"Why We Fight"

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

I agree. It is human nature and when the US is no longer the world power it is now it will be another country pulling the strings just as it was the French and British before the US.

Let's hope it's not human nature as the stakes are getting pretty high.

As for who will next be pulling the strings with their immature acts, my bets on China or the Arabs.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Well, please enlighten me with your obviously advanced education. I enjoy the peanut gallery types jumping in with their drive-bys. Feel free to share your expertise in these and other matters.

Oh, and assume all you want, but you're so far off it isn't even funny.

I don't have alot of expertise in foreign affairs, I have some beliefs, like you, like most, but that doesn't matter.

Some people like to discuss serious issues with the intent of not only forwarding a view but also take the opportunity to learn something. You seem to simply beat agendas into people and call them stupid for not having the exact same experiences as you.

Go back and read your posts, without remembering context or even the topic in general and tell me that's not true.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Let's hope it's not human nature as the stakes are getting pretty high.

As for who will next be pulling the strings with their immature acts, my bets on China or the Arabs.

Well, the world will balance out more, but I doubt the US will be a deep third.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Lanny - do you roll with the Neo Cons?

Under advice of legal consel I have been instructed to not answer that question.

The agency I am with is not directly affiliated with any political party (that would be illegal) but the culture is "extremely" conservative. There is one channel on the televisions in the breakrooms and cafeteria, and that is FoxNews. There is one channel pre-set in all of our vehicles (on all pre-sets), and that's KFYI. During the last election we were encouraged to vote for encumbent (an illegal act in itself). I have to listen to NPR with my door closed so I don't get into trouble (because of the subversive content). We're all to act like the same little zombies. So you tell me who I'm rolling with.

[tjinaz]

Under advice of legal consel I have been instructed to not answer that question.

The agency I am with is not directly affiliated with any political party (that would be illegal) but the culture is "extremely" conservative. There is one channel on the televisions in the breakrooms and cafeteria, and that is FoxNews. There is one channel pre-set in all of our vehicles (on all pre-sets), and that's KFYI. During the last election we were encouraged to vote for encumbent (an illegal act in itself). I have to listen to NPR with my door closed so I don't get into trouble (because of the subversive content). We're all to act like the same little zombies. So you tell me who I'm rolling with.

You work for the Mormon church?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

You work for the Mormon church?

He's from Arizona, not Utah.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

He's from Arizona, not Utah.

Hey, how come you know so much about Lanny, Az?

But I'll play. Arizona, right wing atmosphere.... some kind of military contractor, perhaps?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

He's from Arizona, not Utah.

The second highest concentration of Mormons is in Arizona, and they all years to return to the mothership!

[mykalberta]

Very left of centre but it preaches what I have been saying for a long time.

The only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is to pass a law that says in 10 years dissallow all foreign oil imports and say put a 50 cent tax/gallon after 5 years. They should also close all embassy's in the region with the exception of Isreal, Jordan, and Egypt and move the military bases to Africa.

Then the mid-east is Europe and China's problem.

MYK

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Very left of centre but it preaches what I have been saying for a long time.

The only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is to pass a law that says in 10 years dissallow all foreign oil imports and say put a 50 cent tax/gallon after 5 years. They should also close all embassy's in the region with the exception of Isreal, Jordan, and Egypt and move the military bases to Africa.

Then the mid-east is Europe and China's problem.

MYK

US foreign policy-makers probably don't relish the fact that energy costs for the US (if they pursued the above policy) would be prohibitive. They already occupy a dominant position in the region, I'm not sure what the impetus would be for them to leave. A few hundred billion in war $$ might save a few trillion in energy cost-savings in the long run, with unparalleled access to the Iraqi and Saudi reserves (in addition to other Gulf States).

Abandoning the ME as a source of oil would be an economic shot in the foot for the US... obviously extracating itself from the region isn't worth it (or they'd have done it).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The second highest concentration of Mormons is in Arizona, and they all years to return to the mothership!

Oh.

I've talked to Lanny a bit, IFF, so I 'kinda' know what he does.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

US foreign policy-makers probably don't relish the fact that energy costs for the US (if they pursued the above policy) would be prohibitive. They already occupy a dominant position in the region, I'm not sure what the impetus would be for them to leave. A few hundred billion in war $$ might save a few trillion in energy cost-savings in the long run, with unparalleled access to the Iraqi and Saudi reserves (in addition to other Gulf States).

Abandoning the ME as a source of oil would be an economic shot in the foot for the US... obviously extracating itself from the region isn't worth it (or they'd have done it).

more like a shot in the face.

[calgaryred]

http://www.treasurehiding.com/random/why.htm

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

US foreign policy-makers probably don't relish the fact that energy costs for the US (if they pursued the above policy) would be prohibitive. They already occupy a dominant position in the region, I'm not sure what the impetus would be for them to leave. A few hundred billion in war $$ might save a few trillion in energy cost-savings in the long run, with unparalleled access to the Iraqi and Saudi reserves (in addition to other Gulf States).

Abandoning the ME as a source of oil would be an economic shot in the foot for the US... obviously extracating itself from the region isn't worth it (or they'd have done it).

