I'm happy to see any money going into fusion research, but it does seem that Focus Fusion has a much better chance of delivering in the near term. If you're unfamiliar with the technology, check out the Google tech talk below.
We're terrified of the fact that we live in an arational, incomprehensible world. It's a comforting fiction that some large conspiracy controls everything for the benefit of itself at the expense of everyone else, because at least that admits the possibility of control. And if societies can be controlled, at least in principle they can be fixed.
Much scarier is the idea that power stumbles blindly around like a drunken three legged elephant, arbitrarily murdering half a million people for no coherent reason beyond, well, why not?
If you want to say that the US invaded Iraq because the embargo was going to fail anyways, and this way Iraqi oil production would be delayed by years causing oil production in Texas to be more profitable at least then you'd have a conspiracy theory that made sense.
But really it was mostly Saddam overestimating US intelligence capabilities, assuming we'd know that he didn't have any nukes despite what he was telling his supporters, while really the US was relying on the reports from those of Saddam's supporters who defected.
Cui Bono doesn't work in a world where there are multiple equally intelligent forces trying to fool each other.
Hans Blix (UN inspector) repeatedly, emphatically explained that Saddam had no WMDs. Etc.
Saddam would have been quite happy to give it to us as the price of remaining in power.
Saddam had completely capituated and agreed to all of Cheney Bush demands.
They invaded any way.
From a plutocratic viewpoint, that might well be a considered as vile an act as say, using bio-weapons on the Kurdish separatists.
[1] http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/22/the-usa-attacked-iraq...
But I do agree with the above points that we spend an awful lot of time fighting symptoms, when we don't worry nearly enough about ridding ourselves of oil dependency. Energy independence is a long out problem with a lot of vested interests lined up against it - this is precisely the type of investment that does warrant government funding.
"According to those attending National Security Council meetings in the days after September 11,
The primary impetus for invading Iraq…was to make an example
of [Saddam] Hussein, to create a demonstration model to guide
the behavior of anyone with the temerity to acquire destructive
weapons or, in any way, flout the authority of the United States."
Given that those same people spent much of the Clinton Administration advocating for war on Iraq from outside of government, its a pretty good bet that that was part of the reason.
Though, to be fair, there's plenty of reason to consider that the "job that Pops started" was itself about oil, and that insofar as Iraq was targetted as an example to others, one of the reasons the particular example was chosen is because Iraq -- to borrow one of those vary same Bush II war cheerleaders description of why North Korea was treated differently than Iraq -- "floats on a sea of oil".
It also leaves out a very significant factor : vote winning. Patriotism wins elections, because it, in of itself, is just another form of groupthink.
If you're a military contractor, a military buildup or war is optimal.
Beyond that, the idea that there is any action Iraq could have taken which would have caused the dollar to fall in value 40-50% is ludicrous at its face. The economy of Iraq compared to that of the United States is tiny. The dollar reserves held by Iraq are tiny. And frankly while the oil production of Iraq is not tiny, Saudi Arabia could make up the difference without breaking a sweat. (Saudi Arabia produces well below capacity to manage the price.)
Finally, I don't think that a decline in the dollar of 50% would have quite the effect described in the article. As the largest external holder of dollar denominated debt, China would smart, but even more than the paper loss on there debt, their exports would no longer be competitive in the US, and they would lose their leading customer. (Which is why China would not let it happen...) On the other hand, American manufacturing and natural resources would once again more become competitive as real wages and costs fell. Such a decline in the currency would lead to a real decline in quality of life no doubt, but its quite possible, that rather than a recession, you'd see very low unemployment.
What do you base that on? I've found very little in the open literature.