Y is the Left so silent on ZIMBABWE.

[fork me]

another myth. the oil companies didnt get established until after the oil based combustion engine was well on its way to becoming the established norm. Patents only last 15-20 years, how come we havnt seen alternatives since the patents expired? are all the suitably experienced engineers in the pay of oil companies?

None of this is relevent to the point made. Hydrogen engines weren't even starting to be developed until well after the petrol combustion engine and well after the oil companies were firmly established.

As to why we haven't seen alternatives, we have. The first hydrogen powered car was developed in the 80s. They've really struggled to get it right.

 

[beorhthelm]

Do you consider that a grown up response?

no, i consider it a slightly drunken and tired comment. i just tire of the oil argument as it detracts from deeper issues.

Let's look at US intervention over the last 20 or so years.

Kuwait: Oil, straight in.

Bosnia: No oil, did bugger all.

Rwanda: No oil, did bugger all.

Somalia: Very close to the oil, went in and messed it up big time.

Afghanistan: Need a pipeline, strauight in. (It's also worth noting that the planning and initial troop movements for Afghanistan happened BEFORE 9/11)

Iraq: Oil. Straight in.

North Korea: No oil. Us not committing themselves at all.



Bullshit, the reason the neighbours aren't going in is because if they started a war with Zimbabwe it would destabilise the whole region. Try actually looking at the bigger picture.

Kuwait: invaded by foreign power, Saudi asked for US protection and provided bases for operations. theres an arguement that a Saddam in control of all the oil would have been beneficial to the US/west in the long run, certainly in hindsight it would have been easier. he wouldnt have stopped selling it now would he (he was considered an ally up to this point remember)?

Bosnia: Civil war, US thought its time the EU pulled its finger out in its shere of influence. did provide logisitcs and air support.

Rwanda: Civil war. nasty stuff, but would any of the neighbouring countries have provided bases?

Somalia: Civil war. close to oil but more importantly close to major shipping route, there more to life and economies than oil. there had also been concern over extremist using the conflict to establish a power base before "al qaeda" and such were common names.

Afganistan: fair point, but that doesnt detract from the fact the contry was being used as a training camp and both Iran and Pakistan where getting twitchy about the situation there. Pakistan offered bases.

Iraq: some oil issue, but mainly just unfinshed business. the "Neo-Cons" couldnt bear that although defeated Saddam was still in power. but the cost of the war has screwed up so much which was easily predictable. Saddam was no threat and they knew it, but that includes to oil supply.

N.Korea: umm, they already tried there with UN and international backing and it was declared a draw.

so, the bigger picture, notice the commonality? civil war changes the options. If you want to go into Zimbabwe militarily you need the permission of the neighbours to have bases, which doesnt seem forthcoming. further, a united effort from neighbours wouldnt destablisse the region, maybe bring them together, but they cant agree and dont which to get involved like that - it might be them next. Im not defending the US, just taking some of the spin off things. I find it ironic that people want the US to stop their war here or there but then say they should be involved somewhere else... only of course everyone would be up in arms if they did intervene in Zimbabwe. which way do people want it?

 

[beorhthelm]

None of this is relevent to the point made. Hydrogen engines weren't even starting to be developed until well after the petrol combustion engine and well after the oil companies were firmly established.

As to why we haven't seen alternatives, we have. The first hydrogen powered car was developed in the 80s. They've really struggled to get it right.

yes, sorry, tangent. often people tout that as the reason for petrol/diesel engines not being more efficient or why we are using them at all. Anyway, the Hydrogen engine is pretty much perfected and available, you can buy one for £5k or so and they are in some London buses, the problem is with cost (due to low volume) and infrastructe for delivery of fuel. now that is a problem with oil companies obstructing and dragging their feet, not allowing access to the forcourt network

 

[fork me]

yes, sorry, tangent. often people tout that as the reason for petrol/diesel engines not being more efficient or why we are using them at all. Anyway, the Hydrogen engine is pretty much perfected and available, you can buy one for £5k or so and they are in some London buses, the problem is with cost (due to low volume) and infrastructe for delivery of fuel. now that is a problem with oil companies obstructing and dragging their feet, not allowing access to the forcourt network

There's also still the problem of producing the hydrogen in a green manner.

Fork Me