For the most part people on this board seem to be well educated and it's one of the reasons I enjoy reading here, although usually I like the time or inclination to post. However this is on spot where I think I can make a valuable contribution. The title here may strike you as audacious. It is, but I can back it up.

To give a little relevant background on myself I am an undergraduate university student going into my final year as an applied mathematics major. I am 19 years old.

So let's dive right in then. The problem as simply stated as possible, is finding a cheap, clean energy source. Many people don't appreciate the fact that cheap energy is the limiting factor on solutions for hunger and clean water as well as a necessary component to a generally higher standard of living. Consider that water is available on earth in massive quantities. The problem is the salt content of said water. There exists processes for desalination, however they require tremendous amounts of energy (for example the electrolysis and combustion of water). And if we have access to plenty of pure water then we need not have drought or hunger. I do appreciate that it is not quite so simple as that but bear with me a while longer. So we can all agree that cheap energy is a necessary component for the improvement of the society we live in. But then as if that wasn't enough of a challenge it has to be clean too! Fair enough. It's ok to dream after all. Now let's leave this line and pick it up again a little later.

Being educated people on the whole (and as someone who peruses Facebook I really appreciate that phenomenon) you're probably somewhat familiar with the Conservation of Energy and the first law of thermodynamics. In short these laws state that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. An internal combustion engine takes the potential energy from it's fuel and turns it into a usable form of mechanical energy; a hydroelectric damn converts the mechanical energy of flowing water into electrical energy etc. With that law in place the burden is then on us to find energy in some stored form and transform it into something useful. Frankly, that method has been done to death and I think it's about time we got something new.

The reality is that these laws are much more permissive than many people seem to realize. In fact there exist numerous motors and other apparatuses which are capable of capturing energy cleanly and efficiently through what is referred to as asymmetrical reguaging.
Here is a partial list: http://www.cheniere.org/misc/oulist.htm You'll notice that this page is hosted on a site known as the Thomas Bearden Website. Dr. Thomas Bearden is a Nobel Prize Winner and brilliant physicist. I came across his work and that of Jean-Luis Naudin when I was 17. After reading their technical papers and relying heavily on their work I designed my own free energy generator. With luck I will be able to build an industrial grade version and patent it by the end of this next year.

The point I wish to make is simply this and I do hope that as responsible citizens (of the planet) you will take it to heart: There is no reason why we cannot have as much clean free energy as we can consume available in any part of the world. The technology exists; I have seen it and done it with my own two hands. The only two things keeping us from it is the academic dogma which in spite of all evidence to contrary clings to their raft of inefficiency in the name laws of physics (and even Hawking will admit that "laws" is a misnomer) and the financial choke hold that the oil industry has on energy capital and contracts. The problems we face today could be the problems that we conquered yesterday if only people new and believed that this kind of energy extraction is in fact possible.

There's the solution. In fact, there's a dozen incarnations of that solution. What are you gonna do about it?

Sorry freethinker, I didn't intend to misquote you. And thank you for the welcome.

As to Abraxas systematic decomposition, my defense of US relations with Saudi Arabia does not automatically imply that Iran is the opposite as your mode of reply seems to suggest. However, since you asked it is well known that Iran maintains a uranium mine and processing facilities, as well as a nuclear reactor. If you are willing to just take the Iranians word that it's strictly for power production then you are just as guilty of subjective support for Iran as I would be for Saudi Arabia.


That's like answering "Would you rather die by fire or water?" with "Why would I want to die?!?" Hypothetical question, nothing else. Moreover you can't deny that the world as a whole has a vested interest in who has nuclear capability. There is every reason to be concerned and watchful of any developing country pursuing nuclear technology.

Saudi Arabia in spite of its admittedly checkered practices has at the very least been responsive to diplomacy and doesn't shoot off their mouth about driving Israel into the sea.

I would still have to say that concentration on Iran as opposed to Saudi Arabia looks like a good choice. That doesn't make Saudi Arabia any better, just not as bad.

P.S. We all know just how little power the Iranian Parliament has. Decisions are made by a few moslem clerics and the Council of Guardians arbitrarily disqualifies candidates at will.

Non sequitir much?

Like freethinker said. The Saudis are our friends and the Iranians are not. I'm not about to sit here and defend the reasons for the invasion given by the administration, but honestly, take the precedent to its logical conclusion. At least in theory we didn't attack Iraq for cultural differences. No one is saying we should attack Iran for cultural differences. The key element is stability. Saudi Arabia is stable. Iran is not. S.A. citizens may choose to leave and become foreign fighters, but it is extremely unlikely that they are funding them to do so. The thought of Saudi Arabia having a nuclear weapons, doesn't really bother me. Why? Probably because it doesn't look like they're playing ball with us now just so they can get their nukes and turn on us or israel later. In an industrial and economic sense and in many ways a foreign politics sense, Saudi Arabia has acclimated itself to the western world. Culturally? Absolutely not. The simple reality is that Saudi Arabia is not a threatening, destabilizing element in the middle east and as far as governmental leadership goes they are not adverserial with us.

Iran on the other hand is unstable, and led by a certifiable nutball. Why let a country have nukes when it's volatile enough that next week someone else might have their finger on the trigger. If you had to choose who to give a nuclear weapon to either Iran or Saudi Arabia, would you seriously say, "Well you had a lot of people go fight in Iraq so I think we should give it to the madman." False dilemma sure, but it makes for an interesting perspective.