What should the U.S.’s role be?

PJ: wind and solar were just examples, pick any technology you want. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Nukes are the only current technology that has the potential to be a significant portion of total energy sources. Wind, solar and other "alternatives" (including that ethanol crap) are just rounding errors that waste lots of national resources to make a few liberals feel good. This shit is also a breeding ground for crony capitalism.

Forget about current technology then lol

Although, it does sound like grants or similar support for pie in the sky research would also not be something you would favor. Good thing DARPA existed in a time before anything government related was bad

I would think that a large part of that had to do with Franklin not bothering to tell the French that he was involved in secret negotiations with the British about relinquishing rule over the colonies. That would be enough to break Frances alliance and choice to "stick around."

I hear what you are saying about how things were done but what's the point in comparing a war in the 1700's with one today? The only thing that remains the same (whether enemy or ally) is a strong belief that alliances are always better than solo efforts. How much value those alliances hold in the long term is another topic altogether.

C Originally Posted by Camille

Fair enough. And alliances are often as much about convenience as they are about mutual interests.

I'm not trying to make an exact comparison between a conflict in the 1700s and todays problems in Libya. Mostly what I'm trying to say is that irregardless of the help given to the people of a nation from the outside, it is the people of that nation that must make the choices that will determine that nation's future. During the American Revolution and American Civil War, the American people (conflicting, disorganized and stumbling) were still the ones making the more important decisions about their future after the fighting ended. There was no outside force making the big decisions for us after the fighting was over.

The people in Libya have to decide their own fate and the world has to believe that they are making the big decisions, even if outsiders are trying to influence the course. Once outsiders are seen as taking over (such as the US or Europe or other Arab Countries), then the people in Libya are no longer deciding their own fate. And what they have to say about their future is no longer heeded. Cause someone else is now in charge.

Sure, the US can try to tip the balance in favor of the people to win over Qaddafi, but I would suggest it never go past sanctions, freezing of accounts, supplies, etc. These things can influence events considerably but are not seen as forcing a change. Once we send military force against him, no matter how limited, we are demonstrating not only that we will impose our will on others but also the tremendous military power we have, unmatched by anyone else in the world. And a lot of people resent it.

Frankly, I'm just tired. I've already served overseas and will do so again, but I don't want to see the US getting involved in another conflict. No matter how limited some people will say our military response will be, those things tend to take on a life of their own and we can find ourselves dragged deeper into it.

Stay interested but keep out of Libya. We can help when it's right, but let them make the important decisions themselves.

Fair enough. And alliances are often as much about convenience as they are about mutual interests.

I'm not trying to make an exact comparison between a conflict in the 1700s and todays problems in Libya. Mostly what I'm trying to say is that irregardless of the help given to the people of a nation from the outside, it is the people of that nation that must make the choices that will determine that nation's future. During the American Revolution and American Civil War, the American people (conflicting, disorganized and stumbling) were still the ones making the more important decisions about their future after the fighting ended. There was no outside force making the big decisions for us after the fighting was over.

The people in Libya have to decide their own fate and the world has to believe that they are making the big decisions, even if outsiders are trying to influence the course. Once outsiders are seen as taking over (such as the US or Europe or other Arab Countries), then the people in Libya are no longer deciding their own fate. And what they have to say about their future is no longer heeded. Cause someone else is now in charge.

Sure, the US can try to tip the balance in favor of the people to win over Qaddafi, but I would suggest it never go past sanctions, freezing of accounts, supplies, etc. These things can influence events considerably but are not seen as forcing a change. Once we send military force against him, no matter how limited, we are demonstrating not only that we will impose our will on others but also the tremendous military power we have, unmatched by anyone else in the world. And a lot of people resent it.

Frankly, I'm just tired. I've already served overseas and will do so again, but I don't want to see the US getting involved in another conflict. No matter how limited some people will say our military response will be, those things tend to take on a life of their own and we can find ourselves dragged deeper into it.

Stay interested but keep out of Libya. We can help when it's right, but let them make the important decisions themselves. Originally Posted by DEPmic05

Well said.

Forget about current technology then lol

Although, it does sound like grants or similar support for pie in the sky research would also not be something you would favor. Good thing DARPA existed in a time before anything government related was bad Originally Posted by discreetgent

No actually, I think the government should (and does) support basic research - e.g., finding the next technology through grants to universities. Where I would draw the line is in commercializing that technology -- leave that to private industry. Politicians, without any skin in the game, do a very shitty job of "investing".

The difference with DARPA is that they are mainly investing in practical research and technologies that the military thinks they need.

Fair enough. And alliances are often as much about convenience as they are about mutual interests.

I'm not trying to make an exact comparison between a conflict in the 1700s and todays problems in Libya. Mostly what I'm trying to say is that irregardless of the help given to the people of a nation from the outside, it is the people of that nation that must make the choices that will determine that nation's future. During the American Revolution and American Civil War, the American people (conflicting, disorganized and stumbling) were still the ones making the more important decisions about their future after the fighting ended. There was no outside force making the big decisions for us after the fighting was over.

The people in Libya have to decide their own fate and the world has to believe that they are making the big decisions, even if outsiders are trying to influence the course. Once outsiders are seen as taking over (such as the US or Europe or other Arab Countries), then the people in Libya are no longer deciding their own fate. And what they have to say about their future is no longer heeded. Cause someone else is now in charge.