Converting all vehicles (save some commercial/industrial/military) to fuel as efficient or more than E85 does a few things:

(1) Allows the US to leave the Mid-East, you will never rid hate from this world no matter where it is, its engrained in ever person. And allows to the US to no longer give a rats-azz about that region. It also shift the problem to that of China and the EU.
(2) It does more than any other country to assist in saving the Environment - I am no pinko but I would love to see a joint US-Canada pledge to E85 or better standards that would kick Kyoto and the EU right smack in the nads.
(3) It creates a powerful and wealthy grain industry, something that the US has a whole lot of.
(4) Would promote a far more advanced bio-genetics industry in creating a more competetive agricultural industry

The reason they dont do it is simple, money and balls. Oil companies keep senators and congressman rich by giving them money, and we havent had a politician with balls in the US since Truman. I believe it would be an easy sell to the electorate- sell it as a national security and a goody too-shoes enviro legeslation, the problem would be the special interest corporations.

It would also allow the US to become less of a world problem solver, dung-heap countries need to learn to solve their own problems, not cry to big brother when something goes bad.

The most likely party to have a candidate that would survive a primary is (ohh I hate to say this) is the Dems. Because of their funding base (grass roots, pinkos, hollywood, lawyers, etc) they are the only party likely to allow a candidate to run on such a platform. The Reps because of industry money, that candidate likely wouldnt make it past Missouri (ala McCain v GWB)

MYK

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Converting all vehicles (save some commercial/industrial/military) to fuel as efficient or more than E85 does a few things:

(1) Allows the US to leave the Mid-East, you will never rid hate from this world no matter where it is, its engrained in ever person. And allows to the US to no longer give a rats-azz about that region. It also shift the problem to that of China and the EU.
(2) It does more than any other country to assist in saving the Environment - I am no pinko but I would love to see a joint US-Canada pledge to E85 or better standards that would kick Kyoto and the EU right smack in the nads.
(3) It creates a powerful and wealthy grain industry, something that the US has a whole lot of.
(4) Would promote a far more advanced bio-genetics industry in creating a more competetive agricultural industry

The reason they dont do it is simple, money and balls. Oil companies keep senators and congressman rich by giving them money, and we havent had a politician with balls in the US since Truman. I believe it would be an easy sell to the electorate- sell it as a national security and a goody too-shoes enviro legeslation, the problem would be the special interest corporations.

It would also allow the US to become less of a world problem solver, dung-heap countries need to learn to solve their own problems, not cry to big brother when something goes bad.

The most likely party to have a candidate that would survive a primary is (ohh I hate to say this) is the Dems. Because of their funding base (grass roots, pinkos, hollywood, lawyers, etc) they are the only party likely to allow a candidate to run on such a platform. The Reps because of industry money, that candidate likely wouldnt make it past Missouri (ala McCain v GWB)

MYK

Interesting points. What this effectively means is that two factors are currently the root causes of middle east instability--Republican beholdenness to corporate interests, and Democrats' total inability to find political traction.

I actually kind of agree with that. But I'm not sure I think it's morally OK for the U.S. to implement a renewable energy policy and then wipe its hands of the problem that the middle east has become. For one thing, there are humanitarian concerns--for another, U.S. involvement has so far been a net negative in terms of its consequences for the region--but that doesn't mean that it will always be a net negative. If the U.S. can really help to stabilize and democratize the region, then that can't help but be a good thing.

Of course the last time the U.S. did something because it was the "right thing to do," false teeth were made out of wood.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Of course the last time the U.S. did something because it was the "right thing to do," false teeth were made out of wood.

I know you're tongue in cheek, but comments like that show a real bias and put into question some of your other comments doesn't it?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I know you're tongue in cheek, but comments like that show a real bias and put into question some of your other comments doesn't it?

Maybe. But the fact is, nation-states tend to behave in their own interest--and unfortunately, that interest is for the most part morally neutral. Sometimes good things happen as a result--like freeing the slaves, bringing a decisive new force into WWII, etc. Other times the results are negative, such as the net effects of US involvement in Nicaragua or the Phillipines, or (right now) the middle east.

What I actually said was that I can see the potential for U.S. involvement in the middle east to bring a morally good result in the long term, whatever the actual motivations for going there in the first place were. Are you sure we really disagree that much on this?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Maybe. But the fact is, nation-states tend to behave in their own interest--and unfortunately, that interest is for the most part morally neutral. Sometimes good things happen as a result--like freeing the slaves, bringing a decisive new force into WWII, etc. Other times the results are negative, such as the net effects of US involvement in Nicaragua or the Phillipines, or (right now) the middle east.

What I actually said was that I can see the potential for U.S. involvement in the middle east to bring a morally good result in the long term, whatever the actual motivations for going there in the first place were. Are you sure we really disagree that much on this?

No we're good ... just hated to see that little jab at the end.

and I hope you're right.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

No we're good ... just hated to see that little jab at the end.

and I hope you're right.

That's a fair point. Sometimes I can be more of a smart-ass than is good for me.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's a fair point. Sometimes I can be more of a smart-ass than is good for me.

Indeed.