnerability with our taxes and our spilt blood?

From where I sit we don't have "decades" to break the oil addiction habit and our insane foreign policy behavior toward all the disenfranchised & extremely young* and restless folks in the middle east who are soaked in religious fanaticism. (40 percent of the Middle East's population is under 17 years of age! In 1970, Saudi Arabia had a population of 6.2 million people. In 2001 the population was at 22.7 million and 43 percent was under the age of 14!)

No matter how one slices it, these kinds of facts and our continued heavy handed actions in the region only increase our economic vulnerabilities the longer we stick around behaving like the insane junkie we are. We may win a lot of battles against Osama and his terrorist flunkies, but this is one war we can not possibly win as presently rigged. If we think free and open democracy in the middle east will solve our problems we are completely deluding ourselves, and the first election of an Islamic party that gains them government control will prove it (shortly thereafter to be overthrown by an engineered military coup no doubt. See Algeria for example).

But instead of thinking this through and informing the american public of the real creek we are up without a paddle (so long as we stay in this particular creek with our policies borne of addiction), we trumpet the horns of false patriotism, rally round the flag, and go set up the blunt instrument of a Peace, Freedom & Democracy war shop right in the middle of the Islamic fanatics Holy Lands!

Way to go USA!

What a stupid and tragic mess all this is.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Taliesin:

In order to make this transition as direct, clean, and inexpensive as possible, the hydrogen would initially be derived from fuel cells powered by natural gas, as well as solar power where ever possible.

Why? The natural gas is a far more efficient energy carrier than the hydrogen itself. You'd lose energy in the conversion for no good reason.

It would be easier in many way, and eventually necessary no matter how you slice it given our need for oil based products (plastic, oil, etc), to go with thermal depolymerization (also here). It can take waste from existing practices (plastic, polystyrene, agricultural waste like feathers and other animal bits, just about anything carbon based) and turn it into oil. The process can be powered by solar, wind, natural gas, or whatever. It reduces the need for drastically changing the technological landscape (though it still needs a lot of change, since this is not an energy source). Fast growing trash plants like kudzu, marijuana, or bamboo could be grown, used for something, and then converted into oil. Perhaps ferment the stuff, making alcohol for fuel cells, and then dump the leftovers into oil/gas production.

If I understand correctly, most of the energy enters this system in the growing of the plants, making this a primarily solar based technology. The depolymerization requires energy, though, but that can come from anything that provides sufficient heat.

There are, of course, other solutions, like the hydrogen based economy. I think we should carefully consider all options when we decide how we want to base our energy economy because we don't just want to jump at the first thing that comes to mind. Going this route has so many advantages it's not funny: it gives us a safe way to dispose of sewage and solid wastes, it doesn't require a huge revamp of our entire infrastructure, pollutants (like CO2) produced by it are temporary, quickly sucked up again by growing the plants that are used to make the oil. Not to mention that the fuels produced by it are more efficient and easier to transport than H2.

I would like to see cars change over from internal combustion into fuel cells, though.

That said, I thought that we had already pulled just about all of our troops out of SA? IIRC, this was done early in the Iraq conflict because it was causing too many problems for the Sauds. It doesn't help, though, that we're all over in Iraq now, though. We replaced a boil with a festering wound.

BlackGriffen

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Taliesin:

In order to make this transition as direct, clean, and inexpensive as possible, the hydrogen would initially be derived from fuel cells powered by natural gas, as well as solar power where ever possible.

California could be the first state to change its system in a sort of pilot-project to hydrogen just to see how it fares practically on a large scale, because I have read somewhere that California is quite progressive when it comes to protect the environment, also against the will of the car-industry..

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Why? The natural gas is a far more efficient energy carrier than the hydrogen itself. You'd lose energy in the conversion for no good reason.

...

There are, of course, other solutions, like the hydrogen based economy. I think we should carefully consider all options when we decide how we want to base our energy economy because we don't just want to jump at the first thing that comes to mind.

...

I would like to see cars change over from internal combustion into fuel cells, though.

That said, I thought that we had already pulled just about all of our troops out of SA? IIRC, this was done early in the Iraq conflict because it was causing too many problems for the Sauds. It doesn't help, though, that we're all over in Iraq now, though. We replaced a boil with a festering wound.

BlackGriffen

Sorry, that I have cut out your suggestions about the use of sewage. I have done that because I don't know anything about it, espescially considering practicability and side-effects, etc.., therefore I don't want to comment about it for now..

You raised a good question regarding the use of natural gas, but I think that mr. natural is propapagating the use of hydrogen because it can be produced out of water and is therefore not dependable on any ressource, and natural gas would be a ressource like oil that some countries will have much of and some countries nothing, etc..

He suggested the use of natural gas as a short-term-solution for producing hydrogen, before it gets replaced by wind- or solar-energy, etc..