Sure, the US can try to tip the balance in favor of the people to win over Qaddafi, but I would suggest it never go past sanctions, freezing of accounts, supplies, etc. These things can influence events considerably but are not seen as forcing a change. Once we send military force against him, no matter how limited, we are demonstrating not only that we will impose our will on others but also the tremendous military power we have, unmatched by anyone else in the world. And a lot of people resent it.

Frankly, I'm just tired. I've already served overseas and will do so again, but I don't want to see the US getting involved in another conflict. No matter how limited some people will say our military response will be, those things tend to take on a life of their own and we can find ourselves dragged deeper into it.

Stay interested but keep out of Libya. We can help when it's right, but let them make the important decisions themselves. Originally Posted by DEPmic05

You make some very interesting and strong points there and I agree with pretty much all of them. Your point about alliances is also a really important one (i.e. peoples reasons for creating/joining alliances vary widely). I understand your fatigue too...it's one invasion after another after another. The line that should not be crossed is never set in stone unfortunately. When a country fights over issues like control (thinking here of the Falklands) the line seems much more clear, but when it's about anything other than control/ownership of a country that's when it gets much more blurry.

C x

No actually, I think the government should (and does) support basic research - e.g., finding the next technology through grants to universities. Where I would draw the line is in commercializing that technology -- leave that to private industry. Politicians, without any skin in the game, do a very shitty job of "investing".

The difference with DARPA is that they are mainly investing in practical research and technologies that the military thinks they need. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I actually would support something even more aggressive: A Kennedy-like mandate ("We will put a Man on the Moon") for energy independence (and other things like "Curing Cancer") if I thought the program would be managed effectively and efficiently.

... if I thought the program would be managed effectively and efficiently. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

:mf r_lol:

No matter how limited some people will say our military response will be, those things tend to take on a life of their own and we can find ourselves dragged deeper into it.

Stay interested but keep out of Libya. We can help when it's right, but let them make the important decisions themselves. Originally Posted by DEPmic05

Agreed.

No actually, I think the government should (and does) support basic research - e.g., finding the next technology through grants to universities. Where I would draw the line is in commercializing that technology -- leave that to private industry. Politicians, without any skin in the game, do a very shitty job of "investing".

The difference with DARPA is that they are mainly investing in practical research and technologies that the military thinks they need. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I actually would support something even more aggressive: A Kennedy-like mandate ("We will put a Man on the Moon") for energy independence (and other things like "Curing Cancer") if I thought the program would be managed effectively and efficiently. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I'm waiting for the gov't to start the research necessary to start manufacturing dilithium crystals. They've had a pretty good run in the future.

PJ: wind and solar were just examples, pick any technology you want. Originally Posted by discreetgent

It will really be funny when the "fuel cell" wave takes off again. The gorebull warmmongers will have a lot of 'splain'in to do about how putting water vapor in the atmosphere is somehow less "warming" than CO2!

What ever happened to the Russian's plan to mine the lunar dust for He3?

Solar?...Wind?...Zambooty fulcrum mixers?...I don’t care. Of course government has a role in developing those technologies through funding of research (but I agree, this should be done mostly through universities). But we can’t always be chasing the ability to turn water into wine. I think that is an admirable endeavor…but let’s don’t plan our life based on our ability to get there.

The technology available today is oil & gas and nuclear. The US (that is my team after all) has significant supplies of each at costs way below any other current technology methods. Why are we asking questions about the two birds in the bush (that may or may not be there) when we have the one in hand? Our world does need dreamers…no doubt. But even Columbus used a boat. He didn’t wait on a plane.

While I do agree that a "Kennedy Like Mandate" is a good thing. I think this is the absolutely wrong time for such a mandate. We have much bigger fish to fry than clean energy.

Hugo Chavez Refuses To Condemn Muammar Gaddafi, Warns That U.S. Is Preparing Invasion Of Libya

"A campaign of lies is being spun together regarding Libya," Chavez said during a televised speech. "I'm not going to condemn him. I'd be a coward to condemn someone who has been my friend."

The U.S. government is behind the campaign, he said.

Chavez slammed the United States for moving naval and air forces closer to Libya amid active international discussions about imposing a no-fly zone over the country, and he warned that U.S. officials are preparing to invade Libya.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_829488.html

It’s a shame that there is not more truth to the old adage: “Birds of a feather hang together.”

"Mandates" from politicians are a dime a dozen. There is no way we would spend the percent of GDP on this that was spent on the space program (which, for the most part) was adaptation and development of known technology. Let alone something like the Manhaten Project, which, I think is more in line with the problem today (coming up with something completely out of the box).

Having spent a little government research money in my college days and done R&D in the real world, my vote is absolutely AGAINST any government funding of research on anything except perhaps weapons systems. Very damned little worthwhile developments come from academia, and even fewer from government run programs. I've been associated with a couple of technologies developed in academia for scientific, technological purposes trying to make them work in the real world. . . a complete waste of time and money.

The same amount of money spent in private industry, as wasteful as it admittedly is, would be far more productive in the end.

gnadfly: Do you really see no difference between positioning troops near Libya and invading Iraq? Originally Posted by discreetgent

I didn't say that. However, before we invaded Iraq, we (predictably) positioned troops near it. And we tried to enforce a no fly zone.

discreetgent: Do you believe that some of the policies and actions under GWB that were vilified in the press should escape the same level of ridicule and vilification under BHO?