What you said regarding Saudi-Arabia is true but tells not the whole story. Right now most of the US-soldiers in Saudi-Arabia were relocated to Iraq to help out there, but the US-military-bases in Saudi-Arabia are still there and are still manned by US-soldiers and are still under US-jurisdiction. Once Iraq is enpeaced the US-soldiers that were relocated will return to Saudi-Arabia.

Then the US will have three countries in the middle-east in which US-military-bases are manned: Israel, Saudi-Arabia and Iraq.

What does it mean for the US to have military-bases outside of the US? It means it can intervene military against every enemy, or future enemies without having to conquer every country on the way to the enemy. The US can just fly in its troops and war-machinery to a nearby military-base or better still to more than one military-base in different countries encircling the enemy and opening up more than one front..

In Haiti, Germany, Turkey, Greece, Israel, Saudi-Arabia, all small Gulfstates, Iraq, Egypt, and nearly all other arabic states, in south-corea, some ex-Soviet-Union-states and in Japan are US-military-bases, and I bet also in south-america.

That is a factual US-empire, only a bit more modern than the roman empire. The US doesn't have to man these military-bases very highly because of modern technology like planes and simultaneous communication with satellites, and on the jurisdiction-level with bi-lateral-agreements and pacts.

What still characterizes an empire? Off course the tribute-payments of the members of the empire. That is achieved on different levels:
1. The dollar-regime under which every country that wants to take part in worldtrade via worldbank and IMF or wallstreet has to put its economy. It means the US can suck from the productivity of these countries, for example by borrowing money from other countries inside the own currency, the dollar which can be strenghtened shortly before the US borrows money, and then when the US wants to pay back it weakens the dollar and then pays back..

2. The US ensures with pressure through the military presence, that countries sell their ressources to the US for bargain prices.

3. The US ensures that these countries keep their markets open for US-products.

4. The US ensures that US-companies can build manufacturing-sites in those countries and use the cheap workforce there..

Taliesin

[mr. natural]

Posted by BlackGriffen:

Why? The natural gas is a far more efficient energy carrier than the hydrogen itself. You'd lose energy in the conversion for no good reason.

Hey BG, nice to hear from you. I'll try to answer your question as best as I can, but I could be mistaken -- I'm not a scientist by training although I do my best to understand such issues.

I'll suppose you are correct about natural gas beating hydrogen in a one to one energy efficiency test. But I don't believe that is true under the scenario I am thinking of as part of the transition phase to a hydrogen based energy system and economy.

Natural gas burned once vs. burning hydrogen once may in fact be the more efficient fuel. But add natural gas to a fuel cell in a building, and one gets a lot more to work with.

1) The fuel cell generates electricity to power the building.

2) It can also provide some residual heating potential out of the process too.

3) I believe that the CO2 pollution ramification of using natural gas in this way is lessened somewhat too.

4) But best of all, the natural gas fuel cell produces hydrogen, which can then be used in a fleet of hydrogen powered fuel cell cars. (This also neatly addresses the issue of having to build a national hydrogen delivery system.)

5) These cars produce virtually no pollution -- hence they directly redress our fossil fuel CO2 induced greenhouse effect.

Looked at in this way, I think the energy efficiency factor is quite favorable for a lot of good reasons!

Understand too, this is part of a transitional scheme. At some point in the future the natural gas aspect would be phased out, and we would be relying primarily on solar powered (plus hydro, bio-mass, etc) means to produce hydrogen.

In any event, I have no problems with any other useful suggestions, such as thermal depolymerization, It sounds like a good idea that does address some pressing needs. However, contrary to your assertion, it doesn't truly alleviate the atmospheric CO2 problem when it comes to the combustion of fossilized fuels. (You and I could go off on a tangent here about all this, and what to do with sewage sludge, etc -- me, I don't make any with my backyard compost pile full of my humanure -- but I'd rather not get sidetracked into all that right now.) That this process might lend a hand during any transitional phase we might undertake to a hydrogen based economy, especially when, not if, Islamic radicals gain control of the oil spigots in the middle east is welcome news.

I also remember too that we were supposed to be pulling our troops out of Saudi Arabia, but whether it has actually been accomplished at this time is unknown to me. I would tend to doubt it. And like you said:

It doesn't help, though, that we're all over in Iraq now, though. We replaced a boil with a festering wound.

Indeed. As if this has really solved anything as far as this bone of contention goes, eh.

[Busemann]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Some terrorists organizations have even said they didn't want to "become friends" they wanted us dead.

Obviously, fanatic terrorists don't want anything less than that. What is interesting is why an increasing number of muslims (and others) hate USA and the west today more than ever. Israel and Palestine are certainly the root of that, and the unjust war in Iraq is only adding fuel to the fire.

Just killing Bin Laden et al wont help much, thousands of others will follow and replace their seats if the root of terrorism isn't removed.

It will be interesting to see how history will judge the current administration's war on terror...